Skip to main content

This page has been translated using TexTra by NICT. Please note that the translation may not be completely accurate.If you find any mistranslations, we appreciate your feedback on the "Request form for improving the automatic translation ".

The second workshop on the "Mobility Roadmap"

Last Updated:

Overview

  • Date and Time: June 14, 2023 (Wed) from 10:00 to 12:30
  • Place: Kioi Conference Seminar Room C, 4th floor, Tokyo Garden Terrace Kioi-cho (used online)
  • Agenda:
    1. Opening
    2. Presentations and discussions
      • Mr. Noriaki Izumi, Director of Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry Strategic Planning Office, Information Economy Division, Commerce and Information Policy Bureau, Architecture
      • "Challenges and Current Initiatives for Social Implementation of Robots that Coexist with People" (Member Muramatsu)
      • "The Automotive Industry's Approach to LCA and Future Challenges" (Kawabata)
    3. Closing

Meeting video

The meeting is available on YouTube (Digital Agency's official channel).
Second Workshop on the Mobility Roadmap (YouTube)

Material

Minutes

Suzuki Director for Policy Planning: OK, let's get started.
Today, I would like to host the second workshop on the "Mobility Roadmap."
I am Suzuki from the mobility group at Group of Service for Citizens in Digital Agency. Nice to meet you.
This study group is conducting live streaming. After the end, the recorded video will be released on Digital Agency's website in the form of a video.
First of all, I would like to introduce Mr. Murakami of Director-General, Digital Agency. He is currently on his way to Japan. May I ask the chairman of the meeting to introduce himself first?

Chairman Ishida: Since we are in .
Thank you for coming in this bad weather.
Here you are.

Murakami Director-General: I'm sorry.
I will study hard today.
The atmosphere in the Government is starting to heat up, and I have been asked to raise thoroughly the regulations and systems that are causing problems on the ground. I ask for your cooperation.

Chairman Ishida: Since we are in I also use the term "mobility roadmap," which is an extremely broad concept, and I believe that there are various perspectives, such as what you usually think, the comprehensiveness, our lives, local communities, and the relationship with industry. Please do not hesitate to speak out, and I would appreciate it.
However, I would like to take a lot of time for discussion, so I would appreciate it if you could keep your presentation and remarks as short and concise as possible. Thank you in advance.

Suzuki Director for Policy Planning: .
Then, I would like to ask Chairman Ishida to attend the meeting from now on.

Chairman Ishida: Since we are in , I would like to ask Mr. Izumi, Director of the Information Economy Division of the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry Bureau of Commerce and Information Policy, to make a presentation on today's agenda item 2.
Thank you in advance.

Director IZUMI: , Izumi speaking.
Regarding the National Comprehensive Plan for the Development of Digital Lifelines, I received a general outline from the secretariat last time. I am not sure if I need to come here, but I would like to explain what I have been thinking about since I was summoned to the Murakami Director-General, and how the intentional things are expressed in the materials. To be more specific, I would like to explain how I, as an official, coordinated what President Saito was giving me guidance on point by point, while contacting Professor Ishida and Professor Suzuki in private. Basically, the materials are Minister Nishimura's presentation materials, and I will explain more than 30 pages in 15 minutes, which is typical of an official, and I will explain it using animation and other techniques so that it does not become superficial.
The National Comprehensive Plan for the Development of Digital Lifelines has various names, but the point is how to create a local living area where the population will continue to decline. This is basically the same as the expansion of the mobility roadmap from ITS. However, the point this time is to complete it as a 10-year plan. On the other hand, making it a 10-year plan is not a verification test or removal of facilities. It is an analogy of bullet trains and expressways. It is a plan to expand from the end in order or from the middle in each direction. It is a plan that will be accumulated for 10 years. It took 45 days as a government office to coordinate with each ministry and agency to finalize this plan.
In doing so, "from a point to a line" or "from a line to a plane" does not mean that the demonstration areas are dotted, but rather that they are bundled to some extent into large dots, and the large dots are connected with lines, and when the lines overlap, they become planes.
At that time, when I could not wait for 10 years, I was given the name "Early Harvest." It is not Beaujolais, but I think it would be good to enjoy tangible output as soon as possible, and to look forward to the future of Japan as if I were dreaming about the railway between Shinbashi and Yokohama for the next 10 years. At that time, in order to ensure that large-scale intensive investment by the public and private sectors is directed in the same direction, the first page is not temporary, but comprehensive, including hard, soft, and governance rules. This is the main part of my explanation today.
Other than that, I would like to speed things up a little more. At the Digital Architecture Design Center (DADC), under the leadership of President Saito, we will draw a map of the entire Architecture together. I would like to explain the meaning as the person in charge, rather than finishing by drawing it.
It is a very challenging task, but when related ministries and industries work together to ensure that services and systems are connected and that society as a whole functions efficiently and rationally, it is not enough to pull out the users and target autonomous mobile robots and let them move, but there will be servicers who provide services to them.
The existence of a servicer, on the other hand, naturally requires a system to manage operations, such as automobiles, ITS, air traffic control, and UTM. If functions are assigned here, a service provision function appears between "using the service" and "actually carrying, investigating, and working".
In this regard, the operation management is not so difficult at this point if only one vehicle is flown. When this becomes high density and high frequency, the functions of indicating the route, monitoring, and adjusting collision avoidance do not exist on the robot side, but must be provided on the UTM side and the ITS side.
Then, as an exception process, the functions of abnormal approach, emergency alarms, and emergency evacuation are naturally required on the autonomous mobile robot side. This is currently being done in the automobile field as well, but in that case, not only is it necessary to prevent accidents on a per-aircraft basis, but a system is also necessary to collect information on near-miss incidents and to make society better, and this may be the future digital accident investigation committee, but such functions are also necessary.
Then, of course, there will be players like multi-sided platforms such as information intermediary systems, services, and Uber, and it will be necessary to gather information in the infrastructure location there, so it will not be possible to do it alone.
In this way, instead of leaving everything to the infrastructure side, spatial information such as 3 d infrastructure will be collected and distributed on a public platform to some extent, or changes will be collected.
At IPA and DADC, experts come together and discuss the overall picture while looking at the functional dependencies of each other. This is a characteristic of the discussions at IPA and DADC. It is very difficult to understand if you look at the output only. As I mentioned earlier, when I draw a meaningful diagram and collect information about this writing, especially when I write it as a red frame, it is an important part of the physical infrastructure and an important part of the future plan. In the first two pages, I was almost burned out. At this moment, the Digital Architecture Design Center is compiling this kind of material, or this kind of study, even now, with some help from me, or with guidance from most people, in this way.
Then, I would like to talk about the contents quickly from now on.
In any case, the goal is not to talk about the supply and demand of daily life in normal times, or about disasters and emergencies for each use case, but to talk about them in a dual-use, flip-flop way, so that we can work on both sides of the same coin.
On the next page, especially in the form of point to line and line to plane, looking at the map of Japan in the end, the target is in the form of digital lifelines and infrastructure development, software, hardware, rules, and the public interest. If you don't do it as a leader in the public and private sectors, I think that no one will eat it if it is made and used by someone or if it is like giving bread to a dog.
Next, in that case, a highly versatile infrastructure for digital services would probably require such a horizontal function that collects and distributes data across industries and business types. As a result, this will be data-driven, so it will not be a reaction of material-driven, but it will be a predictive structure using data, so X, I think it is a transformation in which the master and the servant are reversed.
As I mentioned earlier about early harvest, for example, when it comes to autonomous driving and flying drones, the discussion tends to be biased toward such mobility, its operation, and infrastructure. As you mentioned at the beginning, it is important to discuss both the red and blue sides at the same time, not only the use of goods but also the perspective of services.
On the next page, I will show some specific examples of what will happen in terms of services. In terms of data linkage, I don't know much about it, but if you are doing something that something good should happen when you are submitting data, something good probably won't happen. In that sense, while having a solid purpose, for example, by having data, in the physical Internet, who will deliver it to where, and if other information is shared, privacy will be protected and optimal delivery can be done. In that case, autonomous driving and drones being vehicles in short are one of the goals or functions of data linkage, and we are considering it in the form of a mechanism.
In that case, it is not enough to collect only data through data linkage. The point of discussion is to collect this data as a mobility roadmap, as I put it in a red box when we do data linkage. It is meaningless to ask where my luggage was a week ago, so where it is now and where it will go in the future depending on the situation. Not only the data format but also the format of the thing must be standardized. The spread of such things is illustrated as a document.
Under such circumstances, the Early Harvest project, which has always been advised that product-oriented routes are not acceptable, is being discussed in terms of what to do with things other than goods. For example, in the case of a drone route, first of all, services, first of all, inspections, and second of all, rather than transporting heavy goods far away, we are looking at services such as delivering them securely in emergencies or to distant places. In that case, as routes, corridors, sales routes equivalent to intercity high-speed or intracity high-speed highways, or last mile or delivery to a house, are being discussed.
The image of infrastructure and Architecture at that time will be explained in detail later in Ministerial Handouts 17, 18, and 19.
Next, in terms of autonomous driving, in the media, there is a focus on such things as autonomous driving between Numazu and Hamamatsu, but in terms of services, in terms of distribution and people's flow, as I mentioned at the beginning, how to spread it throughout the country and how to position the autonomous driving of 100 kilometers in Shintona as an ignition agent will naturally be the focus of the Mobility Working Group.
At that time, as a digital lifeline, we are talking about roads for self-driving cars, or lanes for self-driving cars because it has not been decided whether they will be prioritized or dedicated at this point. However, there is a limit to V2V, or if it depends on the processing capacity of the vehicle, it will take time to realize it. Or if we look at the accidents that are occurring in the United States, California, and other places, it will be difficult to extend it in the future.
If that is the case, Japan has developed a solid environment and has the best facilities in the world, such as the European Accelerator Research Institute. In that case, the industry will grow using the infrastructure development of government offices, such as the safe V2X infrastructure, and spread throughout Japan. What kind of roads or infrastructure on the V2X side will increase the growth potential of the industry on the V side? We would be very grateful if the members of this committee could discuss these matters. The infrastructure in that case, like drones, will be explained in detail later.
Next, DX for infrastructure management. If we do this, this kind of study may be conducted at 1-chome, 1-banchi, which is said to be conducted by the Digital Technology Agency, but in the first place, the cycle of infrastructure management itself is meaningless if it is done individually on paper or on drawings. Therefore, for the 3 d information infrastructure, first of all, we will proceed with the grasp of underground objects, which is easy to enforce by the government and local governments, in a pleasant touch, and we hope to finish it with a 3 d digital infrastructure that does not distinguish between aboveground and underground, indoor and outdoor buildings, and even sea and underwater depending on the situation. I will explain the Architecture of infrastructure management in detail in 17, 18, and 19.
In this way, Early Harvest will be reported in material terms, but it would be a bit bad to say that it will be shown as a show, and how it will be promoted while expressing it, and the next page is Architecture of Digital Lifeline.
With the guidance of the experts gathered at DADC, we did our best to write this slide. However, it is not easy to understand what we are talking about, so I would like to spend the rest of my time explaining this slide.
First of all, as I said at the beginning, I will use animation only on this page, but when I think about how to deliver a digital life to a place like a house in a rural area, there is a limit, so I will develop a base like Community Center 2.0 to some extent, and if I use a base like Community Center or Digital Community Center, which is a city hall, a town hall, a village hall, or a branch office, it would be rough to call it a community center, but if I try to think about a base for people's flow, distribution, or service provision in normal times and emergencies from there, the topology of the rural area centered on Community Center 2.0 or Community Center 2.0 will be the same in both urban and rural areas, just with different densities.
This time, we will consider the topology of autonomous driving or high-speed drones by connecting community centers in the form of highways. The topology between the base and the community center is basically the same, and the network and equipment infrastructure can be basically the same.
Among them, the hub is not Michi no Eki 2.0, but Terminal 2.0. Naturally, the same topology will be applied to the section between Terminals 2.0 in the form of a larger arterial road, transportation capacity, and people's flow and distribution, by analogy with the intra-city expressway, the metropolitan expressway, and the Hanshin expressway.
This time, the biggest part of Michi-no-Eki 2.0 will be linked to smart interchanges in the analogy of intercity expressways, and will be connected in the analogy of intercity expressways and Tomei expressways. Then, there will be only self-driving cars and drones of different sizes, and basically dedicated roads will be intercity, intracity, and trunk roads, and finally, local roads will be characterized, including small drones.
If we think about this backwards, we can see this figure. The catchy things in terms of media coverage are drones, autonomous driving, Terminal 2.0, and Community Center 2.0. As I explained earlier, if we take the form of firmly establishing bases in rural areas at Community Center 2.0, connecting Community Centers, placing larger Terminal 2.0 there, and deploying distribution, distribution, and people's flow between Terminals 2.0 and larger smart interchanges, the autonomous driving roads and drone routes will be the same in high-traffic areas, thick areas, thin areas, rural areas, and urban areas, based on the infrastructure of digital communications. Below that, we will connect cyberspace or the boundary between cyber and physical with networks, etc., and further, we will do it in the form of rules, communications for that purpose, and the overall picture. On the upper right, where "physical space" is written, we will deploy Community Center 2.0 and Michi-no-Eki 2.0. At the bottom, we will write that digital communications, high-capacity, high-speed, low-latency infrastructure will be the point. It will become this picture when we go around the circle.
At first glance, the design of the Architecture and the map are difficult to understand, but the secretariat is working on it with its own intentions.
As a matter of course, I believe that measures to strengthen support include digital activities, drones, and autonomous driving, and in terms of business support, there are various ways to cut down on business and infrastructure. This is an overview.
This time, in terms of hardware, we are listing various things like this. While giving priority to what is indicated by early harvest, data centers, optical fiber, communications, 5G or MEC, and so on. In short, it is not that traffic signals are only in the cities and not related to the countryside. It is the same analogy that traffic signals are different only in density. While completing the communications infrastructure nationwide, we will also develop cameras, IoT infrastructure, and on top of that, a hub for transportation and logistics. This is our hardware development policy.
In terms of software, the middleware layer will be important to enable users to search and share a wide variety of content, especially 3 d information, and it is our hypothesis that sharing search indexes will lead to the construction of a data space.
In terms of rules, I think one point of contention is that they should be used in a positive way to investigate the causes and take measures in the event of near-miss incidents or accidents. In other words, they should not be used to find the culprit, but should lead to digital innovation. In that case, we should consider whether the function of collecting data has a certain degree of public interest, and should consider fostering a public interest digital platformer.
In the end, when we prepared the materials, we did not have any good candidates, but we did it because it was not important to collaborate with local governments and companies that would think about developing it in the future, or if we did it and it turned out like this, it would not go beyond demonstration, so we set a certain KPI, and in order to improve it, whether the hypothesis or trial production was good, if not, what kind of revised hypothesis is necessary, we would like to firmly bring it into the cycle of hypothesis verification, and at this point, we did not point to any specific region.
Lastly, in terms of the implementation plan, there are various points, lines, and planes, but the point is the implementation of planes, and the point of discussion is what we should do to spread the best practices in the same way as the Ministry of Digital Transformation.
At that time, in the end, I wrote that everything from the operating entity to the services and infrastructure had to be in a complete package, otherwise it would not be shared, and I tentatively marked in the document that dozens of points were not the purpose.
Also, it is worth noting that the level of thinking is a little different for drones or autonomous driving.
As for the promotion structure of the Government, I had the people of the Digital TV Agency wave the banner this time, and they agreed that all these ministries and agencies would gather their names into one plan. I can only say that this is a planetary series, and it just so happens that I am in charge of the secretariat. With the guidance of Director-General Murakami and President Saito, I had discussions with Professor Ishida and Professor Suzuki, which happened to be the result.
We are currently on board, showing our future plans and so on.
Finally, I am making this kind of flyer, and for the last few minutes from here, I was just playing a trick, and I would like you to use it. In this picture, I would like to wish for a better life in the countryside, and I would like to put this kind of picture in it. As its authority, I would like to have an image of the digital community center and Michinoeki 2.0. I don't want you to look for WALL-E, but I would like to use this kind of picture with a sense of fun, and I will do it without giving up.
At the end of this month, as we move forward with this realization meeting, we will ask some members to be members, and of course, we will organize a working group from now on, and we will discuss thoroughly within this working group. That's all for my policy explanation.

Chairman Ishida: Since we are in .
I would like to have a discussion freely from now on.
Members who participate on the web can either use the hand-up function or speak directly, so please do so. What do you think? Anyone is fine.

Murakami Director-General: , while you all are thinking.
I would like to say that I will do this with one mind, and as I introduced, I will establish a mobility working group and a mobility roadmap working group. After the working group is established, I will separate the topics that I will ask the realization meeting to consider. In order not to do the same thing in two places, I will consider what I threw to the realization meeting, and as a result, the mobility roadmap will pick up the balls that came back. The roadmap is to organize the agenda that all ministries and agencies should work on. If there are any issues that need to be considered in the mobility roadmap that I will not throw to the realization meeting, I will continue to consider them. I will only say that I am thinking of moving it for the next six months or one year under such circumstances.

Chairman Ishida: Since we are in .
With 10 years as a tentative goal, all ministries and agencies will broadly discuss what mobility represents.

Murakami Director-General: Lastly, I would like to introduce this to all of you. The study group, which was scheduled to be held four times, will be held for the fifth time. One of the reasons for this is that the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism will also launch a cross-ministerial framework for local public transport. Logically, it will be in the same relationship, so I would like to ask you to give me an explanation. At this meeting, we will work together with each ministry and party.

Chairman Ishida: Since we are in .
I would like to ask a question from Mr. Koda.

Committee member Koda: , thank you for your very interesting talk.
First of all, I thought it was wonderful that things that don't need to be done by humans could be simplified in digitalisation, and that safety could be ensured. I also thought it was wonderful that by adding a community function, the safety of the last mile could be ensured as before.
On the other hand, there are a lot of people who use this kind of mobility, especially in hilly and mountainous areas, and I think elderly people are the ones who are in the last mile. If we show them that mobility is not a tool but a service, how they can use this service and how they can enrich their lives through it is very important. Otherwise, as you said, we could end up serving bread to dogs, which is one point I thought.
Also, I thought it would be great to adapt normal services to prepare for emergencies. But I also thought it would be necessary to think about the second and third ways to make more effective use of digital technology, so that we don't have to use digital technology in times of emergency when it doesn't work or when the Internet environment is devastated.
That's all.

Chairman Ishida: Since we are in .
Mr. Akimoto, please.

Alternate Akimoto: My name is Akimoto JUTM. Thank you for your explanation.
I have high expectations for the Digital Zenso, so I hope you will keep pushing forward.
In particular, in the field of drones, I am Akimoto, who is here today on behalf of Mr. Suzuki, a member of the Japan Unmanned Aircraft Operation Management Consortium.
In the field of drones, there are various subsidies, etc., and implementation experiments are conducted, but as expected, due to fatigue from demonstrations, 80% of them probably failed. It was completed after 2-3 days of skipping. In such a situation, no data can be collected, and it has not been reflected in the next system. I think such a situation has been continuing for a long time. I have high expectations that over a 10-year span, projects will be promoted that will not be so-called demonstrations, but implementation, infrastructure, and local roots.
I have three points to talk about. This is our self-examination. I am also the deputy director of the Fukushima Robot Test Field. Since it is a test field, we have to collect various data and conduct safety management. We have introduced an operation management system, but no one uses it. We only have it, but we do not use it. We do not operate it. Of course, we cannot use the data obtained from the system at all, so it is important to properly enforce the rules for using it. For example, users do not subscribe to the operation management system and do not make rules to keep the data, so it is difficult for them to use it. We are self-examining.
Regarding the second point, if we look not only at drones but also at mobility as a whole, there are of course many different types of mobility on the sea, such as unmanned ships and underwater drones. In that sense, this time we are talking about land autonomous driving and drones. As we are a maritime nation, we are creating a public-private platform for AUV in Cabinet Office, and we are developing strategies for it. As discussions are currently behind schedule, I would appreciate it if you would also develop the concept of digital Zenso.
The third point is the communication Architecture mentioned in your explanation. In particular, drones are flying in the sky, so they have to be connected to communication by stunts. There are LTE-based systems and radio waves for robots provided by Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, and radio station licenses for unmanned image transmission systems have been institutionalized. There are also Wi-Fi 2.4 giga, IMS band, and satellite links. There are various types of communication, but depending on each operation, communication may or may not reach, of course. There is also the question of whether there is a proper communication infrastructure. As for the characteristics of communication, if a communication Architecture is created properly in consideration of transmission capacity, delay, non-interruption, and reliability, I don't know how many hundreds of drones will be flown to the same area, but in that case, there will be problems such as insufficient number of channels and insufficient data-transmission capacity, so I would appreciate it if you could consider such a Architecture.
That's all.

Chairman Ishida: Since we are in .
Mr. Yamamoto is raising his hand from the web. Please go ahead.

Mr. Yamamoto: Thank you for the presentation.
Regarding the implementation of the data-linkage platform on page 8, of course, I think it is very good that it is organized from the service perspective of people's flow, commercial flow, and distribution, but before that, how roads and mobile spaces are used. I think there will be drones from now on, but first of all, without data organization on how roads are used, we cannot check the digital PDCA, and I think we must do this.
In the 1970s and 1980s, Japan carried out extensive road development. However, I do not think that the way in which national roads, prefectural roads, and municipal roads are used, or the comprehensive management of supply and demand using IT, is the case.
In order to realize a comfortable and safe road space, as Professor Ishida mentioned last time, we need to manage the supply and demand of roads to reduce CO2 emissions and traffic congestion. We also need to repair roads efficiently. We don't know the future road pricing yet, but we need to thoroughly understand the data on when, where, how fast, and how fast cars, pedestrians, bicycles, electric scooters these days, and self-driving cars and robots in the future are moving. We need to understand this data comprehensively. We need to distinguish it from MaaS information such as railway and bus usage information and timetables, and first of all, we need to properly organize it.
I used to work for an automobile company, and my job was to monetize probe data. Now, if we use probe data, we can figure out which intersections are prone to accidents, which roads are slippery, and which roads are bumpy and need to be repaired. I think we can't figure out where and how we started, and what happened as a result, even if we make various things, unless we improve them publicly and collectively.
It is true that there are various issues to be addressed, such as the protection of personal information, the cause of data provision, and who will be in charge of operations. However, looking at the next 10 years, it is not too late now, so I would like to ask you to include a summary of how roads are used in this mobility roadmap, in addition to the perspective of user services and data linkage.
That's all.

Chairman Ishida: Since we are in .
Mr. Muramatsu, please.

Member MURAMATSU: I would like to give a general answer on presentation.
I would like to make a few comments, but I will make a presentation in the latter part, and I believe there will be many opportunities to collaborate in the last mile. I would like to create such an environment seamlessly, so please continue to collaborate with us. Thank you.

Chairman Ishida: Since we are in May I speak to you for a moment?
There are two points. For example, if you look at page 19, which is related to what Mr. Yamamoto just said, there is not much physical infrastructure in it. I thought it would be better for you to make a stronger argument about how to use physical infrastructure by digital means. That is one point.
Also, in topology, I think it is a really good idea that the model can be applied everywhere, and I am encouraged by that, but I think it is a matter of distance and softness. When the softness changes, people's feelings change, or when we think about the various regional characteristics that are difficult to deal with with topology, considering the global development, it is about how we think about various regional characteristics, weather, and other various things. Although it is a detail, I would appreciate it if you could put your soul into it, so please take care of it.
Mr. Kawabata, please.

Kawabata & Co., Ltd.: I was a child at the time of the planetary alignment, so I was listening to it because I thought it would be wonderful to have the same level of collaboration between ministries and agencies as in the planetary alignment. I'm sorry I'm an astronomy fan. In fact, I was listening to it because I was trying to go beyond the vertical division of ministries and agencies, and I thought that there would be more integration in the process.
For example, linking the 17 cyber spaces and physical space is very important, and as Chairman Ishida mentioned earlier, how to use the existing physical space is important. As you mentioned briefly due to time constraints, before digitalisation, I think it is necessary to strengthen the existing infrastructure and establish a system to utilize the advantages of digital technology.
For example, I am currently teaching at the University of Mobility in Yamagata Prefecture, Iitoyo. It is a snowy area and physically far from Tokyo, so the premise is quite different between Tokyo and the countryside. If you go to a place where there is a local economic zone and a place where the size of the basic local government is small, the infrastructure itself may be different depending on the situation, and the physical things are different as well. Even if you try to use something, it may be necessary to maintain it before digital technology is installed, and there is no system to make full use of digital technology. When I say something like sharing like this with digital technology in the sense of Tokyo, it may stop there. If it is only within an organization like a university, it can be integrated, but I think it is difficult to do it within the collaboration between ministries and agencies, which is said to be the same level as the planetary series mentioned earlier. Even if a system to quickly respond to any problem has been established, it will be difficult to coordinate. I think there is still no system that can be done so quickly when actually doing it, so I have come here because I think it is very important to have a system that can be done so quickly, including the construction of organizations and human relationships. I think it will be difficult, but I hope you will continue to do it.

Chairman Ishida: Since we are in .
Mr. Izumi, if there is any response.

Director IZUMI: , I am speaking solely as an administrative staff member. First of all, I mentioned that there may be mobility in hilly and mountainous areas and various local characteristics. This is related to Professor Ishida's comment later, so I will say it again, but I myself do not think that anything can be solved by autonomous driving or by drones. Therefore, I think that reflecting regional characteristics in the unit of 2.0 community halls is probably a good match for issue Kin in Digita.
Ahead of time, in the discussion about UTM, the point that I am not self-driving was, for example, in DADC, and I made it a use case in IPA, when the efficiency of public buses was low in a very rural area, if I wanted to take three sets of public buses, taking a public bus to a hospital, taking a bus to a pharmacy to make a payment, and then returning home, it would take three hours because there is only one bus per hour. I tried to stop the people's flow due to the novel coronavirus, but it didn't stop. The reason was that I had a prescription faxed to me for health counseling, but in the end, I took the trouble to make a payment. Instead of taking the bus three times, I took a round trip. Such an unfunny fact.
I would like to make an analogy with Yamagata Prefecture. If we talk about a solid digital infrastructure now, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications will be angry. What should be developed as a digital lifeline is to develop a high-speed communication, large-capacity, low-latency infrastructure in every corner of the country where it does not exist now. First of all, physical distance will not matter.
So when you can get remote medical care and administrative services, the only thing you have to move is the medicine bag. So instead of riding three sets of public buses, all you have to move is the medicine bag, which can be a drone or someone can throw it in the mailbox on a bicycle.
I will talk about it later, but behind the scenes of making full use of the physical infrastructure, on the premise of downsizing the legacy physical infrastructure, the full development of the digital infrastructure in the future is not balanced. I will be scolded if I say this too late, but I have no intention of participating in the discussion that will spread throughout Japan.
I have taken over the idea from Mr. Saito, but without a vision of how to effectively downsize legacy infrastructure such as water supply and change it into a good one, some people say that such legacy infrastructure should be built, so it is said that it is an investment in concrete.
The ITS Vision and the Mobility Vision are the same as those discussed at the first meeting, and I believe there will be such discussions from everyone. This is not something that METI has not done, or something that needs to be done through IT. Everyone has the same idea, so I would like to write about it together.
In relation to this, I would like to speak to Mr. Akimoto, Mr. Suzuki's deputy, once again. What we especially need to be careful about is that if a person who likes flowers opens a flower shop, that business will absolutely be ruined. There are many people who like drones and autonomous driving, but what we need to do is infrastructure. On top of that, we need to grow a dynamic industry.
At that time, when I look at the point of moving people efficiently as I mentioned earlier, I think that there are many points of view other than improving the efficiency of mobility if I broaden my perspective a little more during normal times and emergencies, such as moving only medicine bags, e-commerce ordering, immediate shipping, or emergency supplies arriving immediately at the time of a disaster, so I would like to use it in that context.
In that case, I would like to make comments in order. If UTM is not used, it is UTM for a certain topology, and I would like you to discuss again what the final social structure is.
For example, when I first went to Professor Suzuki for a favor, I thought of an unmanned airfield like the one in the United States, where all the people could not be stationed, and there was an independent UTM. I would like to introduce this. When I first went to Professor Suzuki for a favor, he said that a flying car is to add air traffic control and road administration that allows you to drive as you like as long as you have a license, and Professor Suzuki said that it was a natural disaster, and a heavy ball came flying that you should organize it well. Probably, what Professor Akimoto said was a custom at a certain air traffic control, or a UTM that is appropriate from the viewpoint of custom, but from the viewpoint of road administration, it may be strange and unavoidable. How to create such a thing as an infrastructure for ITS replacement mobility is the point of this study group or the plan for a digital lifeline that registers it.
In that sense, the fact that drones have no distinction between land, sea, and air is, of course, called mobility or moving body in 3D space, or moving feature, and I think it is the same if we think in that way.
At that time, there was a talk about communications. Just as I said earlier about whether people move or drug bags move, of course, wireless technology looks cool, but if you quickly draw a thick wire and don't raise the information taken by a drone, you can take it from a camera outside. This is just preaching to the Buddha. For example, there are no blind spots for surveillance cameras on the Hanshin Expressway, which is an expressway on a rich route. Such infrastructure has already been built. As an engineer, I don't agree with the idea that they are taking the trouble to raise the information on Draleco in order to reproduce the accident information and are competing for the radio band. It is ridiculous that they are discussing technology only in terms of vehicles or something like that. Therefore, I think Architecture is a place that is a little wider and has a sense of the whole.
In addition, Mr. Yamamoto made a comment. Of course, I agree with how the roads are used, but I do not think we should spend too much money on how the Tokaido and Nakasen-do roads are used. That is my current design policy.
As I mentioned earlier, it is important to have hypotheses about the design of inter-city expressways, intra-city expressways, intra-city trunk roads, and local roads, and to revise the hypotheses while verification test. If we look at traffic on Nakasendo first, it will take an infinite amount of time. I don't deny it, but as you all know, the ethnography approach is biased unless it takes one or two years. When we do a speedy project called Early Harvest, the ethnography is important, but I think the process of revising based on hypotheses will become more important.
It does not mean that we should ignore how the current roads are used. As Professor Ishida mentioned, we should stop sharing maps when we discuss what to do with community roads. It is an investigative approach that uses digital information to manage and superimpose probes to understand the current situation based on the difference from the hypothesis. If it is a hypothesis verification approach, I think I can satisfy Commissioner Yamamoto's comments.
In such a situation, I think it is important to have 3D road information, not to change the color of traffic light information and take pictures of it with a camera, but to do it with communication, and to have a hypothesis on the premise of digital infrastructure.
Issue Kin's pattern of testing hypotheses is the most compatible with Digida's issue Kin. Or, I think that the places where Digi-cho has been working with hypotheses will be unified from now on.
Also, Committee Member Muramatsu said that it would be great if we could discuss not only the last one mile, but also the last one meter and how it will be delivered to each person's home in terms of the medicine bag we talked about earlier. It would be a love call from us if we could cooperate with DADC as a place in the ecosystem.
As I mentioned earlier, downsizing of the physical infrastructure is important, but as I also mentioned to Professor Ishida, I would like to make the streetcar an anti-pattern. Even if the cost of acquiring a new dedicated road is added to the current infrastructure, if the track is run on the road, the train will not be able to speed up, and even the train will stop at a red light for cars. I think this is because the Architecture is inadequate or is driven by short-term constraints, so when using the physical infrastructure, the issue is how to create a dedicated road or dedicated infrastructure while downsizing the legacy infrastructure.
On top of that, the speed and regional characteristics are based on Digita's issue Gold. If we develop colors in areas where there are long distances, distribution without people on board, and immediate delivery, I think we can verify our design hypotheses.
Commissioner Kawabata's cyber and physical aspects are the same, and those aspects are the communication aspects. If you try it once, you will understand that if you try an 8K uncompressed video conference system, or a video conference without delay, which I did because I was a scholar in my previous job, if you connect Odaiba and Sapporo with an 8K uncompressed video conference, you can play rock-paper-scissors. You don't need a sense of place to be able to have a meeting on the spot as usual. If you deploy it not on an individual household basis but up to about 2.0 community centers, for example, and that becomes a base for telework, there will be no gap between local and central areas.
With that in mind, I think another anti-pattern is an analogy with the Yamagata bullet train. It runs 250 kilometers to Sendai Station, but when it enters the Yamagata line, it waits for the bullet train to pass on a single track. There are tracks and people jump in, so it can only go up to 80 kilometers. I think these things are Architecture mistakes, so I will make sure to create them.
The key point at that time was that it was not important to run the Shinkansen on a legacy infrastructure. Rather, the main points of discussion were what kind of data could be shared and what kind of applications could be created based on a thorough consideration of low-latency or non-compressed communication as a communication infrastructure, and I will give a general answer.

Chairman Ishida: Since we are in Here you go.

Murakami Director-General: There are three important points that will be discussed in the future. I would like to talk a little bit about the hierarchical structure, monetization, finance and responsibility.
Regarding the hierarchical structure, it may be better not to say so positively about the narrow streets that support life, the main streets of the town, national roads, and expressways. Depending on the company, there are various types of roads such as low-speed roads, medium-speed roads, and expressways. In the future, when making a road map, I do not think it is a matter of simply revising the Road Traffic Law, but it is probably necessary to redefine the field of roads.
Whether or not the decision is made to include the hierarchical structure as a mental organization when introducing the road map in the future is a quite big problem. A road is a road, whether it is a narrow street or a national road, a road is a road, and there is no difference at present except for the fact that the administrator is different, so I think we will have to discuss what to do with this in the future.
The second point is that it is impossible to create a hierarchical structure based only on the functional theory of roads when doing that, and I think that there is a common point that the discussion of demand is necessary there. It is also good for electricity, and conceptually there are low pressure, medium pressure, and high pressure. After all, there is a world where you can generate electricity at high pressure and receive it as it is at high pressure, and there is a world of low pressure after all. In the same way, I think that the demand for transportation also depends on the demand that supports life, the main street level of the town, the one that supports intercity travel, and looking at the supply and demand there, the last point is finance.
If the business architecture of the business model does not follow behind this, even if the system architecture is structured into a hierarchical structure based only on the functional theory, it will follow properly when the business architecture is written. I think it is a problem of whether or not the supply and demand of each layer as a result is followed by a continuous business, or conversely, a finance. I would like to recognize it as a common point of view. The basics are these two.
In the end, Mr. Kawabata's point about responsibility is a very important issue, and I think that those who have been involved in policy making on the ground are well aware of it. I also had a lot of regulatory reform in the National Strategic Special Zones, so in the end, the most painful thing for government officials is the story that it is okay for them to discuss things as they like, but they think that they are going to wipe the slate clean.
Therefore, in order to create a road map that works properly, it is necessary to design it up to the final landing point of the responsibility theory. Even if you say that you will create only the system you want to create and that the responsibility should be taken by the government office, the government office will not accept the system theory that does not remove the responsibility. Therefore, it will not be realized if the side that proposes the policy does not reduce it to what kind of responsibility sharing theory and who will take responsibility for what.
Although Mr. National Police Agency and Mr. Tamura originally wanted to do new things one after another, they didn't really understand the final responsibility, and when they were just asked to do their best, to put it the other way around, they hated government officials the most. If they could understand that as a part of their culture, I thought that not only cooperation between ministries and agencies but also Public-Private Partnership would advance.
That's all.

Chairman Ishida: Since we are in .
Last but not least, I think you are right, but we tend to fall into a misunderstanding of the ends and means. What is the last point? In order to take responsibility, we need strong support from the people. If we don't always think about that, the more specialized we become, the more self-directed we become. I have always been concerned about that, and I hope that you will continue to do so at this meeting. Thank you very much.
Then, Mr. Muramatsu, please give us your next presentation.

Member MURAMATSU: I would like to give a general answer on Robot Friendly Facility Promotion Organization. Nice to meet you.
Today, there are four points. Some of you may not have heard of the word robot-friendly in the first place, but I would like to give you an overview. Second, I would like to talk about last mile mobility.
In terms of last-mile mobility, I would like to talk about how we are considering getting on an elevator, going through a flapper gate, or going over a small step. I would also like to talk about cooperative control of robots. Finally, I would like to talk about future issues, so please give me some time.
First of all, what is robot-friendly? It refers to an environment where robots are easy to introduce in terms of systems and hardware.
Until now, there have been sites where individual robots have been introduced, but if they were introduced individually, they would be expensive, have sharp specifications for individual users, or have no versatility. In the end, there have been things that have not spread in society. In this situation, we are helping to lower the hurdles for introducing robots by developing standards, etc., so that the specifications of each manufacturer are unified, and by quantitatively visualizing the size of the robot's tire, such as how many centimeters it can exceed. By unifying the hardware and software standards for introducing robots, we are proceeding with the idea that it will be easier for those who are in charge of the last mile to introduce robots.
In order to realize such robot-friendly environments, Mr. Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry and Mr. NEDO led the creation of the Robot Implementation Model Promotion Task Force in 2019. From there, in the facility management field and the last mile system, we became independent and are currently working on four fields: elevators, security, physical environments, and swarm management. The details will be described later.
The final vision and goal is to solve the labor shortage with technology, not to lower the quality of the hospitality that Japan is proud of, and to improve it using technology. Currently, we are supporting the creation of a robot-like environment and the introduction of robots themselves with the cooperation of various people.
In order to achieve this vision, we are working to solve various problems from the bottom up by bringing together people from across industries.
In terms of specific examples that are easier to understand, first of all, what are the common issues? I gave you an example of an elevator earlier. For example, a certain cleaning robot can't get on an elevator. The reason is that it has no hands and can't push a button. If you try to modify an elevator, it will cost 3 million to 5 million yen to modify it. If you just introduce one robot, it will be difficult to achieve cost-effectiveness. Therefore, we will gather people who want to provide new services that link robots and elevators, organize a meeting body, and visualize which area is the cooperative area. People who use robots and facility owners will modify elevators, and servicers will discuss how to organize operations such as cleaning, security, and transportation, etc. While discussing these matters, all parties concerned will work together to specify the area that can be regarded as the cooperative area. By standardizing that area, in the end, everyone will be able to obtain cost advantages, economies of scale will be realized, and the burden of on-site surveys such as going to the site to measure the height of steps will be reduced, etc. We are working on the process of solving your urgent issues from the bottom up.
Earlier, I told you that we are cross-industry, but our members are developers, manufacturers, servicers, etc. We are proceeding with support from various people so that we are not biased towards any one party. That is exactly what was mentioned in the Word earlier, but we are working together to create something that can be really used, so that it does not become a product-oriented and can be done in the form of a market-oriented.
The explanation so far has been about the process, but from here, I would like to explain what we are doing to solve the last mile problem.
First of all, I would like to talk about the premise. In our conversation so far, I mainly talked about transportation, but when we talk about service robots, we are talking about these four things: security, cleaning, transportation, and guidance. That's where I'm going to talk about it.
This is also the beginning of the robot-friendly concept that I mentioned at the beginning. Until now, when there were robots from Company P, Company Q, and Company R, if you wanted to ride on an elevator from Company A, Company B, and Company C, there were nine mechanisms, three times three. By standardizing this, it was standardized, and if everyone uses this protocol, development can be done at a lower price. This is what we have done so far. In fact, we have established a communication protocol standard for communication between robots and elevators.
At present, we are trying to solve urgent problems little by little, but to be honest, there are still many parts that have not progressed at all. The reason is that although the standard has been established, introduction cases are still to come. I don't think there are so many opportunities to see robots even though everyone is living a full life, but there are still many hurdles to be overcome when we try to introduce them. We have involved robot manufacturers, elevator manufacturers, and various people, and finally these use cases have been created, but there are few people in charge who know the overall know-how. To break through this situation, we are currently creating an introduction and operation manual for the cooperation between robots and elevators.
At the same time, we are also working to improve and popularize the collaboration standard. Even if a good product is made at one site, it will not be possible to realize economies of scale if it is not spread, so we are helping to spread it.
I just talked about the vertical movement of the elevator, but I think there are various hurdles for the horizontal movement as well. I just talked about the last one meter, but when the robot arrives in front of your house, how do you push the ping-pong at the end and the robot leaves the things behind? We are working on this because we need to think about such a system properly.
The use case we assume is a relatively large facility, but it is necessary to organize not only delivery, but also what kind of passage is assumed for cleaning, guidance, and security robots.
For example, when we clean the floor, what kind of use case, which door to go through and how far to go, or what to do when it's raining, we are working on it while thinking about such things as what to do outside or inside the building site with a security robot.
As for the current situation, we have just made a step forward in terms of the vertical movement of elevators, but we will also make progress in terms of the horizontal movement. We are currently working on how to eventually expand the horizontal movement, including the doors and flapper gates of each facility. Specifically, we are currently promoting the issuance of standards and guidelines.
Next, the third point. What we are doing is to visualize an environment that is easy for robots to introduce. Barrier-free is a good example. I think we can compare them, but they are similar. For example, a robot in a restaurant may not be able to cross even a step of a few millimeters. If we limit it to a restaurant or somewhere like that, it has an optimized structure, moves smoothly, and detects an obstacle in front of it and avoids it smoothly. However, since it is in a restaurant, it does not have to cross a step of 2 or 3 millimeters, but when the robot wants to go to a public space, it has to cross a slight step or a ditch to carry things in the first place. Under such circumstances, we are now promoting efforts to visualize a robot-like environment step by step in the field of physical environment characteristics.
Currently, for example, if there are three robot manufacturers, there are quite a few cases where everyone goes to the same place three times, does the same measurement three times, and does the same test three times. If the physical environment is properly visualized, this step is 5 millimeters, so our robot will be fine, we can save the trouble of going all the way, and we can reduce the cost of introducing it, I think. In addition, for facility owners and other users who use robots, if such visualization advances, it will be more cost-effective, and the hurdles for introducing it will be lowered, and they will be able to judge that this robot can be introduced immediately, so I think it will be effective in terms of the speed of introduction.
In the background of the current situation, we are working to standardize and visualize the parts that are currently being done by individual companies as much as possible, and to create an environment where various parties can enjoy the benefits of visualization.
Next is centralized management (swarm management). To get to the bottom of this, in last-mile swarm management, how to prevent robots from meeting each other and how to prevent traffic jams are important, I think.
I am sorry to say this, but in the case where there is no group control, when a robot going out of a shop and a robot going into a shop meet, it is OK if it is a human, but in the case of robots, if there is no group control, it will easily happen that they will meet and stop. This is a problem that has not happened yet because the implementation of robots is still in the future, but as the implementation of robots progresses little by little, there will be situations where robots cannot do what humans can do very easily, and when they meet, they cannot avoid each other. To solve this problem, we are promoting group management and cooperative control.
In such a case, I think there are three possibilities for standardization in the area of swarm control. First, in terms of systems, if a robot platform is installed in a facility or a town, in some cities, platform X is used, and in others, platform Y is used, if the communication specifications are different for A, B, E, and F, it will be difficult to introduce and modify the robot system. It will increase the cost because each platform must be customized. Therefore, one possibility in the area of cooperation is that the content of the communication with the robot may be the same regardless of the platform. This is what we are considering.
The second point is that I think there is a possibility that collaboration between platforms can be standardized in the case of collaboration between facilities, cities, and various other areas.
Lastly, in the standardization area (3), in the truly analog world, to put it in an extreme way, I would like to ask that robots keep to the right, and limit the number of robots allowed in the elevator hall to one. By organizing truly analog operations, I think that there is a possibility that we can solve the problems we are facing in the near future, and I am considering this.
I explained the four issues that we are working on in the near future from a bottom-up perspective. Finally, I would like to explain that we are working on these issues in the medium - to long-term.
The first is business. Without business, robots will not spread, and I think it is important to realize cost-effectiveness. In the previous example, when we decide to remodel an elevator, there are many cases where just one robot or one service does not match in terms of cost. In order for one company to provide one service, it will spend 5 million yen per unit on the renovation. If there are two services, it will be divided by two, so it will be divided by three, and so on. As services using robots spread more and more, it will be easier to achieve cost-effectiveness by sharing. It is important to increase such use cases little by little, so I would like to support the creation and expansion of businesses. 2.5 million
In order to realize this, I believe that mutual assistance and public assistance are important. Earlier, when we talked about the last mile, there is data in the public space. On the other hand, if you enter a facility or indoors, there is no data anymore, so you can't do anything. In that case, the robot will stop. In other words, it will not be able to provide services all at once, and you will have to ask people to help you in the last mile. As a result, the number of people will not decrease, and it may not be possible to reduce costs. Therefore, I think it is necessary to consider services, data, and infrastructure all at once.
Next, I would like to talk about the point of demarcation of responsibility. I think this is a really difficult task. If the robots go out of the elevator and say that they have an arranged meeting, whose fault is it? Is it the fault of one of the robots, the elevator that manages it, or the building OS that manages it? With so many stakeholders, I think it is quite difficult to figure out who and how to separate the points of demarcation of responsibility. In addition to the operational aspect I just mentioned, I think it is necessary to sort out who owns the robots, whether it is the local government, the facility owner, or the servicer, one step at a time while there are many people.
Finally, this is the most important part. Of course, I understand that this is not an easy part, but I think it is most important to foster social acceptance. Robots are not perfect. However, I also believe that humans are not perfect. For example, smartphone zombie may be more dangerous than small, slow-moving robots. Even if small robots are passing through, they may just bump into each other. If we demand too much perfection from robots, costs will rise and remain high. Therefore, I think it is important to recognize each other's lack of perfection and proceed with division of labor and cooperation. In such a situation, in connection with Mr. Izumi's presentation, we will also present a catchy picture at the end. I wish I could draw such a world view. I hope that robots are moving in various places and that we can create a future where we can cooperate with everyone's lives, so I appreciate your support.
That's all.

Chairman Ishida: Since we are in .
Then, I would like to discuss freely. Thank you for your help on the web. What do you think?

Saito: While talking about , thank you very much.
At DADC, we were considering service robots, but we have not been able to decide what we should consider, and we are currently at a standstill.
On the other hand, in the world of building OS and what smart buildings are like, there is a movement to think about robots as well.
As you mentioned earlier, for example, in terms of the linkage with elevators, in terms of the management of entry and exit, to put it the other way around, in the same way as for the management of people on the building side, for example, the authentication of robots, we have to do the same for that, so we add an ID to the robot, receive confirmation information whether it is OK or not, and recognize that this robot is a proper robot, and we have to think about permitting entry and exit in the same way.
One of the things I'm talking about right now is that, in a sense, when we discuss this together in the world of smart buildings, apart from solutions for individual robots, we can come up with solutions within a certain building, so I think it would be good if we could have that kind of discussion.
There was another story earlier about a face-to-face encounter between robots, and that is the same with drones. In fact, drones themselves have separate flight control systems, and if you rush into them at a certain moment, you may bump into them. In such a case, I create information by adding the plan and current position of each drone to the space IDs, and with the space IDs, for example, the route I fly is like this, and if I recognize the information that I will arrive here at a certain moment with real-time characteristics, then I think about the flight control and route control, such as waiting or avoiding it because it is dangerous to enter there.
As for service robots, there are probably various operation management companies now, and whether they will be managed by each individual company, or whether they will share a certain space with everyone and rush into it while confirming what time and what time it will be okay for each other is a question of how to create a Architecture. Probably, such a discussion is, in fact, in a world where robots are operated, it would be better to have a similar Architecture, so I think it would be good to consider what kind of safe and secure world they are trying to create in the overall picture of service robots being operated by a drone team using autonomous mobile robots. That is the second question.
Third, in the first place, we need to talk about governance mechanisms, including security, in the Internet of Things (IoT) world, including service robots. To put it the other way around, we need to talk not only about individual robots and those supported by the Robot-Friendly Association, but also, for example, as an extension of the data-strategy that Digital Agency will be working on in the future, about whether or not it will be okay to use most of the IoT-based data-and, probably, how to design the collaborative domain. This is not limited to the scope of METI's responsibility, but the scope of Digital Agency's responsibility is also something that is commonly considered in terms of cyber security, so I think it would be good to ask Director-General Digital Agency to think about collaboration with such places, mainly, from now on.
This is an extension of what I said earlier. When various service robots enter a building, they individually investigate the state of the barrier-free environment, for example. In that case, they share spatial information in the building OS.
So, for example, if a service robot recognizes a situation somewhere, it puts that information in a space where it can be shared, and other robots watch and control it, and it puts a new situation that it has recognized on top of it. We are thinking about sharing such spatial information, but in the discussion of who owns the data, it is necessary to create a cooperative area in the public part, so I hope that you will discuss it in the data strategy, including such a discussion.
Earlier, Mr. Yamamoto talked about visualization in the ITS section. Visualization of mobility. So, visualization of mobility is the same for current autonomous mobile robots. Earlier, it was an image of grasping the congestion situation of roads. Now, it is about visualization of robots in space. Including avoiding collisions with people, it is better to share the current congestion situation of robots and people. I think it is easier to decide the route of the robot. Then, it is better to have it in the cooperative area.
Currently, there is not much discussion on how to deal with actual private data or real data in the Digital Agency Data Strategy. However, I believe that there should be discussions on how to anonymize and make it usable in order to provide various public services and good services. While advancing such discussions, I think it would be good to talk about how to capture the actual supply and demand situation that Mr. Yamamoto mentioned earlier, which cannot be verified without knowing it.
To put it the other way around, I think it is necessary to consider how to deal with this kind of situation in Digital Agency. If it is possible to use the information that private people have as public information, I think it would be better to raise it in Digital Agency and create an atmosphere where it can be used across ministries and agencies.
That's all.

Chairman Ishida: Since we are in .
How do you like it?

Kawabata & Co., Ltd.: It was very organized and easy to understand, and I was listening to it because I thought it was very important to have a firm grasp of the issues.
Probably because there are not many female technical committee members, I think it is important to look at not only robots, but also drones as a whole, including those mentioned by Mr. Saito earlier, because we are currently working hard on discussions in various fields, such as mobility, when they are called in detail or when they are called in detail.
Also, from the demand side, from the user side, and from the service side, for example, robot-friendly is actually human-friendly, and when I was raising a child, the places where I could use a stroller were quite limited. In that sense, if a robot-friendly environment is established, even for people who are handicapped, for example, a blind person can create an environment that is easy to walk in this building or an environment that is easy to guide by installing a smartphone or a sensor system.
When we create robot-friendly environments, if there aren't enough people to use them, it's hard to get funding. In that sense, I think it would be great if we could create the value of human-friendly services. As humans use them, robots will be able to see human people's flow, and in that sense, robot-friendliness will increase.
Also, when I go to various servicers, there are still a lot of people who don't think I will be a servicer using a robot. So, for example, I'm not saying that I want them to do it, but I think it would be good to have a concept like a building where the transportation up and down the building is managed by an elevator, but when a robot comes in, the logistics and transportation on the same floor are not the burden of the person who uses the robot, but for example, the cost of managing the robot is included.
When that happened, there were servicers who would use it because it would be a loss if they didn't use it because they had moved in there, and if it was a slightly good building, a big company would come in, so they would do it on an experimental basis, and the top company would do it, and the servicers at the base would also do it, and I tried to expand my delusion on my own, thinking that maybe we could use a service using robots as if we were in the industry.
I think it has just started, but when the children born today grow up, there will be a complete labor shortage. Moreover, I would like to leave something to the next generation that is simple and does not get sick, so I thought that I would like to think about something like that.

Chairman Ishida: Since we are in .
How do you like it?

Alternate Akimoto: My name is Akimoto . Thank you for your explanation.
I have something to do with drones. I don't know whether it is a closed space or an open space where we can coexist in a friendly and harmonious relationship with people. In such a situation, safety and reliability issues have come up. This time, I think it is an indoor robot. Is there a registration system for robots?
Also, as for liability insurance, for example, bicycles are not liability insurance, but I think there are insurance policies that have special provisions for bodily injury and compensation for damages. Do you have such a system in place?
In fact, at the first meeting of the Public-Private Consultative Meeting, I stated that drones are not subject to a registration system, and that it is impossible to develop infrastructure without a registration tax and a weight tax. In particular, a registration tax is a national tax, and the central government allocates funds for R & D and other such activities. A weight tax is a national tax, and the central government allocates funds for R & D and other R & D activities. In light of this, I proposed to local governments that a registration tax and a weight tax be created, and that these taxes be appropriated for the proper development of social infrastructure. However, Ministry of Finance refused to approve the idea, and the meeting ended in a row.
Of course, I think this kind of thing happens inside the building, but the Association collects money to do this, and of course, we have to develop liability insurance. Could you tell me about that?

Chairman Ishida: Since we are in , could you do me a favor?

Mr. Hidaka: Talking about robots is not my specialty, but today I would like to ask Mr. Muramatsu because he is familiar with infrastructure and Architecture. While robots are moving, they are moving digitally. When we think about safety in terms of environmental infrastructure, it is impossible to be 100% safe. For example, some say that it is good to have a fail-safe design and stop if there is a failure. Others say that it will not be so, but it may be good to crash because it is low speed, or it may be good to cover it with insurance. Depending on the setup when it is introduced, I think the necessary sensors and necessary operation methods will change.
In particular, when it comes to infrastructure, there are cases where it is OK to run and cases where it is not OK to stop, and I thought that the overall Architecture, way of thinking, and system would change depending on that. I would appreciate it if you could tell me what you have noticed while working on this area and if there are any points that would be helpful.
That's all.

Chairman Ishida: Since we are in , please.

Member Koda: Thank you .
I have a question. I don't want it to be robot-friendly and perfect. For example, if a robot collides with an elevator and breaks the elevator, is it the responsibility of the robot? If the robot collides and breaks the elevator, is it the responsibility of the person who operates the elevator? If the robot collides with a person and breaks the robot, is it the responsibility of the person? If a person is injured, is it the responsibility of the robot? I have a question about how to manage responsibility.
Second, I think it would be convenient in an era where robots are robot-friendly and naturally come and go around the office as usual, but on the other hand, if a suspicious robot, not a suspicious person, comes into the office as usual and data is taken, what measures are being considered to prevent this from happening? I would like to ask you about those two points.

Chairman Ishida: Since we are in Hatano, please.

Hatano: Mr. Muramatsu , your presentation was very easy to understand. Thank you very much.
As I was shown again today, I have the impression that the work on robots is very close to the work on autonomous driving. I think most of the issues are both serious and serious, but I felt very much that there are many common points. I also had the impression that most of the issues can be solved if you use the know-how on cars, but I have two questions about what you showed me today.
You mentioned that you are very actively working on standardization. You are also very concerned about standardization of automobiles, but in the field of robotics, I would like to ask if you are actively working on international standardization of the kind you are currently preparing.
Another point is that coexistence with nearby users is highly expected. There is a limit to how much cars can do on their own, especially in autonomous driving. From the perspective of coexistence, I would like to see a division of roles with nearby traffic participants. If you have any examples of such efforts, I would like you to introduce them to us, such as promotion of such things or thorough provision of information or education to nearby users.
That's all.

Deputy Member Tanaka: I think it would be good if European global companies could work in that area. However, since the industry will have to become more global in the future, I am worried about the energy balance of the financial market when I hear that Japanese financial companies will start doing business in a way that is in line with TEPCO Power Grid. I would like to speak on behalf of Mr. Okamoto.
As Mr. Saito said earlier, I would like to explain a little bit about what will happen if it is connected to the building OS, and from the perspective of energy supply and demand, and I would like to ask some questions.
For example, in Mr. Softbank's building, there is talk that various cameras can be attached to the building OS to capture people, and the technology is advancing. Also, when many robots come out in the future, if we talk about friendly, it is only when we talk about having to be careful about robots, such as when people are in the way. In that case, the building OS wants to tell us to charge the energy during this time, for example, when sunlight is out in the daytime.
In that case, robots will not be able to move at any time and for as long as they want. This is the subject of robots, but when we think about this age, in fact, we electric power companies are trying to use local renewable energy in local areas, not in large areas, but in small areas, such as EVs and low-voltage areas. When we think about local carbon neutrality and local energy supply and demand balance, buildings will be the starting point of a big point, and in fact, robots must be considered as an energy resource. We are just starting to discuss this with the Agency for Natural Resources and Energy, so if you have any comments on how much we should push it up in the near future or a little further down the road, please let me know. Thank you in advance.

Chairman Ishida: Since we are in , Mr. Muramatsu, there were a lot of questions. Could you answer them? Please.

Member MURAMATSU: I would like to give a general answer on .
First of all, I think the key point will be business. Now that you have given us a lot of thought-provoking information, I am wondering if it is cost-effective. It is absolutely possible if we spend a lot of money, but when we really want to scale it, I think the most important thing will be cost-effective. When we focus on reducing costs, for example, when robots stop at each other, I think it is important to consider what can be done with the least amount of money. However, as I mentioned at the end, honestly speaking, there are still some parts that have not been worked out from a business perspective, so I hope we can accelerate our consideration in the future based on the content of today's comments.
The second point is how many stakeholders we can increase and whether we can broaden our perspective. As stated in the recent announcement by Commissioner Hidaka, there are many stakeholders such as the government, users, and servicers, and it is important to formulate a logic that these people are also economic zones and involve them. I thought it was a good example that I was happy that the situation of the level difference was visualized for people who use strollers, which I received a comment earlier. If we look at it from a narrow perspective of robots, we can think about the cost and business just by looking at it, but if we expand it to a place where the convenience as a facility increases or a really good town as a town, I thought it would be easy to evaluate the economic efficiency and we could increase the number of people who can be involved. We would like to expand the scope of consideration in the future.
At such times, there are talks about a registration system to exclude suspicious robots. We are currently considering a registration system. In considering this, I learned that we need to consider a system with a broader perspective. At present, robots are not so common, so we are currently considering a registration system, but I have a feeling that we need to work on it, and I think we need to focus on it.
As we advance standardization, I recognize that internationalization is also an important topic. In particular, Asian companies are strong in the robotics field. Markets in Europe and the United States have not yet been established, but in Singapore, I understand that they are advancing the development of building operating systems. I recognize that it is necessary to consider and negotiate what areas Japan will be responsible for while cooperating with such overseas countries, and I would like to offer my small amount of support.
Electric power is not an urgent issue because only a few robots have been introduced yet. However, as the number of things that robots can do increases, I think this issue will become important. I think there was a talk about communications somewhere earlier, but it is the same as saying that 4G will not work and that there will be a shortage of communication traffic if 5G is not used. The higher the performance of robots, the more electrical issues will increase. In addition, the current issue of electric power-related robots is chargers. Is it necessary to prepare 10 chargers of 10 types when there are 10 robots? If 10 robots are lined up, there will be no space, so I recognize that it is necessary to unify or share charging standards.

Chairman Ishida: Since we are in .
I would appreciate it if I could make a few comments, but I believe that service robots will continue to expand. Just a while ago, service robots and drones were happily linked together, and we are considering various safety standards and other matters with the aim of implementing delivery robots as well, so I would like to ask you to do that as well. Considering that, as Mr. Saito said, I believe it is really important to consider under what kind of Architecture the whole should be considered.
Right now, the Organization for the Promotion of Robot-Friendly Facilities is asking for a private sector, and the world of self-help and mutual assistance such as home delivery and drones is important, but I think there are things that the government can do without spending money. Public assistance. In that sense, as Mr. Saito said, such a big vision or concept is the role of the Digital Zenso and the Mobility Working Group.
I would like to change the subject a little, but the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism and the Public Transportation Ministry are facing a crisis in a truly miserable situation. The other day, the section chief in charge said that the government should step forward a little more, and I would be grateful if you would consider such a thing.
Come in, Mr. Murakami.

Murakami Director-General: To add a few words, I think it would be better to emphasize the gap between the fact that robots are already being used in factories and industries to a frightening degree, and the fact that they are not being used so much in civic life. To put it bluntly, it is a theory of responsibility. There are entities that should be centrally managed, and distributed cooperative management based on them has already been realized, but at the moment when it comes to civic life, the centralized management center does not do it because no one knows who will take the business risk.
In fact, the same problem will arise with autonomous vehicles and drones, but I believe that this robot is the one that is most likely to lead the discussion on the sharing of social responsibilities. While discussing how to guarantee, from both the technological and institutional aspects, that each person can take responsibility autonomously in a distributed manner without taking responsibility for centralized management, using robots as a theme, I feel that it would be better to envision a future in which life robot service operators will be integrated into mobility operators, which are the most closely related to citizens' lives in the hierarchical structure I mentioned earlier. I believe that it would be good to have a good perspective on this point and discuss it. There were also suspicious robots and others.
Also, I would like to summarize the data strategy and explain the outlook somewhere else.
That's all.

Chairman Ishida: Since we are in .
Now, about the final presentation for today, Mr. Kawabata, could you do me a favor?

Kawabata & Co., Ltd.: .
When I was talking about robots, when I was actually working as an engineer in a factory, I used to stagger my lunch time by 15 minutes and use the same cafeteria as everyone else. But unlike people, I don't get hungry at the same time, so when I heard about energy, I thought it would be a good idea for robots to stagger their lunch time and go to the cafeteria. It might not be a good idea to send people from rural areas from post-war Japan all of a sudden as part of post-war reconstruction and let them be taken by robots, but when people work there, they don't have a place to eat at that time and want to build a cafeteria, and instead of doing it spontaneously, it sounded a bit humorous that we should think about it together, and I thought we could do something like that.
Many people still think of automobiles when they think of mobility, so I would like to talk about it today while thinking that it is being treated as a mainstream.
If anything, in the case of automobiles, as an industry, we are already in a field where it is possible to sell a single automobile to some extent. How can we move this field to digitalisation? How can we incorporate environmental issues into a social concept suitable for the Kyoto Protocol? Most of the areas that are said to require such changes are actually digitalisation and environmental measures, such as the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. I would like to talk about that.
It might not matter, but as I mentioned earlier, I was originally an engineer at a research institute. At that time, I was designing wiring harnesses. At that time, we didn't look at electricity as a whole car. It became electric, so, for example, we looked at electricity as a whole car. Therefore, I thought that it often happens that we look at electricity as a whole, starting from a very small amount.
I've been working as an automotive journalist, I've worked at a strategic consulting firm doing things like planning technology, and recently I've been giving comments to Mr. Nikkei, and I've been teaching at a university specializing in EVs and electric vehicles. I've been a member of this committee. Thank you very much.
Today is a limited time, so I have divided the agenda roughly, but I will skip a lot, so I would like to talk about what is missing in the Q & A session.
When it comes to automobiles, structural reform is hard to understand when I touch on it lightly, so I think it is the premise of the automobile industry.
It is called CASE or CASE. In the marketing strategy of German companies, Japan is called CASE in the world, but it was originally called ACS and was discussed even in English-speaking countries. Probably, CASE is easy to call, and ACS is hard to pronounce. The trend of connected, automated, shared, and electric is in full swing, and it is said that we have entered a period of transformation in mobility. However, perhaps because the automobile industry is developed in Japan, there is a tendency to specialize in in-vehicle technologies such as electrification and automation and discuss them in depth, and there is a lot of information there.
However, these are just individual in-vehicle technologies, so I think it would be better for engineers to specialize in them. When I think about this, I think it is necessary to look at the development fields of the people in those sectors. I think it is about how many years they can do it, but when it comes to how to use it, I think it would be better not to specialize in individual in-vehicle technologies.
The reason is that there was a time in the' 80s when only OA equipment was connected to the company. It was like a car from a while ago. For young people who don't know, when they see the film "Take Me Skiing," even though we are in the sales department, there is no PC on the desk. I think they think this company is not working. At that time, only OA equipment was connected, and people who had a PC used it standalone or calculated with a slide rule and notebook.
After that, personal computers and smartphones came out, but before smartphones came out, there were still quite a few stand-alone seats for personal computers, and they were connected to the Internet, and smartphones came out, and you could do a lot of things while walking, and it was like people were connected. It's like that finally came to cars. The reason is that it was impossible to get a stable line while moving at high speed, and cars were 20 years behind in terms of communication.
If you understand only this, in fact, the world that will come after cars are connected after being connected, what will happen in the future is very important. There are things like making PCs one by one and making hardware. For example, a company like Sun has disappeared and it has become Facebook. But if you understand that people who make services after cars are connected are actually a large industry, I would like you to look at the world that will come first.
If we structure it, the value chain of mobility services is quite wide. I don't mean wide, it's like the horizon is moving into the back. The conventional automobile industry deals only with in-vehicle technology on the far left. They say things like Tesla is great and corporate value is exploding, but they just developed cars and in-vehicle technology on the premise of connected.
In fact, operations that are only connected and will be shared or services in the future, such as railways and Toei Bus in Tokyo, are actually profitable even if they are kept quiet. So, Mr. private sector, who is profitable even if he is kept quiet, doesn't think so much about mobility and has been specializing in operations for a long time. If he operates a small mobility that he invests in, he will definitely make money. It will be a social infrastructure. However, if a small mobility gets into operations, there will be businesses that operate without investment. I think they started thinking about it due to the novel coronavirus, but it will be like an invasion of an operation business that has been eaten up until now. There will be a decisive point first.
And finally, Google and Facebook, the GAFA and BAT that everyone is talking about, if things that work are connected, we wouldn't be able to get on board. The market is big, so we will think about it carefully. This is where Google and others are attacking. So, they don't intend to build cars, and they don't have a sense of rivalry at all. Rather, they have to think about whether they can take good points like in-vehicle content, or whether they should do something. This kind of automobile industry will be difficult.
I teach environmental energetics. In this way, I teach scientific knowledge and social knowledge in parallel. It is hard to do only on the left side, so I teach you to look at the social structure on the right side. In fact, it is the same for creating industries.
Regarding the environment, the Kyoto Mechanisms of the Kyoto Protocol are important. It is said that it is good to make money a plus in capitalism, but it is important to say that reducing greenhouse gases represented by CO2 and making them negative are evaluated in the same way as economic effects. Since each country is supposed to protect it after the Kyoto Protocol, I would like you to stop thinking of global environmental issues as a cost.
Scope 3 and LCA, which have been talked about recently, are very important. In particular, we all thought that we would manage Scope 1 and Scope 2 by ourselves. However, what we buy and what we sell generates additional CO2. In other words, the CO2 generated by the person who used the car after selling the car and the CO2 generated by the person who consumed the gasoline after selling the gasoline are also the responsibility. This is being said right now, and this is quite important because judicial precedents have been published.
The energy issue was largely skipped. In 23, mainly in Europe, there were already many companies that could not keep 95 grams of CO2, so we did a lot of work in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic. Information did not come in, so it was not reported in Japan. Therefore, there are quite a few companies that are responding to it. Due to that, Tesla actually turned a profit. It is the sale of credits.
When we discussed whether or not we could contribute to the global environment, the way of calculation was actually different. For example, Canon Global Research Institute published information on Volvo. It was designed to run 200,000 kilometers. Even if the energy mix is a global standard, if it runs 200,000 kilometers, an EV is actually better for the environment than an internal combustion engine. However, there were discussions that this was quite difficult considering Japanese standards. The energy mix was calculated to be much lower for the EU mix and much lower for renewable energy. It goes without saying that Japan's energy mix is quite difficult.
The other day, I saw an old factory that was about to celebrate the 60th anniversary of Michelin being renovated and turned into a state-of-the-art factory. This is being done in Italy, but if you look closely, it looks like a French pro. The reason is that the energy mix in France is more than 80% nuclear power, which is not an energy mix that can be applied in other countries, so it is actually under the umbrella of French capital. Michelin's renewable energy plant is actually an Italian plant, so what we did here is easier to use in other parts of Europe, so we positioned it as a pilot plant and turned it into an environmental plant.
It's a fairly old factory, but it produces 1.5 million tires, which is quite a lot, and it makes a lot of EV eco-tires represented by Tesla.
As a matter of fact, we were already thinking about the entire life cycle of tires, and we went so far as to obtain approval for tires that use about 50% renewable materials, not as experimental tires, but as tires to be sold.
The next 29 are quite important. Industry 4.0, digitalisation, AI, and robots are utilized in the plant. As Murakami-san mentioned earlier, they are often used in the plant. When I saw them, I thought they could be applied in the real world.
In terms of who is responsible for this, as I mentioned earlier, in the case of a company, it is the top, so the leader takes responsibility as the leader. However, it is not a statement by a single company. The CEO participated in discussions at the United Nations shortly after his appointment, even had a conversation with the chairman of the United Nations, and even gave a closing speech. He was the person who made the rocket start. I thought that it was important that such a person made the overall picture at the top and let it spread, and if the earnings were bad, it was his responsibility, so he took responsibility properly.
The reason I am doing this is that I am talking about making 20% to 30% profits from businesses other than tires, and when that happens, I have to do things in a practical way, such as cross-cutting, in-house capabilities, and collaboration with other companies' capabilities, including cooperation and public assistance, and I even have a person in charge of such things.
It's about Catena-X. Catena-X and the digitalisation of the automobile industry are quite important, and now we are saying that we will definitely put this kind of LCA in the automobile catalog. This is A180d, which is a little old car, and I'm sorry, but it's on the catalog like this. These things are required for the product.
However, the automobile industry is large, so if we include industries, for example, there is talk about whether even small companies can collect and calculate CO2 emissions. As a platform for sharing information, Catena-X, a platform that exchanges and shares data between supply chains, is pulling in money from the EU, and Germany is doing its best. Something like that has been created.
Originally, I had a feeling that I did not want to participate in the project because I already had a quality control network, but after Daimler and BMW joined the project, they participated in the project in the form of providing their own systems, and it became the whole of Germany.
The benefits of this are actually clear, and digitalisation's moves are in line with the improvements in quality and production. Japan has done quite a bit of this, so there have been arguments that Industry 4.0 is not necessary, and Catena-X tends to get bogged down in who pays the cost, but even if there is a cross-border volume, the fact that CO2 emissions can be unified and visualized makes quality control easier.
Also, Industry 4.0 means that we will be able to produce a wide variety of products in small quantities without being influenced by blue-collar workers, and that it will be easier to control quality. In fact, the quality of blue-collar workers is very high in Japan now, and even white-collar workers have high-quality workers who design and deliver products to factories, so we rely on them. But in fact, with the 2024 problem, I think it will be difficult to guarantee the quality of blue-collar workers when we start working style reform at small and medium-sized companies, and it will be difficult in terms of time. So, I think it is a quite urgent issue.
I think all the projects are the same, but I have been making them while thinking that it would be good to say at the meeting of the Digital Technology Agency that it will not change even if digitalisation advances. Commercialization is not about products, but about designing the overall picture of customers, services, and platforms. If this is not done, no matter how much digitalisation is done, there is no meaning at all. It is a pattern in which all digitalization and DX are considered together. If it is only the automobile industry, it will be dwarfed. This figure is looking at the whole town planning.
There are some places where we work hard on the digital platform but the physical platform doesn't follow, so we look at the big picture as a way to provide services.
This means that we will look at physical platforms and digital platforms as well, and the platform will provide and improve the functions to provide services. I think it would be better for this council to support that, but people who provide services that are needed in society are emerging in the world, and there are only two good things about humans being digital, sharing experiences and giving feedback on services. These are the only two things, so I think this council should use this to strengthen the platform and I am participating in it. Thank you very much.

Chairman Ishida: Since we are in . Thank you.
What do you think? I would like to ask you to discuss it.
Then, Akimoto-san, please.

Alternate Akimoto: My name is Akimoto .
I think you are absolutely right that it is important for physical.
In particular, Professor Suzuki is in the field of aviation, so I believe that he will provide technologies in the field of aviation, and I believe that technologies in the field of automobiles will form the basis of mobility in this country.
From the perspective of industrial competitiveness, I think there are a lot of Japanese strong technologies in the automobile field. I think it is important to apply them to unmanned vehicles, flying cars, and other mobility fields. Of course, we must design them so that they can be used with high-quality, high-reliability, low-cost components. The most important point in this regard is cars, flying cars, and drones, but by keeping the voltage constant or making it a common voltage, for example, if flying cars can be charged using EV chargers, flying cars can come down to various places, and the same applies to hydrogen, the infrastructure for hydrogen supply.
If you want to fly long distances in such a place in the future, I think there will be flying cars loaded with hydrogen. By sharing infrastructure, sharing parts, and linking them with cars, low-cost flying cars will emerge. If you use aviation parts, it will cost hundreds of millions of yen, but if you use car parts, it will cost tens of millions of yen. I think that social implementation will advance. You don't need to build unnecessary infrastructure. Since you can use it in various places, I think mobility sharing will work well. This is my personal opinion.
I think Mr. Suzuki will probably tell us to use aviation parts, but I think we should use car parts.
That's all.

Chairman Ishida: Since we are in .
As you emphasized, I think LCA is especially important, and I think there are many ways to earn money through operations, such as subscriptions and new forms of service provision, but the more we do that, the more important Scope 3 downstream becomes, I think. I think how to think about such things is also a big theme.
Thank you, Saito-san.

Saito: While talking about LCA, there is also something like a digital product passport. From the perspective of the circular economy, we are also trying to create a platform in the same way as in Europe. It is a little unclear what the relationship between digital passports and the current Catena-X will be like. To tell the truth, we are now talking about the rules for battery passports, and on the assumption that there is a Catena-X, people in the automobile industry are looking at it, and conversely, we are talking about the need to create a battery passport system and to have such services in common.
There is a concept of a battery passport in Europe itself, and in the process of creating a circular economy in the first place, we are talking about DPP and a digital product passport, so we are trying to include information on what the disposal I just mentioned is like in the life cycle in there (battery passport).
I myself have no idea about the relationship between Catena-X and the circular economy, the so-called automobile industry, or the relationship with each industry (circular economy), and I would like to know if there is any image, way of thinking, or way of looking at it.

Chairman Ishida: Since we are in In addition, I would like to ask a related question. I believe that Carbon-relatedfinancialdisclosures are different from Catena-X in terms of CFDs, mainly in the EU. However, it has expanded further, and since the topic of carbon is just a part of nature, there are things like Nature-related financial disclosures, which are like what we are doing. I am really serious about it, but in Japan, the more we go to small and medium-sized enterprises and traditional industries in particular, the stronger the atmosphere is. I would appreciate it if you could tell me what the atmosphere is like in that area in addition to the question I just asked Mr. Saito.

Kawabata & Co., Ltd.: First of all, I think it's quite right to use the same thing as a car, and I'm sure there are safety standards, but in terms of chargers, to put it the other way around, it's overwhelmingly better to use a car and let other people use it, and considering the location and various restrictions, I think it's a very good idea, and I often discuss it with people from various industries. I thought it was a good idea, because with the advent of digital technology, if data such as who uses it, who doesn't use it, and when it is not busy are available, it will be easier to install it.
First of all, regarding the digital product passports that Mr. Saito talked about, in Europe, they are currently reused. There are many things that do not exist in the industry. Therefore, recycling is disadvantageous in terms of the industrial structure. So, we would like to use them once or twice, and then reuse them if we can no longer maintain the quality. Based on the premise of reuse, we would like to go to recycling next. In particular, regarding batteries, there was no industry in the first place, so I could not explain it because I did not have time this time. When we compete for resources, we would like to retain those that seem to be important as resources within our region, so I think important resources such as those in batteries and palladium installed in cars are good examples, but in the last 10 years or so, it has increased to more than three times that of platinum. There is also a desire to retain such things within the region, so there is a strong idea to keep them within the region as much as possible by circulating reuse and recycling circulars. Therefore, there is a strong idea to manage IDs like digital product passports. So, if we say it in a cool way and make it easy for everyone to understand, we treat it as if it becomes a circular economy.
In the background, not only Catena-X but also GAIA-X, which was released a little while ago, is trying to manage it properly on the cloud side. In fact, it is not just the automobile industry, but it is related to all manufacturing industries. So, cars are positioned as a big user among them.
As for Carbon-relatedFinancialDisclosures, I omitted it as a material, but I think it is included in the discussion on financing because there is a concept of green finance and green bonds. I wonder if it will come out the most in the discussion.
The issuance of green bonds itself has risen sharply, and the volume has increased considerably during the COVID-19 pandemic. What I saw was that it was two or three years ago, and the data is old, but at that time, the issuance of green bonds reached a record high of 30%, and there is data like bonds that set a clearer purpose for nature conservation, and one of them, for example, specializing in CO2, will draw attention. They are issued in the form of green bonds, and I also skipped the COP, but what is decided at the COP in the world can only be decided here on global environmental issues, and cannot be decided in an international framework, so biodiversity in COP15 is a very important issue, and it is said that it is so bad that it cannot be helped, so it is done in order, like we did biodiversity first.
At the COP, for example, the Kyoto Protocol came out, which is important. At COP15, there was considerable discussion on biodiversity, and it was also on the agenda at recent COP16 and COP26. In this context, the investment framework decided at COP15, such as the Nature Governance Linked Bond, has already been discussed in such a way that the World Bank and all developed countries participate in greening borrowing and developing countries internationally create green bonds.
Until now, capitalism has been a role model for advanced countries, but if emerging countries follow it, global environmental problems will accelerate, and it will be a problem if it collapses. Therefore, we should buy role models, and we should invest in bonds and finance. So, I think we should talk about it on two lines, the domestic situation in Europe and the idea of eliminating the European international framework from American capitalism.
Then, if the governments of each country can operate in such a way that, for example, interest rates on government bonds can be lowered by shifting them to environmental objectives, it will be easier for emerging countries to think that what is not a role model of countries that have grown up under conventional capitalism, the so-called sustainable circular economy, is a role model. Such things are being discussed at COP15 and 26, and they have started to move into finance in a realistic manner.
The reason is that when the Kyoto Protocol was replaced by the Paris Agreement, it was decided not by 21 countries, but by 190 countries, which I think is quite a big trigger.
I don't have enough knowledge, so it will be within the range I know.

Chairman Ishida: Since we are in .

Deputy Member Tanaka: I think it would be good if European global companies could work in that area. However, since the industry will have to become more global in the future, I am worried about the energy balance of the financial market when I hear that Japanese financial companies will start doing business in a way that is in line with , TEPCO Power Grid, Tanaka speaking.
As a continuation of what I said earlier, when a market is established and the price of energy from CO2 is determined internationally, your energy-saving and decarbonizing actions, for example, it may be better for factories to stop and sell their products when the market is high, rather than making their own products.
This would be good from a financial perspective, but electricity needs to be connected by wires, so we would like to see it balanced. Furthermore, as I mentioned earlier, the grid is being stabilized with the cooperation of low-voltage and other users, so I would like to see it digitally connected before financing, so that it can be used as an incentive to steadily decarbonize, but I would like to ask that energy resources be connected digitally first and used for other multi-use purposes, EVs, robots, and drones.
That's all.

Chairman Ishida: Since we are in , but also say a little more about what you are thinking.

Deputy Member Tanaka: I think it would be good if European global companies could work in that area. However, since the industry will have to become more global in the future, I am worried about the energy balance of the financial market when I hear that Japanese financial companies will start doing business in a way that is in line with For example, EV buses are often mentioned, and this leads to the story of Mr. Izumi at the beginning. There are not enough bus drivers, so even if there are EV buses, there is no one to drive them. In the first place, they cannot ride them. For example, what do you think about carbon neutrality? On weekdays in the morning, it is to send employees to the plant, but in the daytime, sunlight comes out, so I want to empty the storage batteries of EVs in the morning to charge them. On holidays, there is a talk about who will come on board, and we will guide tourists there and use incentives there. It is detailed, but I think it is to connect the use cases vertically, by time zone and by area characteristics, as Director-General always says.

Kawabata & Co., Ltd.: However, I think that it will be such a story when it spreads in developed countries. Probably, the story of providing finance is more of a story of providing finance to expand areas where physical platforms are not sufficient in emerging countries, so in the case of Japan where such physical platforms are distributed but not optimized, I think it will be a different discussion.
Japan is quite unique. In short, when we talk about the need to reduce CO2 emissions, for example, when the number 46 comes out, there are not many countries that include the number accumulated by the industry and the efforts of the people. On the contrary, I think that countries where the social system is not perfect but can be adjusted by the morals of the people are unique.

Deputy Member Tanaka: I think it would be good if European global companies could work in that area. However, since the industry will have to become more global in the future, I am worried about the energy balance of the financial market when I hear that Japanese financial companies will start doing business in a way that is in line with . At the moment, there is no need to worry that much, but I would like to steadily work on the front end.

Chairman Ishida: Since we are in To make the discussion a little bigger, or to make it smaller in a way, I often serve as a committee member of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, and I am talking about the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism. On a consumption basis, about 67% of Japan's total CO2 emissions are related to the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism. The transportation sector accounts for about 20%. The private sector, such as office buildings, is also involved in building administration and city planning administration. Households are also involved. These three sectors together account for more than 50%. In addition, the construction industry, until now, I had only considered Scope 1. I had only considered heavy equipment at the site, but it is amazing when you think of steel and cement. The rate is 67%.
The Green Challenge of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism was compiled about three years ago. In the same year, the Environmental Action Program of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, which is something that the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism can do, added up to about 80 million tons. Who is going to do the rest? Actually, the Government of Japan is saying that the ministries and agencies are in the same kind of collaboration or collaboration, but there are many such pitfalls from the current business flow, so we made it clear, and a lot of information was given today about how to collaborate.
I wonder who is going to make it bigger, or frame it, and I don't have much confidence that it will come out there. It's really important, but in that sense, it's really an irresponsible system. I think it's really important to point out such a point of view as a problem in the world of Architecture, where Professor Saito is working, and where data-linkage can be very powerful.
Here you go.

Murakami Director-General: Because of what you just told me.
I would like to make a proposal on how to set up a frame to fuse making and using.
I was in charge of negotiations at COP15, COP16, and COP17 and at METI, so when I was creating bilateral credits and doing other things, it was very simple to ask, "What does the person who created the CO2 emissions from the car have to take care of?" "What does the person who created the CO2 emissions from the car use?" "This is not equal to the consumers who use the CO2 emissions from the car. This is the same as the argument about tax-bearing capacity in tax theory, because we can't get it anyway.
In fact, I was involved in the drafting of the Product Liability Law in the first place, thanks to Mr. Mazda of the Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association. In other words, the Product Liability Law first draws a line between the liability of the user and the liability of the manufacturer, and then defines the social responsibility as a special exception to the tort law. But when I was wondering what was really going on, I always came up with the idea that if I cut my finger with a knife, which one is worse? However, in an age when the population is increasing, the manufacturer and the user are thoroughly separated, and the social responsibility of the manufacturer is clarified. After all, if you make a lot of it, you can make money, so the part that made money in the industry should be returned to the life of consumers in the form of salary. I think that was allowed because it was such a social design in the Showa era, but that is exactly what the population is decreasing. Rather, when it comes to how technology should be used in a society where depopulation is progressing, if the responsibility relationship between the person who has the technology of the manufacturer and the person who designs it and the person who uses it remains the same in the Showa era, it will probably not be possible.
Nevertheless, when this kind of thing happens in the Olympic Village, it seems that the makers, the service providers, and the people who got on the train are all trying to separate themselves from each other.
That's all I have to say. What worries me when I go out to the field, for example, when I try to start operations with self-driving cars, is that in the end, what is happening is that there is no one who can bear the depreciation cost of the cars when they are manufactured when the number of cars does not sell well, so it does not start as a business, and I think it is a problem that it does not get out of the situation where subsidies are repeated forever.
This is why I came to Digital Agency. When I have been carrying out informatization policies for a long time, I don't always want to go back in history, but in fact, even in the early days of computers, I established a national policy company called Nihon Denshi, which bought and rented all of them at once. When we introduce new technologies in a market with a declining population, I have a feeling that there will be no answer unless we consider who will bear the burden of depreciation of the equipment for introducing them in society and how. If we simply put it in the hands of consumers or in the budget deficit of local governments, there will be no answer.
In that sense as well, what is the product life cycle between the manufacturer and the user? Putting aside the fact that circular economy is also a marketing term of a certain consulting company, I think there is such a thing, but the user is also actively committed to making it, so the reuse system is set, and the manufacturer does not run away from being used, but jumps into it one after another. How the country designs it with that as a rule, both sides can jump into each other's world at ease.
When I wrote the mobility roadmap, I thought it would be good if I could add a little bit of such a philosophy to my mind if I could write it by boiling down the discussion, so I said this as a personal opinion rather than a summary.
That's all.

Chairman Ishida: Since we are in .
It will be the second meeting, and there will be three more meetings, so I hope that the discussions will continue to expand and deepen in this way, and that the relationship with various areas will become clear.
Not only that, but it also leads to the Mobility Working Group.

Murakami Director-General: I will continue to connect directly.

Chairman Ishida: Since we are in , I am glad that Mr. Murakami and Mr. Izumi have been very active in expressing their opinions today in the sense that it will spread further. I would like to cherish this kind of atmosphere.
I'd like to end today.
Finally, I would like to request an administrative communication from the secretariat.

Suzuki Director for Policy Planning: Thank you very much for today.
Next time, I would like to ask for a hybrid of this place and online at the same time on Wednesday, June 28, two weeks later.
Also, like this time, we would like to proceed in the form of presentations and discussions. Thank you.
Thank you for coming today.