by Tomoko Sakuma*
On the 9 March, Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs held a consultation with 'Private Organisations' to discuss the up-coming WTO talks. This unprecedented move was a direct result of the international civic campaign against MAI, and also a change of WTO policy towards civil society.
The consultation was attended by 55 people from 55 different organisations, but only 16 could speak from the floor during the two hour meeting. Among these speakers were the persons from pulp and paper association, a plastic maker, one tax accountant among producer groups and NGOs.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs opened the consultation by noting that discussions with civil society groups and the public are not part of the official process and that ‘legitimate’ decisions can only be made by the Diet and Cabinet as the Constitution provides. However, they added that the consultation process would continue so that mutual trust, a prerequisite for 'constructive' discussion, can be built.
The Ministry officials also promised an improvement of the level and method of information disclosure, and raised the possibility of holding consultations at municipality levels.
Regarding impact assessment of the Uruguay Round agreements, the officials noted that there are already some initiatives at OECD and WTO levels and the government is not sure whether it will conduct its own review. At this stage Japanese government agencies have no common position towards WTO. This will be formulated through negotiation between ministers, after each relevant ministry formulates its position.
The officials felt that a comprehensive round is a way to reach agreement as each country has different interests and thus different areas of possible concessions. They said that non-trade concerns are important and that the Government is co-ordinating with EU to promote the concept of 'multi-functionality' to be included in the WTO rules However, it is also important to avoid disguised protectionism.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has not yet developed a target nor strategy on agriculture, in particular on issues such as border measures and subsidy policies to protect domestic agri-production in accordance with WTO rules. However, there is a clear distinction between Japan and EU on export subsidies, which Japan opposes. Rather, Japan should focus on assuring the environment for food-importing countries (like Japan) to sustainably import food, and to acquire foreign currency for the purchase.
The officials also noted that protection of the environment is important, but trade and trade rules cannot be main tools for the solution.
While the Government is in favour of investment rules that developing countries could also implement it does not think establishing 'investor vs. state' dispute settlement mechanism is realistic anymore.
The Government reaffirmed it’s refusal to negotiate liberalisation on forest products at the APEC , preferring the WTO as the appropriate forum. So far, there has been little data collection and analysis of the service sector, which the government hopes will slow liberalisation.
The government doesn't have clear position on the trade of GMO products. While MOFA was not very clear about the Government position at the consultation, there are several other processes with more significance taking place in other ministries. In fact, MOFA is merely acting as a window for the international negotiations, and all key positions are formulated in other relevant ministries. Ministry of International Trade and Industry has a official process of consultations with industry and there is an official process on agriculture comprised of parliamentarians from the ruling party (Liberal Democrats), key producers cooperatives, and the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. These parallel processes will continue even after the WTO talks start, and there are few chance for NGOs and other marginal sectors of the society to intervene in the processes.
One participant commented that this sort of public hearing and the increased opportunities provided on the ministry's web-sites for public to comment on specific policies or regulations, are like throwing stones into the ocean. Ministries such as MOFA and the Environment Agency are gradually changing their attitude towards civil society. Some sections of these agencies now regard NGOs as strategic allies in fights against ministries with more resources and constituencies (beneficiaries) and where economic and development policies and projects are decided and carried out. However, they also have noticed that reconciliation with the potential ally is not an easy task, and there is a feeling that the more they become open, the less reaction they get from civil society.
This meeting was a gathering of the weaker side and real battles are fought in somewhere else.
MITI's WTO working group is now intensively discussing the investment disciplines it wants at the WTO, while MITI officials are said to be downplaying the liberalisation of the service sector by highlighting agriculture as a target for liberalisation in the next talks. It basically aims to establish OECD-MAI-like investment rules at the WTO, although it doesn't want 'investor vs. state' dispute settlement and emphasizes different treatment for developing countries in a hope to draw some support from them.
Recently, the Ministry of Agriculture sent a bill of New Basic Law on Food, Agriculture, and Rural Community to the Cabinet. The new bill has inherited the fatal defects of its precedent law of 1961, an agricultural modernisation policy that proved to be a total disaster. The aim of protecting the 'multi-functionality' of agriculture and rural communities is found in the preamble of the bill, but not materialised in actual policies laid out in the following chapters which are rather contradictory. This reflects the fact that even the traditional golden-triangle -- legislators from rural area, powerful agri-coops, and the agricultural ministry -- has given up protecting traditional interests and is trying to satisfy new constituencies from food processing and food importing sectors and promoting a new concept of 'Food System Theory' which justify agricultural liberalisation. Food system theory promotes a new version of economic colonisation by encouraging Japanese capital to control the most competitive combination of food production abroad, processing and distribution, and thus ensure stable food supply for Japanese people.
Given the situation, civil society groups are not only suspicious of the effectiveness of the consultation process, but also wondering if it is worth participating continuously. An alternative strategy is to keep demanding information and effective involvement of civil society, while trying to build a national citizens alliance and internationally to pressing governments from both sides, instead of getting dragged into discussions on specific topics.
* Tomoko Sakuma is coordinator of the People's Forum 2001, Japan. Maruko-bld. 3F 1-20-6 Higashi-ueno, Taito-ku, Tokyo 110-0015 Japan. tsakuma@jca.ax.apc.org