Policy recommendations
by Citizens' Ise-Shima Summit
2016.05.23 – 2016.05.24 in Japan＊Japan Civil Society Platform on 2016 G7 Ise-Shima Summit＊Tokai Citizens’ Summit Network

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Africa----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1-6
Syria----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7-11
Food Security-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12-13
Disaster---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14-21
Children--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 22-27
Environment--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------28-33
Youth 1-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------34-36
Globalization and Health-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 37-42
Climate change, Biodiversity and Disaster prevention-------------------------------------43-46
Regional Disparity------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 47-51
Youth 2----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 52-56
SDGs--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------57-58
Peace--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------59-64
Imigration and Refugee, Multicultural------------------------------------------------------------65-69
Education-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------70-73
Strong Civic Society----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------74-77

AfricaStatement on the New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition in Africa
towards Ise-Shima Summit 2016
23 May 2016, JapanWe, the citizens, who have been engaging with defending food sovereignty and the right to foodin Africa, hereby manifest our deepest concerns to the G7 leaders concerning the “New Alliancefor Food Security and Nutrition” in Africa, at the G7 Ise- Shima Summit, held on May 25th and26th, 2016.
Since the G8 Camp David Summit, held in 2012, where the New Alliance was established, civilsociety organizations and specialists around the world have been expressing great concern overthis program, and produced numerous reports and statements calling for the G7 leaders to stop
all engagements with and support for the program. As the New Alliance began to move forward
in Africa, some of our fears became a reality. More than 30 international and 100 nationalorganizations collectively announced the “Call of civil society organizations to theirgovernments on the New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition in Africa,” right before theG7 Summit 20151.
The former UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Olivier De Schutter, concluded, in thereport submitted to the Development Committee of the European Parliament, that the New
Alliance is “seriously deficient in a number of areas” and “based on an out-dated model ofagricultural development, one that predates the new thinking that emerged when theinternational community tried to draw the lessons from the global food price crisis of 2008” 2.
As a result, in April 2016, the EU committee released a report on the New Alliance and called
for its remediation.
However, the “New Alliance’s Joint Annual Progress Report 2014-2015”3, released in October
2015, and the “G7 Progress Report”4, released in May 2016, failed to address the problems
raised by the above mentioned actors. It neither reflected their recommendations nor provided
adequate remediation. The G7 Progress Report announced by the Japanese government isfocused on corporate needs, not on food and nutritional insecurity and poverty, with insufficient
impact assessments made on small-scale producers5. In essence, basic human rights principles
continue to be ignored.
The above-mentioned concerns raised by many stakeholders from around the world have notlost their validity and should be respected, reiterated and reflected in the G7 policy. Therefore,
we will re-introduce the Call, which was signed by more than 130 civil society organizations
last year.
We call to the representatives of the G7 countries who gather in Ise-Shima Summit to stop all
engagements in, and support for, the New Alliance, and to ensure that all other policies andprograms on food and nutritional security are coherent with international human rights
obligations, rooted in food and peasant sovereignty.
http://www.farmlandbrab.org/25006
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2015/535010/EXPO_STU(2015)535010_EN.pdf
3 New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition and GROW Africa Joint Annual Progress Report 2014-2015https://new-alliance.org/resource/2014-2015-new-alliance-progress-report
4 Ise-Shima Progress Report :G7 accountability on development and development-related
commitmentshttp://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/files/000158338.pdf
5 http://www.globaljustice.org.uk/sites/default/files/files/resources/joint_na_briefing_english_version_0.pdf
121Africa

Call of civil society organizations to their governments on the New
Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition in Africa
3 June 2015
Small-scale food producers are collectively the leading investors in agriculture, estimated to
produce 70% of the food in Africa. 3 Addressing food and nutrition insecurity on the continent
requires the full participation of those who are already producing, and promoting an
agricultural system based on human rights and food sovereignty through local control overnatural resources, seeds, land, water, forests, knowledge and technology. This is crucial forsmall-scale women and men farmers, pastoralists, livestock farmers, fisherfolk andhunter-gatherer societies. However, African governments and international donors support toAfrican agriculture increasingly focuses on the extension of corporate led food and agricultural
systems to the detriment of small-scale food producers.
One of the most worrying illustrations of this trend is the G8 “New Alliance for Food Security
and Nutrition”, 4 launched in 2012 by the G8 and implemented in ten African countries. 5 The
New Alliance, following similar initiatives such as AGRA and GROW Africa, is based on thesimplistic assumption that corporate investment in agriculture will increase production andthat this will automatically improve food and nutrition security and reduce poverty. This logic
completely neglects that food and nutrition security means consistent access to a diverse andnutritious diet, which will not be achieved simply by increasing food production. Moreover,much of the production supported by the New Alliance is in crops with relatively low
nutritional value as well as in crops which are destined for export and/or non-food production.
Notwithstanding the lack of transparency in implementation of the New Alliance, experienceson the ground and case studies confirm that the policies promoted by the New Alliancefacilitate the grabbing of land and other natural resources, further marginalize small-scale
producers, and undermine the right to adequate food and nutrition.6 The New Alliancecooperation framework agreements were hastily erected on the mere promise that theinitiative will “unleash the power of the private sector”, ignoring the risks that will fall on
small-scale food producers and other marginalized groups.7 The agreements were made withno or little participation of small-scale food producers and groups affected by malnutrition, andthey contain no concrete indicators on hunger and malnutrition. Furthermore, neither the G8
nor the G7 has a mandate to pursue these policy changes in other countries; the adequate
forum for agreement to policy guidance is the UN Committee on World Food Security where allconcerned parties have a voice.
The adoption of New Alliance policy commitments by African countries enables companies to
do business through the easing of export controls and tax laws, changing seed laws in the favorof multi-national companies, and through governments facilitating transfers of community
land to investors. In spite of the urgent need for tax revenue to fund rural community
development, countries have agreed to reduce taxes on agribusiness and on the inputs usedmost heavily by large farms. Existing projects backed by the New Alliance threaten small-scale
farmers control over land and seeds, marginalize local markets and contribute to loss of
biodiversity and soil fertility. This undermines the livelihoods of local communities andadequate nutrition based, among others, on access to diverse and nutritious diets. In several
countries, seed laws are being introduced that could effectively criminalize farmer-to-farmer
seed exchange in the future.8 These policies and laws undermine peasants’ rights, bio-diversity,and the right to adequate food and nutrition. They will exacerbate future climate and economic
shocks for small-scale farmers, instead of building their resilience to cope with such shocks.
2Africa
These changes are being made without national debate, thereby undermining democratic
structures.

The Alternatives
Our organizations support investment alternatives made in response to the priorities ofsmall-scale producers, and which contribute to the realization of the right to food. Alternative
responses include provision of public services and infrastructure to support rural communities
and local markets. Incentives such as public procurement, will allow small-scale producers tomake additional investments and increase food production through decentralized, autonomous,
local and sustainable food systems.
While the New Alliance emphasizes the need to “link smallholders to markets” the projects it
supports privilege global markets dominated by corporate traders, ignoring the existentvibrant and diverse local food systems that ensure the sustenance of the majority of Africa’s
population today. For small-scale producers market access in itself is not sufficient, but rather
the conditions of their access are crucial as are the rules and logics by which particularmarkets operate. Small-scale producers are present above all in informal markets, whichchannel food for the majority of the population. Little data has been collected on existing foodsystems and more research and public investment should be targeted to support systems thatare already working.
Supporting markets that respond to the logic of sustainable family farming can also have apositive impact on climate change, rural employment and migration flows. But it is crucial that
small-scale food producers are in the driver’s seat and have their own independent
organizations to support them to retain control of their land, natural resources and projects
that affect them.

The African Union and the G7 will hold their Heads of States Summit in June 2015.
We call on all Governments participating in the New Alliance to:Stop all engagement in and support for the New Alliance. Governments should ensurethat all other policies and programmes on food and nutrition security are coherent with
their international human rights obligations, including in relation to the right toadequate food and nutrition, and follow the UN Food and Agricultural Organizations’
Guidelines on the Right to Food, and the UN Committee on World Food Security’s Land
Tenure Guidelines. 9
Suspend implementation of policy commitments and projects until they are reviewed ineach country by a multi-stakeholder platform that includes small-scale food producers’organizations and marginalized groups. Withdraw from those policies and projects thatfail to promote the right to food, that undermine land access and the tenure rights ofwomen and communities, or that prioritize business interests over those of
marginalized population groups and the environment.
Always defend the right to Free, Prior and Informed Consent of all communities
affected by land deals and their full participation in the governance of land and natural
resources.

3

AfricaRequire full transparency of contracts and binding commitments for companies on rural
employment and living wages, respecting ILO conventions with provisions for continual
monitoring.
Respect farmers’ rights to produce, protect, use, exchange, promote and sell farm-saved
seeds and expand support to farmer's owned seeds banks and systems. Stop and review
all processes that lead to seed laws based on UPOV 1991, patents or other laws thatthreaten small-scale farmers’ rights.
Enact public policies that support small-scale food producers and advance foodsovereignty, the right to food, and agroecology with the full involvement of small-scale
producers, civil society organizations, consumers and their organizations at nationaland regional levels.
【Contact】
Naoko Watanabe, Program Officer for South Africa
Japan International Volunteer Center (JVC)
Tel：03-3834-2388／Email：nabekama@ngo-jvc.net

4Africa■

respectfullyAfrica Japan Forum

Africa Japan ForumJapan Youth Platform for SustainabilitySociety For Zimbabwe

Japan International Volunteer Center(JVC)

Hunger Free World

Sento-Tarui

Civic Institute for Civil Society

MIE NPO Network Center

Association of Yokkaichi NPOs

Universal Working Center

NO! to Land Grab, Japan

GCC LLCODA-NET

Yoshiko HasegawaVicente Adriano VicenteHagiwara Misa

yokota misuzu

Kiyoshi ShiratoriTsuyama Naoko

Masako TanakaYosinori Usami

Naoko Watanabe

FUTAMURE Kyoko



MAYUMI SUGOU

wakamatsu yokoMieko Kurokawa



Saito Ryoichiro

Masayoshi Iyoda

Yuji Matsuhira

Tohru SHIRAKAWAKaori Mizumoto

MARIKO OMURAHAKOYAMA Fumiko

Masao Kamei



Natsumi Omuro

IWAI YUKINO
5

Africa

TAKEMURA Keiko

KAZUE NAKAHARA



Africa Japan Forum MOZUMI Mamoru



Seiji Hara

MASAHIKO SHIMA

Sakai Makiko



INOUE YASUKOKeiko Negishi



MIYAMICHI KazuchiyoHaruse Murata

Tatsuo Kishi

Sumiko TeranishiSocial Innovation Lab Kayoko Tonomura

Kiyotaka Takahashi

6Syrian Refugees

Prior to the start of the present conflict, we were engaged in aid activities in Syria.
Following the start of the war, we have been providing humanitarian aid, and we began
working for peace in Syria after hearing the voices of common citizens who have been
affected by the war’s violence.
The path towards peace in Syria has become increasingly difficult. In December 2015,
the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 2254, but due to increasing
tensions among nations in the region, and conflicting interests among those nations, theUS and countries in Europe, the way forward is unclear.
Humanitarian aid has become ever more necessary, but no matter how much aid isprovided, there will be no end to the loss of life and numbers of refugees without theestablishment of a fundamental peace.
We believe the 2016 Ise-Shima G7 Summit in Japan will be an important opportunity
for realizing peace in Syria. Japan is highly trusted by Syrians and civil society in the
Middle East, and in regards to peace in Syria, Japan is one of the few countries in theG7 that does not have a special stake in the conflict. Also, on January 1 st 2016 Japan
became a Non-permanent Member of the UN Security Council. This brings increasing
international responsibility, and there are high expectations for Japan’s new role.
Furthermore, due to the increasing number of Syrian refugees fleeing to neighboring
nations and Europe, there are reports of citizens of these nations who see the Syria issue
as an important part of the G7 Ise-Shima Summit agenda.
Taking the above factors into account, we advocate that not only the issue ofhumanitarian aid, but also the following two points be addressed at the G7 Ise-shima
Summit:We ask the Government of Japan to assume leadership in the Syrian peace process.
Concretely speaking, at the Summit we ask the government to lead discussions among
G7 leaders for promoting a process of non-military dialogue in line with the UN Security
Council Resolution 2254.
1. We ask the Government of Japan to assume this leadership role in order to promotesmooth discussions in which the leaders of each G7 nation rise above their national
interests to work towards a non-military resolution for Syrian peace.
The G7 Ise-Shima Summit is a unique opportunity for Japan as a non-permanent
member of the Security Council to show the world its leadership in the process leading7

Syrian Refugees

to peace in Syria. We sincerely hope the Japanese Government will positively respond to
this opportunity.
① Organize a workshop as a venue for Syrian refugees in neighboring nations to talkabout the future of Syria by themselves.
② Convene a forum for dialogue among Syrian and Japanese experts in academia to work
towards a ceasefire and post-conflict reconstruction.

③ Develop a scheme for Japan to accept Syrian refugees including university students.

The Syria support organization SADAQA FOR SYRIANPO Japan Iraq Medical Network (JIM-NET)

NPO Japan International Volunteer Center (JVC)NPO Corporation World Vision Japan (WVJ)

NPO Japan Association for Refugees (JAR)

8

Syrian Refugees■

respectfully

WOMEN‘S FEDERATION FOR WORLD PEACE

Anti ｰ war NetworkCivic Institute for Civil Society

MIE NPO Network Center

Association of Yokkaichi NPOsJapan Iraq Medical NetworkJapan Campaign to Ban LandminesLilio Environmental Forum

Asian Health Institute (AHI)

Students for a Free Tibet Japan Mie chapter



RHYTHM NET WORK

Africa Japan ForumA SEED JAPAN

Amnesty International Japan

Nippon International Cooperation for Community Development

Ayus-Bhuddist Temple



Oxfam Japan

KAMONOHASHI ProjectJapan NGO Center for International Cooperation



PEACEBOAT

Children and Women Islamic Association



Sadaqa for Syria

Japan Campaign to Ban LandminesSave the Children JapanNGO No War Network

Nanmin Now

Association for Aid and Relief, Japan



Japan Iraq Medical NetworkJapan Action for Relief CenterJapan International Volunteer CenterJapan Syria Cooperation Association

CCP JapanFukko no Tamatebako



Human Rights Now

MOMRINGSMinnade tsukuru Syria ten
9Syrian Refugees



RAFIQ



World Vision Japan

Africa Japan Forum

Kyoko Shimizu



NISHII KazuhiroYosinori Usami

Ken Morino

Nao Otake

KEIKO INOUETakakiyo Koizumi

Megumi Hirayamamasahiko shiraiAtsuko Nakahara

Fumiko HakoyamaYasuko Tanaka

Saki Hiraoka



SHIHO KUDO

Etsuko KITAGAWAMAYU UENOKiyoshi WashidaMaki ShitajimaSasaki Takuya

Junko FUKUCHI



Shoichi ImaidaSumire Kanda



Hosomura KeikoMana Nagashima



JICA Volunteer



Ai Oshima(JIM-NET)

Junko Utsumi

Shimada Yuna

HIGA AYA

Jinin OrokaMari Sai

YUKO YAMADA

tanimura hidetaka

Naomi Fukudaasora suzuki
10Syrian RefugeesRumi Iwasaki



YOSHINORI IWAIYUKUKO SOGABE

inagaki hiromi



MITA KEIKO



Masafumi Tamura

Hiromi Shimizu

MIDORI WATANABE

Satori fujii

YUUGO KODAMANAKAO MASAHIRO

Naoko Tsuyama

Naoko WatanabeNatsumi OmuroYuki Hisatomi

11

Food Security

We, the civil society participating in the food security and nutrition session,
proposed the following to the G7 leaders;
1) Japan, as host of G7, should use experience in combating hunger,
malnutrition and obesity to promote G7 advocacy on nutrition: school
lunches, integration of nutrition in education /agriculture and investment indietitians2) G7 countries will develop action plans complete with accountability,
financing and transparency.

12

Food Security■ respectfully








Civic Institute for Civil Society
MIE NPO Network Center
Association of Yokkaichi NPOs
Universal Working Center
Jinin Oroka
Tatsuo Kishi



Notre Monde Nagoya
yosinori usami

Shiho Deguchi

13

Disaster
Recommendations by the Civil Society Organizations of
the Region hosting the G7 Ise-Shima Summit
We, the Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) of the local area hosting the G7 Ise-Shima Summit
recognizee

thestrongconnections

between

local

and

globalissues,andtherefore

makerecommendations to the leaders of the G7 based on our agreements adopted at the “Japan Civil Society
Platform on 2016 G7 Ise-Shima Summit” on May 24, 2016.

Disaster
Enhance activities to build a disaster resilient civil society with initiative of disaster survivors(Keywords)“Human Charter and minimum standards for humanitarian responses (the Sphere Standard)”,“participation of disaster victims”, “larger hazards and urbanization caused by global environmental
change”, “volunteers, NPOs, and NGOs in diverse fields”, “intermediary organization”, “activity
environment at times of disaster”, “corporate support, “science and technology”, “community building”,“advance reconstruction plan”, “district disaster prevention plan”, and “disaster prevention education”.

Current situation of local areas
Japan, particularly the Tokai Region, has suffered immense damage caused by Nankai Troughearthquakes/tsunamis throughout the years. The area has developed facing and overcoming thesehardships. Disaster preparedness, disaster mitigation, and many other approaches have been developedby citizens initiatives throughout its history, and we believe that many ideas can be shared with theworld. However, there are still several problems in terms of supporting disaster survivors with minimum
global standards, such as preventing disaster-related deaths. This issue gained particular attention
during the 2016 Kumamoto Earthquakes. The country needs to work

further to build organizational

structures for intermediary support that link the disaster survivors and supporting organizations.

Need for a global approachWith the progress of globalization and technology advancement, residents of each region are
becoming more diverse in terms of ethnicity, social class, physical or mental disability, values and more.
At the same time, damage caused by climate change and social environment are also diversifying andbecoming more severe. Especially during the mega disasters such as 2004 Indian Ocean
earthquake/tsunami affecting broad areas providing assistance is critical. After the Indian Ocean

14

Disasterearthquake/tsunami disaster, several organizations from all over the world responded simultaneously in
dis-coordinated way. Mutual coordination among donors are required to avoid duplication of assistanceand provide in needed support properly. In order to handle such kind of mega disasters, stakeholders
must not only sustained their own activities but also build collaboration among various institutions bothin terms of area and affiliation.

Given the above situation, we hereby call on the governments of the G7, and especially the Japanese
government hosting the summit, to take the following measures.

・ Disseminating and localizing the Humanitarian Charter and minimum standards in humanitarianrelief activities .
As witnessed during the Great East Japan Earthquake, disaster affected people’s could not receive
sufficient support for psychological or physical health, respecting their human dignity, not only indeveloping nations, but also in developed nations. The governments of the G7 nations, and especially
the Japanese government acting as the Chair, must actively implement the Humanitarian Charterand minimum standards throughout humanitarian response in accordance with each places’s
local/specific situation and reflect them to all disaster prevention, mitigation, and recovery policies
and guidelines.

・ Guarantee the participation of disaster survivors in decision making processes of disaster prevention,
mitigation, and recovery policies.
After a disaster, it is fundamental that local government and citizens build up a system to ensurethat every single survivor is assured of his/her psychological or physical health along with humandignity. To this end, the government in concern must, in line with the citizens of the affected area,
guarantee the participation of stakeholders such as the disaster survivors, particularly the people
who face difficulties such as the elderly, foreign citizens, people with disability, and women andchildren. These stakeholders must be involved in the decision making process for disaster prevention,
mitigation, and recovery policies so that their voices will be directly reflected.

・ Building a platform to address serious damage caused by bigger hazards.
As the scale of hazard grows and its frequency increases due to global environmental change andurbanization, damages following a disaster are becoming more serious. Governments of each country
must promote platforms consisting of volunteers, NPOs, NGOs, companies, local governments, states
and countries to cooperate beyond their regions and fields regardless of scale, on the basis of

15

Disasterenhancing mutual assistance by disaster survivors. To this end, the governments must help create
an intermediary support organization that connects the regions, states and fields.

・ Support mutual assistance and the activities by volunteers, NPOs and NGOs that work in different
fields.
Mutual assistance and the activities by volunteers, NPOs and NGOs at local level play an importantrole to complement public assistance to reduce disaster impacts and promote recovery processes.
Especially in terms of providing assistance to the socially vulnerable people including women,children, the elderly and people with disability, the role of volunteers, NPOs and NGOs that carryout support activities on a regular basis play significant roles at times of disaster. Governments ofeach state must further enhance the mutual assistance system at local level considering so thatvolunteers, NPOs and NGOs may carry out activities in diverse fields, and create an environment
which enables prompt action at times of disaster.

・ Improve mechanism and systems to enable the private sector to provide support to disaster survivors
taking advantages on company’s expertise and scale.
Provision of resources and aid with expertise play an essential role in life recovery of disastersurvivors. Governments of each nation must improve the mechanism and system to integratevarious companies to provide assistance to disaster survivors maximizing their business expertise on
business.

・ Provide support for science and technology development and disaster risk reduction studies and topromote resilient community by preparing pre-disaster recovery plan.
Although knowledge on disaster mechanism and science and technology advancement have enabled
us to understand the disaster risks in advance to mitigate damage, that knowledge is often notproperly applied in pre-disaster planning. We request the governments to provide further assistanceto science and technology development and disaster risk reduction studies, to improve public accessto related information and create a disaster resilient community. In addition, stakeholders must
develop mechanisms and systems to plan out pre-disaster recovery plans to mitigate damages attimes of disaster and to recover the community while maintaining the local culture and tradition,
along with local residents’ self-sustaining disaster prevention plans.

We make the following recommendations as basic activities to realize the above suggestions.

16Disaster・ Carry out disaster prevention activities to foster resilient community where all citizens participate
to overcome hardship.
Disasters may lead us to lose our lives, psychological and physical health, human dignity, andvaluable assets. Disaster risk reduction education enhances disaster awareness and strengthens
people’s abilities to overcome difficulties caused by disasters. Such education is the most effective
disaster countermeasure, but it is not provided sufficiently. Governments of each country mustvisualize the hazards of each region and provide continuous education according to the regions’disaster characteristics from childhood, empowering residents so that they can avoid disaster risks
and tackle difficulties. By these actions and through independent learning, disaster awareness will
be embedded into the civil society as culture.

17

Disaster■ Respectfully NPO corporation MIE Citizen's Council of Disaster Prevention
 NPO corporation Rescue Stock Yard The Society for Disaster Prevention in Tyubu-Area Jun Kawaguchi
 Mayumi Sakamoto
 Maki Koyama Nonprofit Organization Bousai Network UBE
 Work Style Design
 Nagoya NGO Center Hello Volunteer Network MIE
 hureai[enoki] SAKAMOTO NOBUHIRO UniversalDesign･Step
 rec Anjyou bousai net
 General incorporated association Platform for regional cooperation
 Yokkaichi Pharmaceutical Association
 Kyoto Shiga Tsubominokai Asian Health Institute International Firstaid & Rescue Research Institute Africa Japan Forum MIE NPO Network Center Association of Yokkaichi NPOs Civic Institute for Civil Society
 NPO) Japan First Aid Society Anti-war Network Asian Health Institute Nagoya NGO Center
 ANGEL LAMP
 Senti-Tarui Unibersal Working Center greenumbrella Satoru Gamou

18

Disaster NSVN･LEE Inchul
 V.C of Izumi Ward Disaster Volunteer Network Tetsuji EJIRI Naoki Kurita
 NPO in disaster relief RESCUE STOCK YARD / Yoshiki Usami
 takeshi yasui Kazuya Abiko Yosinori Usami
 Junko Okumura
 NAOMI YOKOI HAJIME KATO
 Rescuenow Crisis Lab. / Keiichi Ichikawa
 MITSUYA INUI Tatsuhiko Kishie KEIJI IWAI HIDEYA IWATA Yoshijima Takako
 yoshiteru kondo KAGIYA Hajime
 SHIHO KUDO
 Hiroshi Arakawa
 Yumi Kagawa
 Shoko Takahashi
 Shoichi Imaida
 sato hitoshi
 Kinzo Saeki MITA KEIKO
 Hideo Yamasaki
 MIKKO YAMADA Hiroshi Matsuno
 Toshiaki Ueyama Sumire Kanda
 TOMOYUKI MIZUKAMI Chikako Sugawara
 Kyoko Shimizu

19

Disaster NISHII Kazuhiro YASUHIRO NISHIKAWA
 AsanoSachiko Masakatsu Onishi
 Eiichi Motohiko Nagaoka
 SAYOKO

TORII Takayuki Tsuga
 Tsuyama Naoko YASUTOMO TSUTSUMI CHIAKI WATANABE Hideo Watanabe Ryuji Fujiwara
 chiaki･fujino
 Myumi Yonezawa
 Keiko Kitaonie Sumiko Akashi
 Yasushi ARISAKA Jinin Oroka Shoko Takahashi sato hitoshi
 MITA KEIKO
 Mieko Kurokawa
 Masayoshi Iyoda
 Shinobu Mukai
 Kondo Kimihiko Kinichiro Nakamura Ryota Ishihara Sugimoto Akiko
 Masuaki Asada(Snart environmental sosial research inslitate) Kyoko Tomura
 Itsuro Suzuki
 Toshihiko Fukuda
 yamamoto mineo

20

Disaster Hiroshi Kashiwagi
 Motoko Hirota
 NAGOYA UNIVERSITY NAW THIRI MAY AYE Masaru Morita
 築城 敏美
 成島 有史

21

Children

Proposals from the Civic Society of the Ｇ７ Ise-Shima Summit Host Region
All the countries in the world have a common goal with regard to the realization of the rights
for children as defined in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Children. This goal statesthat we strive to create a peaceful society that has the best interest for children and that allows
children to grow up with peace of mind and hope, regardless of abilities, race, gender or origin. To
achieve this, we call on the governments of the G7 member states, to listen to the voices of the world’s
children in order to create specific policies for children based on the recommendations below.
In Japan, the accident at the Tokyo Electric Power Company’s Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear
Power Plant has threatened the survival and development of children. To protect children from foodcontamination and worsening living environment, we call on the Japanese government to implement
appropriate policies.
.
１．We call for advocacy and awareness-raising regarding children’s rights.
（１）Opportunities must be provided for children themselves to learn about children’s rights.
（２）Opportunities must be provided for all adults to understand about children’s rights.
２． We call for guarantee of children’s opportunities to participate in society.
（１）Children are members of society and thus must be considered as partners in decision-making.
（２）Ensure children have opportunities to express their opinions in all fields.
（３） Educate human resources capable of listening and understanding toddlers’ and children’s
voices and ensure such professionals have a role as facilitators and advocates for children.
（４）Make it mandatory to listen to children's opinions on policies and plans regarding children.
（５）Listen to deprived children, especially those facing difficulties, and reflect their voices in policy
making.
（６）Support activities carried out by children themselves.
（７）Train supporters to promote proactive participation by children（８）Listen to children’s voices during emergencies and disasters and guarantee their participation.
３.

We call for improvement in children’s physical and social living environments including thefollowing elements.
（１）Safe environments where children can move around freely.
( 2 ) Parks and facilities where children can play actively.
（３）Areas close to home where children can interact with nature.
（４）Appropriate sexual education teaching children how to protect themselves and others, as wellas to appreciate the value of life.
（５） Food education for all ages, rooted in awareness that food is a basic element for children’s
healthy spiritual and physical development.
（６）A society which lets us appreciate the blessings of nature and our own country’s cultures whilebuilding rich relations with others.
（７）Respect for each child’s unique personality as a basis for self-affirmation .
（８）School system must be reformed so that schools become part of the social welfare system.

22

Children

４．We call for guarantee of children’s rights to play
（１）Playing is an intrinsic desire of children and must be acknowledged as an essential right to life.
（２）The act of playing serves an important role for the development of the brain, development ofsocial nature and creativity, imagination, self-confidence and self worth, strong body and mind, andthe dexterity of the body. Therefore, right to play must be included in child policies.
（３）Make policies to regulate the use of expensive games and toys, high-tech and commercialized
leisure since these activities inhibit children’s proactive play.
（４）Distinguish between adult-organized play for educational purposes and children’s spontaneousplay. Provide all adults involved with children opportunities to learn about children’s play.
（５）Improve environments for children to play (both indoor and outdoor venues, enough time, andpeople to watch children, etc. must be secured.)（６）Train and deploy play-workers capable of organizing environments for children to play freely.
（７）For children, playing promotes psychological healing. Therefore, children’s right to play mustbe guaranteed even at times of disaster and conflict.
（８） Recognize General Comment 17 of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child* in legal andpolicy matters and take measures to improve the situation.
* General comment related to Article 31 of the Rights of the Child, which stipulates the rights torest and leisure, to engage in age-appropriate play and recreational activities, and to participate
freely in cultural life and the arts.
５．Prevent all types of violence against children（１）Prohibit abuse, corporal punishment, and psychological violence.
（２）Implement laws that protect children from all types of violence.
（３）Prohibit dangerous forms of child labor.
（４）Develop and promote non-violent methods of child rearing and discipline.
（５）Prevent inappropriate child rearing practices, and educate and support parents and carers sothey can rear children appropriately.
（６）Support and strengthen local networks for child protection.
（７）Implement education against violence to raise awareness that violence is a violation of humanrights.
６．Elimination of poverty and income disparity among children（１）Make all educational expenses free of charge to the family, and ensure equal access to
education from pre-school age.
（２）Ensure adequate budgets for children’s health and social welfare.
（３）Each country must conduct baseline surveys and set targets for reducing poverty.
（４）Create safe nurturing environments where children are praised, needed and appreciated,
especially for children with low self-esteem due to social isolation and marginalization.
（５）Eliminate child prostitution, child pornography and JK(Joshi Kosei = high school girls)
Business（６）Educate the general public and train personnel to support children in poverty.
（７）Provide seamless support for children in poverty, from pregnancy.
（８）In Japan, since single legal custody is a factor in child poverty in single parent families, achieve
shared parental custody and child rearing.
７． Eliminate violations of the children's rights by nuclear power plants.

23

Children（１）Nuclear power plants violate children’s rights. Therefore, do not build new nuclear power
plants, do not recommence operation at existing plants, and stop operations at active plants.
（２）Ensure education to obtain accurate information about radioactivity.
（３）In Japan, recognize the right to relocate to escape high levels of radiation, and take concrete
steps to implement the Law to Support Child Victims of Disaster (2012), to ensure that children
can live in safe environments.
（４）In Japan, set radiation safety standards for children, as they are particularly susceptible toeffects of radiation.
（５）In Japan, with a clear recognition of the health risks from the accident at the Fukushima
Number One Nuclear Power Station, implement ongoing health surveys, and ensure support
for victims’ health in the future.

24Children■

respectfullySpecified Non-Profit Organization Meeting on child-rearing in the 21st century, Suzuka
Specified Non-Profit Organization Meeting on child-rearing in the 21st century, Suzuka
Specified Non-Profit Organization Shigotokobo Popolo
Children's Human Rights Network, Gifu
Children's Forum
Tempaku Play Park Association
Empowerment Mie
Specified Non-Profit Organization, Gifu, NPO Center
Specified Non-Profit Organization Child Support NPO Mamekko
Specified Non-Profit Organization Children and Town Network
Specified Non-Profit Organization Network for the Child Abuse Prevention, Aichi
Specified Non-Profit Organization National Children's Welfare Center
Specified Non-Profit Organization Lotus Root village of exciting network
UniversalDesign･StepNPO) Japan First Aid Society
conpeitou
kodomo NPO
Kasamatu town for Children
Civic Institute for Civil Society
MIE NPO Network Centeryosami-playpark by littlehouseaichi forest kindergerten network
INTEGRATION ACADEMY
specified nonprofit corporationShimin Forum 21 NPO Centre
Association of Yokkaichi NPOs
Universal Working Center
CHILDLINE-AICHI Specified Nonprofit Corporation
CHILDLINE MIE Network
Mie Children NPO Support Center
Children Support Suzuka
Yokkaichi Middle Children Station
Experience Plaza☆Children Space Yokkaichi
Baby teeth Save Network
Lilio Environmental Forum
gifukidsna(kizuna)siensitu
Asian Health Institute
Democratic School Manje
Africa Japan Forum
Work Style DesignChildren FirstChild Poverty Action Osaka
Specified Nonprofit Corporation Sento Tarui
NISHII Kazuhiro
Shoko kuga










































25

Children
















































CHIKAKO HIGUCHI
matsue hisako
Yosinori Usami
SHIHO KUDO
Rimini Kato
yukiko tao
Shoichi Imaida
Sumire Kanda
HIROE TAKAHASHIHIGA AYA
Jinin Orokayoshikawakyohei
HITOMI ITO
Eiichi Takisato hitosi
YUKUKO SOGABE
MITA KEIKO
Megumi Motooka
Aono. Kiriko
Tsuyama Naoko
tamagawakaori
Masayoshi Iyoda
Hiroaki Watanabe
Yuka Yakushiji
Yuki Hisatomi
NAKAO SAYURI
School of Education, University of Leicester
MaruyamaMasako
Yuka Kondo
Okuno Yoshiko
KAWAI Shinji
Yousuke SumiSUZUKO TAIRA
furuichi takuma
uchiyama haruka
yoshimasakonishi
Kimihiko Murakami
yuji aizawa
SAKIKO BABAYUI Nishino
Noriko Namba
YOSHIMITSU OGINUMA
terutsugu katsumata
Naoki Izumi
Taro Kojima
Sakuma Hirohide Office26

Childrenmasayuki sugita

27

Environment
To the Leaders and People of G7 Member States:
Proposals for Pursuit of Genuine Prosperity through River Basin Thinking
We the undersigned are members of citizens’ groups in the Tokai area, host to theIse-Shima Summit. Despite our various standpoints, we have united to advocate for the “Ise Bay
Initiative,” aiming to realize a sustainable and productive future based on river basin(bio-regional) thinking. Presenting the following experience and good practices, we propose to theleaders and the people of G7 member states to share the idea of Ise Bay Initiative and work
together for a better future.
“River basin thinking” means viewing the entire area of rivers flowing into the Ise Bay as one
bio-region, and addressing issues within that region not on a reactive piecemeal basis but withthe vision of integrated local development to enrichen the ecological value of the entire river basinarea.
Ise Bay basin communities have kept ideal relationship with nature and maintained
their livelihood by utilizing the natural resources in co-existence with abundant forests, large andfertile plains, and rich and clear rivers like Kiso, Nagara, and Ibi rivers.
However, as seen in the example of Yokkaichi Air Pollution which occurred after the
post-war high economic growth period, air and water pollution that contaminated air and waters
in the area severely affected human health and damaged fishery resources and as the result
threatened people’s livelihoods. The pollution caused by Yokkaichi Petrochemical Complex built
in northwest coast of Ise Bay deprived many people of their right to a healthy and safe living
environment. In 1972, after years of campaigning to relevant authorities with the support ofvarious groups, , the victims won in the Yokkaichi Air Pollution Lawsuit, and achieving a large
stride to overcome the pollution problem.
It is essential to hand down the history and experiences of Yokkaichi Air Pollution to thenext generation, to work on the future environmental improvement, and to create cities whereenvironmental preservation and industrial development are entirely compatible. In order toactualize those, the Tokai area has a heavy responsibility to introduce the information andtechnologies both nationwide and worldwide on the bases of ‘no more environmental destruction’spirit gained from its experience.
Many current issues are related to the degradation of the river basin environment:
population decrease and rapidly aging society, urbanization caused by excessive development,
population concentration in urban areas, depopulation in mountainous regions, and developmentof artificial tideland along coasts, weakened relationship between nature and human livelihoods
28

Environment
and abandoned/deteriorated natural resources.
Another problem is floating debris washed ashore on the coasts of Ise Bay. Apparently
12,000 tons of floating debris per year flows into rivers in the basin. Half of it is washed ashoreon the coasts in Toba city, one of top fishing spots symbolizing the prosperous Ise Bay basin, and aquarter on Nasanohama beach in Toshi Island. The debris badly affects the fishing places.
Since around 2000, a large-scale cleanup project and other activities mainly led by NPOs
have been carried out with administrative organs, corporations, and citizens along upper, mid,and lower streams in the Ise Bay basin areas. These activities are needed to continue andspread wider.
In 2012, ‘The 22nd Century Nasanohama Project’ was advocated by environmentalgroups in Mie prefecture in cooperation with the citizens and other environmental groups in Ise
Bay basin areas in Gifu and Aichi prefectures to retrieve the rich Ise Bay by protecting
environment and natural resources.
The environmental preservation groups of forest
maintenance, community development, rivers and seashores, as well as citizens, corporations,students, youths, children, administrative organs, and so on, enthusiastically participate in theactivities regardless of their positions.
The debris problem cannot be solved simply by ‘picking up trash’. For its solution, theefforts by civic society are indispensable to re-establish an ideal relationship between the natureand human livings and the lifestyle enjoying ‘genuine wealth’ accumulated by utilizing natural
resources and blessings from nature, as we used to have in the past.
These projects are applicable as the methods to achieve many of SDGs, Sustainable
Development Goals. Therefore, we introduce them to international societies as ‘Ise Bay
Initiative’ and make proposals for specific activities.
Ten Proposals for Implementing the Principles of the Ise Bay Initiative
1. Recognizing that under global environmental issues there lie the present problems such as
scrambles for natural resources and separation or thinned relationship between nature andhuman living caused by respective region’s social/economic background, each G7 member
nation should try to take the initiative to improve conditions for sharing knowledge.
２．Each G7 member nation must establish ways to utilize natural resources without degrading
them, based on the bio-region unit beyond administrative boundaries, with appreciation foreach natural environment, cultural diversity based on each natural environment, and using
the unique traditional wisdom of citizens in each local community.
3. While the bio-region is generally determined by natural environment in each region/country, ariver basin is a typical unit of bioregion in Japan. It is important for each nation to fully
understand its national land and regional climates so that it can grasp how bioregions are
determined. The G7 member states should initiate understanding and researches as to theirown bioregions.
4. Under the developments in ‘bioregions’ all over the world, economic development was given
the highest priority and human rights and dignity of life were neglected, as seen in the exampleof Yokkaichi Air Pollution. In order to prevent recurrence of such a history in the countries inprocess of economic development, working out a policy about regional development is required.
The G7 member states should try to appeal to the world so that drafting and decision process ofthe policy are made through the conversation with civic societies and other stakeholders in thebioregions.
29

Environment

5. In the Ise Bay bio-region, representatives from the upper, mid, and lower stream subregions
and with neighbouring basin areas have actively exchanged ideas to create sustainable local
communities. Also, ‘22nd Century Nasanohama Project’ was introduced as an excellent
example at UNESCO World Conference on Education for Sustainable Development held in
Nagoya city, Aichi prefecture, in 2014. The G7 member states should put effort on collecting,sharing, and visualizing these kinds of examples for promotion of the SDGs adopted by United
Nations.
６. Tokai area, where Ise-Shima Summit is held, had 10th Conference of the Parties to theConvention on Biological Diversity (COP10) in 2010 and adopted ‘Aichi Target’ and ‘Nagoya
Protocol.’ The G7 member states should make their best political efforts for actualization of
the target and protocol and for their farther development by reconfirming the meanings ofthem.
７. The Tokai area, where Ise-Shima Summit is held, cross-prefecturally promotes environmental
preservation activities using the concept of the bioregion which shares Ise and Mikawa Bays.
The G7 member states should share the results of those activities and put efforts in spreading
similar kind of activities in each nation.
8.

To raise youths who succeed forming of sustainable regional communities is the mostimportant theme in achievement of SDGs. For the actualization of ‘Aichi-Nagoya Declaration,’the outcome document of the UNESCO World Conference on ESD held in 2014, the G7 member
states should mind, understand, and make economic support for the ESD activities andinternational youth exchanges regardless of the level of development.

９. The G7 member states should make efforts to play each supplemental role to support local
environmental protection activities by reconfirming the principle that the citizens, who arefamiliar to natural environment in each local region, are the subject to solve the environmental
problems as a regional group in the global society.
10. We request the G7 member states to promptly deal with the man-made problems above allenvironmental issues in regional areas.
Natural resources are demolished and plundered in local areas all over the world, and thesocieties in those areas suffer a loss from the serious situation. The G7 member states should
diligently establish and propose the new methodology for effective utilization and preservationof regional natural resources, regardless of the level of development, to prevent thedeterioration of the situation.

30

Environment■ respectfully















































Clear Water Project (General Incorporated Association)
22nd Century Nasanohama Project Committee
IPG (Industrial Waste Professional Group)
Save Our Sea Campaign Headquarters
Akabane Initiative
Society for the Protection of Inabe’s Satoyama
Inabe City Civic Action Center
Ibi NPO Liaison Council
Weekend Farming Initiative
Kasugai Partnership Conference for Ecological City Planning
Students for Free Tibet Japan Mie chapter
Mimatsurishu Nagoya
Biodiversity Informaition Box
Wind and Earth Volunteer Association
Lillio Environmeital ForumIse and Mikawa Bay Basin Network
Ise Bay Restoration Conference
Reliable Inheritance Support Center (General Incorporated Association)
Koshi Province Natural Energy Promotion Council
Innovative Design Cue, Inc.
Planning by Dialogue for Dialogue Co.
Environmental Volunteer Circle Baby Turtle Corps
Next Step Study Group for Environmental Education
Toyama Eco Plaza Network for Environmental Education
Gifu University Education for Sustainable Development Qualia
Mount Kinkazan Supporters
Asian Health InstituteKonan Fireflies Association
Mountain Forestry Research InstituteYokkaichi Regeneration ‘Pollution Class for Citizens’
Shonai River Adapt Clover
Shonai River Navigation and Walking Association
Association for Restoring the Shinkawa River
Seino Environmental NPO Network
Dachibokubora Nature Society
Chubu Regional Centre of Expertise on Education for Sustainable Development /RCE
Chubu
Nagara River Culture Forum
Nagara River Basin Children’s Council
Committee for Forests around the Source of the Toki and Shonai Rivers
Toki River and Shonai River Basin Network
Clean Up Campaign in FUJIMAE
Wa Community (NPO)・bigawa Mizumizu Eco Station (NPO)
Ibigawa Softball Association (NPO)NS-Net (NPO)
Gifu NPO Center (NPO)31

Environment



















































Gifu Ibi Fun Living School (NPO)
Gifu Tree and Forest School (NPO)
Circle Asuka (NPO)Smile Association for the Spread of Asking Questions (NPO)Hometown Tanigumi (NPO)
Voluntary Neighbors (NPO)
Maamu (NPO)
Community Development Network Ikeda (NPO)
Community Building (NPO)Mie NPO Network Center (NPO)
Universal Employment Center (NPO)
Association to Promote Friendship and Goodwill with Russia (NPO)
Association of Old Men in Kaizu（NPO)
Gifu Fun Homebuilding Study Group (NPO)
Sochikukai (NPO)
Association for Cleaning Up the Kanare River (NPO)Ibi, the Home of Edible Wild Plants (NPO)
Yokkaichi NPO Association
Civic Society Research Institute (NPO)Society for the Study of Coexistence with Nature (NPO)Forests and Information Technology (NPO)
Technical Research Institute of the Forest & Waterside (NPO）Forest Life Design Research Institute (NPO)
Sento Tarui (NPO)Ogaki City Recreation Association (NPO)Regional Future Support Center (NPO)
Yamatagaike Society (NPO)Ibi Natural Environment Rangers (NPO)
Satoyama Association (NPO)Green Wind (NPO)
Africa Japan Forum
Fujimae Ramsar Society
Omotehama Network (NPO)Horikawa Machi Net (NPO)
Japan Xeriscape Desing Association(NPO)
Network for the Renunciation of War
Moegisha
Kiso Sansen Forum
People’s Community (NPO)
Tree Culture Research Lab
HUTAN GroupUmigame Network
NPO Ai-Chikyu Platform
NPO Yokkaichi Umigame Hozonkai
Tadasunomori Research Institution of Environmental Education
Takumi Ito
Mituo Ito
Yoshikazu Usami
Kyoko Shimizu
32

Environment










































Yukiko Sogabe
Naoko Tsuyama
Kazuhiro Nishii
Keiko Mita
Yasuo Inagaki
Shiho Kudo
Shoichi Imaida
Tomoyo Arai
Sumire Kanda
Naoki Masuhara
Ichiro Muto
Jinin Oroka
Maki Saji
Yumiko Takeuchi
Mikito Fujimori
Tomoko Hoshino
Shiho Matsuura
Yoshihiro Okada
Kazuko Okamoto
Akemi Mitsuishi
Takako Kuki
Hisayoshi Tsuji
Mihiro Ito
Satoshi Teramoto
Taizo Hayashi
Hitomi Tanizaki
Kinichiro Nakamura
Naomi Epstein
Ryo Sugita
Toru Tanigawa
Yuki Hisatomi
NAKAO SAYURI
Toru Sato
RYOKO TOYAMA
Tatsuo Kishi
Mituo Onishi
Chitose Mishima
Nobuyuki Takenaga
Mamoru Nakagawa
Hitomi Okamoto

33Youth 1

Policy Brief for G7
Japan Youth Platform for Sustainability
Japan Youth Platform for Sustainability (JYPS) is a platform for young people and organisations based in Japan toengage in the UN and other intergovernmental systems. The process of developing this position paper was open,
inclusive, and grounded on democracy. JYPS hosted the G7 Youth Summit on 22nd May 2016 supported by theJapan Civil Society Platform on 2016 G7 Ise-Shima Summit, GCAP Japan, and Mie University. The adopted 2016 G7
youth summit declaration has two pillars: G7 Analysis for reviewing the past eight years of Communique, andWorking Reports in regard to youth and 10 thematic issues and priorities on G7 and meetings.
I. G7 Analysis
We would like to emphasise that the way G7 addresses youth falls short in effectively doing so by missing themeaningful engagement of young people at all stages of policy processes from designing, implementation,
monitoring, and reviewing. We call on G7 countries to adopt the Major Groups as the institutionalised mechanism
for stakeholders to partake in G7 summits.
II. Thematic Issues
Child Health Care
- All policies related to children should set full realisation of the Convention on the Rights of Children (CRC)
as a goal.
- Within the health related aid, Child Health Care should be prioritised within Universal Health Coverage. Itis essential to provide quantitative and qualitative aids for strong nursery institutions protecting the rightsof children. Such provisions can be a part of promoting quality infrastructure.
- The aid for Child Health Care should set higher standard than WHO requirements.
Environment, Climate Change and Biodiversity
G7 countries should commit to promote energy efficiency, phasing out fossil fuels and nuclear power, andachieve the 100% renewable energy society as soon as possible (or by 2050).
- Introduce Ecological Tax Reform, pricing the social and environmental negative externalities, todiscourage the economic activities which impede sustainability. This will create new liquidity for financing
and enable the environment to actually reach SDGs and Paris Agreement goals.
- Address the safety in the process of Reactor decommissioning, which has been neglected.
- The importance of technology to promulgate renewable energies is missing in the outcome of the G7
Energy meeting in Kitakyushu. This should be mentioned.
Partnership (PPP, Multi-stakeholder mechanism)- Institutionalise the multi-stakeholder participation at all level and stages of the policy forming process. We
recommend to use the Major Groups system.
- Public Private Partnership should be held accountable and transparent. All partnership should be
scrutinised to measure its social, environmental, and economic impacts and community based
implications.

Japan Youth Platform for Sustainability
japanyouthplatform@gmail.com / http://japanyouthplatform.wix.com/jyps

Youth 1

Education for Sustainable Development- In acknowledgement that education plays an indispensable role in the pursuance and creation of asustainable and peaceful society, it is recommended that all G7 countries advocate and mainstream
Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) at all levels.
- The process of Implementation, Monitoring, and Follow-up and Review should respect the autonomy ofeach institution. This requires the reform of evaluation system of teachers and schools.
- It is necessary to build the ESD platform for all sectors to engage, so that learners have opportunities tostudy on from variety backgrounds.
Food Security and Hunger- Address zero hunger which builds upon structural countermeasure grounded on long-term
implementation- Promote food security and sustainable and responsible supply chain by strongly committing to actions
against malnutrition through Nutrition for Growth and governance of tenure for land, fisheries, and forests.
Syrian Crisis- Protect the asylum seekers from Syria in international standard and to expand eligibility to apply for
Refugee resettlements.
Youth Participation- G7 should host a “G7 youth and children summit” as an official part of the summit, and its outcome shallbe fed in outcome of G7 summit. It is critical to ensure the administrative and budgetary support for G7children and youth summit.
- Promote the youth engagement in decision-making process, For example, local youth parliament can beone of ideas. Such initiatives are actually implemented in European countries.
Peace- It is essential to ensure the freedom of movement of people, knowledges, and ideas, especially among
young people. This should be further promoted by expanding exchange programmes publically financed.
- In reconciliation process, there must be safe, inclusive spaces for marginalised people to actually voice
their needs.
Regional Inequality- Ensure the regional sustainability in objectives of development aid which ultimately aims to enable local
ecological areas can sustain without excessive dependency on and influence of international trade. Thiscan be operationalised through the “locally produced and consumed”, ethical products, fair trade, andamong others.
- Reduce inequalities among and within cities and between urban and rural areas to achieve the social
cohesion and equitable society. It is necessary to transfer fiscal, financial, and administrative capacity tolocal authorities. This will change the paradigm of urban-rural dichotomy and enhance the Integrated
Territorial Development..
Disaster Risk Reduction- Reflecting the Sendai Framework, the G7 should also allocate adequate commitments to human-induced
disasters in addition to natural ones, including pollution.
- Building Infrastructure should go through the assessment in terms of three dimensions of sustainable
development. It should not undermine the local biodiversity.
- Enabling environment means that local authorities and young people can collaborate, ensuring theownership of both activities. It is necessary to set the guidance for governments on how to create
multi-stakeholder participation in its recovery.

Japan Youth Platform for Sustainability
japanyouthplatform@gmail.com / http://japanyouthplatform.wix.com/jyps

Youth 1■

respectfully




















Japan Youth Platform for Sustainability
Climate Youth Japan
Wake Up JapanIFMSAHeartsUnited YouthESD Youth JapanA SEED JAPAN
Youth Beyond Disasters Japan
P782 project
PEASE BOAT
Japan-Korea Student Exchange
youth ending hunger
Sento-Tarui
Oxfam Japan
Nagoya Youth Conference
Jinin Oroka
Yosinori Usami

Japan Youth Platform for Sustainability
japanyouthplatform@gmail.com / http://japanyouthplatform.wix.com/jyps

Globalization and Health

Civil Society calls on G7 countries to reduce health disparities through promoting“Health in All” Policies
Introduction
We, the undersigned representatives of civil society, are concerned at how
marginalized people in a broad range of developing countries have been negatively
affected by economic globalization and economic development.
Here we outline a case encountered through our support for health among a Dalit(outcaste) community in Southern India living close to the recently developed
Special Economic Zone (SEZ). While contributing to national economic growth, thisindustrial development has aggravated hardships faced by the Dalit people.
We also examine Japan’s historical experience of the citizen’s movement against
Yokkaichi Pollution, to identify lessons for addressing current threats to health,particularly in developing countries. At the same time, we consider appropriate andeffective roles for NGOs in promoting health of marginalized groups in developing
countries.

Tamil Nadu Special Economic Zone (SEZ) degrades Dalit farmland and forest
The SEZ in Tamil Nadu was commenced in 2007 under supervision of the State
Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu (SIPCOT). The SEZ was sitednear to a pre-existing Dalit community and their formerly rich natural forest. The
forest has been managed for over 200 years by the Dalits as a common resource
providing traditional medicines, grazing for goats and cattle, and ground water for
agriculture. However, since development of the SEZ, the common forest has been
destroyed, the ground water which used to naturally irrigate Dalit fields has been
blocked by a wide road, and there are no more medicinal plants.
Since 2008, a year after the start of the SEZ, a French corporation has been
operating a factory in the Zone. With the support of local and national NGOs as wellas academics, the Dalit community filed a case against SIPCOT at the high court of
Madras, demanding the factory stop operations. With the help of French experts,
37

Globalization and Healththey also filed a case against the French corporation in a French court. However, theDalits lost both cases.
Through its health and community development work, a Japanese NGO, the Asian
Health Institute (AHI), has a longstanding relationship with the area, and has
conducted three study tours there since 2013. Over the past three years, AHI staff
members have conducted dialogue and hearings on the SEZ issue with local
residents, people’s organizations, and local NGOs. AHI verified the community’s
claims regarding degradation of their livelihood and living environment – basic
determinants of health – by field visits to the affected area.

Call for global action
In its 1946 Constitution, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared:“Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not
merely the absence of disease or infirmity. The enjoyment of the highest
attainable standard of health is one of the fundamental rights of every humanbeing without distinction of race, religion, political belief, economic or social
condition.”
Further, in 1978, the Alma-Ata Declaration adopted by the World Health Assembly,
hosted by WHO and UNICEF, and signed by many countries and international
agencies, set the goal of “health for all the people of the world by the year 2000.” Inorder to achieve the goal, it emphasized community participation and basic healthservices such as immunization.
From that time on, national governments, international agencies and civil society
organizations have taken many steps to promote health for all. However, while
many improvements have been achieved, more new threats have appeared. In the
shadow of economic development, we are seeing negative impacts on people’s healtharound the world.
In 2008, the final report of WHO’s Commission on Social Determinants of Healthagain confirmed that an individual’s health is determined by his/her social
38

Globalization and Healthconditions, and called for further efforts to “close the gap,” ensuring health equity.
In order to close the gap, we must address the gross inequities of power andresources between and within countries and communities. Economic development
too must contribute to closing rather than widening the gaps in health.
During the mid 1950s, the period of rapid economic growth in Japan,
industrialization affected citizens’ lives and health nationwide. New words such as

kogai (pollution) were coined. In Yokkaichi, the petrochemical industry, promoted bynational economic policy and actively supported by the city government, polluted
seawater. The local fishery industry was badly affected. Before long, the industry
further polluted the air, with severe health consequences for Yokkaichi residents.
As in the case of Yokkaichi petrochemical industry, economic development is often
based on inequitable distribution of power, resources and capital. When thishappens, economic development is achieved at the cost of negative effects on the
lives and health of groups who are already marginalized in their society. This is also
the case for the Dalit community affected by Special Economic Zone in South India.
In Yokkaichi, citizens affected by pollution worked together to speak out for theirright to a healthy living environment, supported by a network of social activists,
academics and others, demanding relief for the victims and regulation of polluting
industries. The movement managed to call the polluting corporations to account andachieve government regulations to reduce pollution in Japan. In recent years, indiscussion of “Business and Human Rights” at the United Nations and other fora,
various actors have pointed out the social responsibilities of multi-national
corporations, and demanded stronger measures to ensure they are accountable,
under the rubric of human rights due diligence.
Health is one of the significant results of social and economic development.
Achieving Health for All entails addressing social inequity, and calls for Health in
All – cooperation among actors in all sectors, including trade and industry.
We therefore call on the G7 governments to take the following actions:

Reduce health disparities through promoting Health in All Policies,emphasizing that government objectives are best achieved when all sectors
39

Globalization and Healthinclude health and well-being as a key component of policy development.


Especially in developing countries, address health disparities throughpromoting Health in All Policies, including ensuring that multinational
corporations originating in G7 countries implement human rights due
diligence.

40

Globalization and Health■respectfullyAsian Health Institute

Bridges in Public Health

Save the Children Japan

Africa Japan Forum

Ugoku/Ugokasu (GCAP Japan)



G7 Summit Health NGO Network in Japan



Anti ｰ war NetworkCivic Institute for Civil Society

MIE NPO Network Center

Association of Yokkaichi NPOs

Nagoya NGO Center

Sento-Tarui

Universal Working Center



PSI Tokyo OfficeKyoko Shimizu

Yoko McLennan

Masako Tanaka

NISHII KazuhiroYosinori Usami

UI Shiori Rikkyo University



Shiho Kudo



SATO MARI

Shoichi ImaidaSumire Kanda



HIGA AYA

Jinin Oroka

Kitaoku JunkoEiichi TakiMITA KEIKO



Nobuki FujimotoTsuyama Naoko

Mieko Kurokawa



Masayoshi Iyoda



MASAHIKO SHIMA
41

Globalization and Health

Higo Yusuke

Hiroyuki TsuyamaChiho Nakamura



Minoru MatsuzakiSeishi Yamanaka

Sachiyo Fujita

Kumiko Nagai



Kousuke Furusawa

42

Climate change, biodiversity and disaster prevention

Citizens’ Ise-Shima Summit
Recommendation from the sectional meeting for climatechange, biodiversity and disaster prevention

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, adopted in September 2015, names
climate change, loss of biodiversity, and worsening risk of disasters as current key
global issues. At the Ise-Shima Summit, the first G7 summit since the adoption of theAgenda 2030, it is crucial to recognize that the G7 nations continue to place a heavy
burden on the global environment to gain huge wealth. Based on this recognition, wecall on the leaders of the G7 nations to disseminate a clear, ambitious, and responsible
message for natural and environmental sustainability so that every human being onearth, including future generations, may live with security and dignity.
Climate change, biodiversity, and disaster prevention are individually important global
issues, and they are also closely interrelated. If climate change becomes drastic,
habitats will change, raising the risk of species extinction. This would makeclimate-related disasters even more devastating. Losing biodiversity means damaging
the ecosystem’s capacity to absorb carbon dioxide, an element that triggers climatechange. Further, the natural environment’s ability to mitigate risk of disaster would
also be compromised. Frequent serious disasters would inhibit measures against
climate change, and the natural ecosystem would be exposed to a higher risk withdamage exceeding its capacity to recover.
On the other hand, if we work on these three issues we can contribute to protecting thepoor from various risks and rectifying injustice, and enable us to hand over abundantnatural environment and resources to future generations. In recent years, theinternational community has concluded various treaties to protect the environment,
including the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, the Aichi Biodiversity Target andthe Nagoya Protocol, and the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Prevention. It is now
time to put them into practice. To ensure that efforts in one sector complement rather
than compromise efforts in other sectors calls for broad cross-sectoral collaboration.

43

Climate change, biodiversity and disaster prevention

With the above issues in mind, the sectional meeting for climate change, biodiversity,and disaster prevention makes the following recommendations to the G7 nations
assembled at the Ise-Shima Summit.

Climate change An intention to form a flow of funds that matches with the “2 degrees Celsius
target” in relation to the global average temperature increase since thepre-industrial revolution must be indicated. Rather than high-risk, concentrated
and large-scale energy production based on fossil fuel and nuclear power, funds
must be invested in small-scale decentralized and local energy production based on
renewable sources.

With regard to the quality infrastructure investment, make sure that it follows the“2 degrees Celsius target”. In addition, coal power plant must be eliminated fromthe discussion. Coal power plants discharge immense amounts of carbon dioxide,
sulfur oxide, nitrogen oxide, PM2.5, mercury and other pollutants. Even if a highly
efficient and low-emission technology were used, it is clear that it would not meetthe “ 2°C target”.

In order to achieve the Paris Agreement’s target of zero greenhouse gas emissions
by the second half of the century, we must improve energy efficiency, end relianceon nuclear power and fossil fuels, and shift to 100% renewable energy sources. To
avoid compromising biodiversity and raising risk of disasters through large-scale
operations, we must shift to a consensus-based process of promoting locally led
small-scale energy initiatives.

Biodiversity
In mitigating climate change and adapting to it, and upon disaster prevention andmitigation, the “Ecosystem Based Approach” which effectiveness is internationallyacknowledged must be proactively adopted. This is a focal point for achieving a highquality infrastructure.

Within the context of climate change, energy, and quality infrastructure investment,
full consideration must be given to the local society and ecosystem regarding theimpact caused by energy and infrastructure projects. Expected risks must be
explained to the residents, and a structure that includes participatory agreement
process, environmental assessment, monitoring after construction, risk responses,
and information disclosure must be built. It is necessary to think for whom theinfrastructure investment would be, from a long-term perspective.

44

Climate change, biodiversity and disaster prevention

Disaster prevention and mitigationIn a discussion for high quality infrastructure development, citizens’ participation
and agreement must be respected, and sufficient care that responds to various local
needs must be provided to develop infrastructure. To achieve sustainable
development and raise local resilience and reconstruction, we must find ways tomake full use of the local climate, culture, lifestyle, and identity.



The standard concept of disaster response must be “disaster mitigation”. The “green
infrastructure” which utilizes the natural ecosystem functions must be actively
adopted to carry out infrastructure development which takes selective and complex
use of national property into account. Within the context of quality infrastructure
investment, these are the points which must be deeply focused on.

45

Climate change, biodiversity and disaster prevention■ respectfullyNPO. Japan Xeriscape Desing Association. Takamatsu.

Africa Japan ForumMIE NPO Network Center

Universal Shurou Center

Association of Yokkaichi NPOs

Civic Institute for Civil Society

UniversalDesignstepUniversalDesign･Step

Biodiversity Information Boxs



Sento-Taruigreenumbrella

Kyoko Shimizu

Jinin Oroka

Tsuyama Naoko

46

Regional Disparity

Statement by Civil Society Organizations from the Ise Shima RegiononRegional Disparity
To the assembled leaders of the Group of Seven (G7):
We, representatives of civil society in the region hosting the G7 Ise Shima Summit, are deeply awareof connections between global and local issues. We hereby state our position as adopted at the Ise
Shima Civil Society Summit on 24 May 2016, and call on the assembled leaders to act urgently torectify current international and domestic regional disparities.

Rapid Implementation of Policies to Rectify Regional Disparities
1.

Situation of Rural and Urban Regions in Japan

In agricultural, fishing, and forestry regions of Japan, many villages are facing the threat ofextinction. In Japan, primary industries can no longer thrive. Consumers now demand low price,efficiency, and economy, and that demand is met by products from overseas. Farming, forestry andfishing industries have further declined as few young people take up these professions, instead
moving to urban areas in search of employment. In terms of Japan’s river basin geography, theupland level has become degraded, and outlying villages are on the verge of dying out. As a result,upland forests have lost their capacity for watershed cultivation and flood prevention, causing
flooding and other negative effects on life in the mid and lower levels and altering river delta
ecosystems.
Meanwhile, due to over-industrialization, urban environments are being polluted and destroyed.
Urban communities are disintegrating; many urban dwellers do not know what their neighbors look
like. Further, urbanites suffer from the stress of overwork and lack of communication. Further, as
the urban employment structure has become fluid and insecure, poverty and inequality haveintensified.
2.

Regional Disparity on a Global Scale

Most industrialized countries, including Japan, import overseas resources for low cost and efficiency.
In particular, they depend on resources from developing countries. This dependence, and the current
47Regional Disparity
trends of foreign investment to maintain cheap overseas supply, negatively impacts developing
countries. Labor migrants in developing countries face low wages and severe working conditions, andbuyers control the markets, keeping product prices low, and maintaining global inequality. Financesfrom ODA (our tax money) and private investment indirectly support the global economic system,
and further aggravate these North-South problems. Meanwhile, in industrialized countries, as inJapan, primary industries are in decline, leaving many people jobless.
Thus, these serious problems mutually link and connect urban and rural areas, and developed anddeveloping nations.
3.

Causes and Solutions

Regional disparities arise when one side decides the rules of interaction and imposes them on theother side. In pursuit of the low cost, efficiency, and economy demanded by urban and developed
country markets, the resources of rural areas and developing countries are overexploited. At thesame time, the residents of urban areas and developed countries are also exhausted by theiruntenable lifestyle.
To change this negative cycle, we need to change the exploitative structure of excessive mutual
dependence and reestablish an appropriate level of interdependence and regional autonomy. Eachregion has its own resources. The citizens of each region must build sustainable societies using the
local resources of their own region. In Japan’s case, this means establishing a sustainable eco-social
system for each river basin area. Each level of the river basin system has its own resources;
circulating those resources within the river basin area would facilitate sustainable and peacefulregional development without external plundering.
Various sustainable grassroots alternatives are gaining popularity: fair finance, fair trade, ethicalproduction and local consumption all offer ways to prevent social and ecological problems. This trend
towards conscious consumption supports efforts to redress regional disparities.
4.

From the Perspective of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

The 10th SDG is to “Reduce inequality within and among countries.” As this goal implies, the issue of
global disparities must be addressed at the level of the society as a whole. Poverty and hunger areconcentrated in developing countries. However, regional disparities

of education and genderequality; partly due to conventional customs and beliefs, some children cannot attend school, and48

Regional Disparity
there are few female elected officials in many regions. Local autonomy is necessary to address such
non-economic regional disparities too.
5.

What We Can Do (Citizens’ Declaration)

Based on the above understanding of current regional disparities, we representatives of civil society
in the Ise Shima region, pledge to undertake the following actions:i.

Support development with concern for the pre-existing ecologically sound economy of eachregion;ii.

Live with a conscious vision of how our lifestyles affect resources, and to raise our voices inmanaging local resources, supplemented by resources from other regions;iii.

Build autonomous regions, so that all people wherever they are born and raised can live inpeace and true wealth, without victimizing others through exploitative structures.

6.

Call to Action to Leaders of the G7 Nations

We call on all governments of the G7 nations, and particularly the government of the host nation,
Japan, to take the following steps to achieve the vision of the citizens’ declaration.
i.

Reconsider and avoid hasty ratification of multilateral trade treaties such as the TTP, TTiP, and
TiSA that promote further economic globalization.

ii.

Rectify the problems of overseas investment, promote fair finance and work towards
introducing a global solidarity tax.

iii.

Address problems stemming from current north-south inequalities, adopt policies to effectively
promote sustainable local economies and fair trade between local economies.

iv.

Raising energy self-sufficiency on a river basin (or similar area) level would reduce wastefulproduction and consumption of energy, reduce the environmental burden, and promote both
local employment and effective use of local resources. To achieve these goals, set energy policies
that plan withdrawal from nuclear and fossil fuels and a shift to local production and49

Regional Disparity
consumption.
v.

To achieve local and regional self-reliance, plan for locally-based governance and education.
Change the structure of local government administration to allow it to fully reflect the will of
local citizens. In the field of education, revamp schooling and school curricula to promote
human resources for the local region, and build a system that encourages the direct
participation of community members.

vi.

Address gender imbalances on a local level, according to the local situation. In particular,
promote women’s equal access to paid work and end gender-based discrimination. Also takesteps to ensure women’s political participation, such as by establishing a quota for women’sseats in local government.

50

Regional Disparity■ respectfullyHecchara NettoNPO Senkyo TaruiAnti-war NetworkCivic Institute for Civil Society

MIE NPO Network Center

Association of Yokkaichi NPOs

Universal Working Center

Asian Health InstituteNagoya NGO CenterStudents for a Free Tibet Japan Mie chapter

Africa Japan ForumWork Style DesignJapan Youth Platform for Sustainability



Kyoko Shimizu



NISHII KazuhiroYosinori Usami



Takuya KikuchiShiho Kudo

Shoichi ImaidaSumire Kanda



Tomoyo AraiJunko Kitaoku

Jinin Oroka

Junko Kitaoku

junya hatanaka

Eiichi TakiJunichi Nakazawa

sato hitosiTsuyama Naoko

Masayoshi Iyoda

51

Youth 2

Entire declaration of the “Tokai Global Summit”
The Tokai Global Summit was held on Saturday May 21 with the initiative ofstudents.
Four sectional meetings were organized under the theme of environment, refugees,
education, and health and sanitation, so that participants could discuss about their
future in 2050.
Today, we would like to make a report of the event.
Let us start by sharing the findings from each sectional meeting.
Environment
Our society is surrounded by the natural environment, and therefore exists byreceiving various ecosystem services. For this reason, we are responsible for making
a payment for the ecosystem services.
We, the youth who will assume the future, must be aware that we benefit from theecosystem services in creating a relationship between the environment and society,and thus are committed to communicate this fact to others toward 2050. In addition,
we commit ourselves to take actions for implementing an environment tax system.
As for the tax system, we recommend two types of tax; tax to be imposed on theprivate sector for giving burden to the environment, and the “Furusato hometown
environment tax”. This hometown environment tax is a type of tax which thecitizens pay for environmental preservation of a certain region. In return, citizens
will be entitled to receive environmentally sound products or an opportunity forgreen tourism.
As part of the activities to promote the tax system suggested earlier, we will carryout a campaign for collecting signatures of individuals and private companies,
organize marches and events to raise awareness, and use media and SNS to further
disseminate the information.
RefugeesWith regard to refugee issues in 2050, we hereby declare to realize the principle of“creating a society in which refugees can be self-sustaining and sustainably co-live
with others.”
One-way aid, which is the standard way of assistance in modern society, has
limitations in various fields as well as in financial aspects. When thinking of the
future, support that we provide must be sustainable. In other words, we believe52Youth 2that it is important to acknowledge refugees’ rights, enable them to be
self-sustaining, and build a society in which people with diverse background can
co-exist equally.
Especially in Japan where low birth rate and rapid aging is observed, when we
look upon the future in 2050, it is essential to make use of the third country
resettlement system and willingly accept refugees as an important labor force. It isalso significant to provide education on cultural competence both to refugees andlong term residents in Japan to promote understanding and acceptance of different
cultures. By doing so, we will be able to pursue a society that acknowledges thepotential skills of each refugee.
It is also crucial to establish a new local society which benefits from knowledge tosupport refugees and to live together.
Education
The “power to live” which is a requisite for the future generation in 2050 is to “beable to question oneself and derive an answer on one’s own”. In response to this, thepresent generation is being taught of things without an answer. To provide
education that helps people create values, and enable them to make judgements
based on their own experience rather than being affected by information are thetype ofhuman-like skills which is called for today.

In order to develop such skills, we would like the education provided in 2050 to be
like the following. First, “learning through actual experience”. An education thatallows people to actually experience it and learn through thinking. This is a type of
education which is being practiced today. There is no need to change something. We
must keep on providing this type of education. During the sectional meeting, we
agreed that the future generation will have an opportunity to be exposed to evenmore information from childhood, therefore we will be one of the last generations
who know about the importance of experience. That is why we must convey thismessage. Second, “education to foster motivation”. Children must be motivated toaccumulate experience. And this must be examined as an educational curriculum asa whole. This means that “education to foster imaginative skills” will be required.
Children themselves must think and imagine their future. Otherwise an attitude tolearn from experience will not be created.
This is what we would like to propose as our final recommendation from thissectional meeting.

53

Youth 2

Health and sanitation
Through discussions in this sectional meeting, we agreed on the necessity to fear
infectious diseases with proper knowledge.
Thinking of 2050, no change is required in what we should do today and in the
future in a place like Japan where we have a developed public health.
However, if we look at overseas, aid must be provided to countries which needinfrastructure development so that infectious disease will be prevented in advance.
Further, even in a social environment like in Japan, cities and rural area arebipolarizing. There might be places out of the national government’s reach. Becauseof globalization, our country will not be a place just for Japanese citizens.
Infectious disease which did not exist in Japan in the past, or disease that wasonce eradicated in the country may come into the country.
There are three levels to tackle this risk. First is the citizen level. It is important
that, rather than the state, each person has awareness on epidemic prevention. Thisis because awareness will be raised by citizens.
Second is the national level. The national government will secure budget for
prevention, and the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology
will take initiative in increasing physical education classes for the nation toenhance physical strength. Meanwhile, more people will die from bacteria
attributable to drug resistance. The government will have to take measures toprevent this.
Third is the international level. The international society will take aggressive
measures in developing the health and sanitation infrastructure including waterand sewage systems and healthcare education in developing countries.
These three levels will be the main axis to prevent the tragedy of pandemic.
We understand that, for participants who have gathered, life in 2050 is something
hard to imagine. Yet, we believe that discussions in the sectional meeting haveenabled people to think of what awaits us in the future and how that will relate toourselves.
Participants’ age ranged from 16 to 24. We are confident that the talks we carriedout to think about the future from the “youth” perspective and sharing it to theworld has turned into a big step ahead.

We anticipate that the world in 2050 faces drastic change in its social situation
54Youth 2

and would be completely different from now. The GDP forecast of each country,
climate change, terrorism, ideal education, new virus, resources, refugees, and more.
In each issue, things that exceed our expectation might be happening. We will bequestioned what kind of actions to take if something unexpected happens.
What do we desire in the future, and what kind of future do we want to hand overto the younger generation? We will have to think of that and keep on progressing.
To make sure that the world in 2050 will be an ideal society when we, the youth,
will be the generation to take initiatives, we must continue to work on activities
that lead to our target, and keep on learning. We hereby commit ourselves to takeaction from today in relation to what we have decided to do in the sectional
meetings.

55

Youth 2■

respectfullyTokai Global SummitSento-Tarui

Yosinori Usami



Jinin Oroka

56

SDGs

Alternative Summit "The Citizens’ Ise-Shima Summit”
Civil society recommendations to G7 leaders on achievement of SDGs
SDGs Civil Society Network, May 2016
“Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development”, which was
unanimously adopted by all member states of the United Nations in September 2015, is anepoch-making document with 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and shows us a path inwhich our world should follow for the next 15 years.
We, a Japanese civil society network who are fully engaged in implementation of SDGs, makethe following recommendations to G7 leaders at the Citizens’ Ise-Shima Summit held in May 23
and 24, 2016.
Background






The SDGs should be achieved by 2030. We have to act immediately.
All developed countries including G7 need to achieve the SDGs, while how to implement isleft to each country. Therefore, all countries need to establish their own implementation
mechanism.
Considering the widen inequality, it is critical how to implement the principle of the 2030
Agenda; “No one left behind”.
Implementation of SDGs should tackle with three dimensions of sustainable development economic, social and environmental - in a comprehensive and balanced way. It should alsocope with national issues as well as international development cooperation.

Recommendations to G7 leaders

Develop a national implementation plan, and integrate the SDGs in existing other national
plans, strategies, foreign policies and budgets.
Place “leave no one behind” at the heart of all plans and strategies, and cope with issues in
economic, social and environmental dimensions in a comprehensive way.
Establish systems of accountability, such as reporting systems on progress in inclusive andparticipatory ways.
(For Japanese government) Establish “2030 Agenda Implementation Headquarters”, across-ministerial systems for development of a national plan and implementation, within
the government, have consultations in a fair way with various non-governmental actors,
and ensure meaningful participation of civil society.

57

SDGs

■

respectfully





































General incorporated association Platform for regional cooperation
WOMEN‘SFEDERATIONFORWORIDPEACE
UniversalDesign･Step
Sapporo Freedom School 'YU'
Anti-war Network
GCAP Japan
Civic Institute for Civil Society
MIE NPO Network Center
Association of Yokkaichi NPOs
Universal Working Center
Chiyoko Kawai
Asian Health InstituteKansai NGO Council
Africa Japan Forum
Biodiversity Information Boxs
Sento-tarui
Japan Youth Platform for Sustainability
PSI Tokyo Office
Japan Education And Resiyrce Network iEARN Taisho Koto Project leader Motoko Hirota
Kyoko Shimizu
Motohiko Nagaoka
NISHII Kazuhiro
Yosinori Usami
Shiho Kudo
Shoichi Imaida
Sumire Kanda
HIGA AYA
Jinin Oroka
MITA KEIKO
Tsuyama Naoko
Mieko Kurokawa
Masayoshi Iyoda
MASAHIKO SHIMA
Tatsuo Kishi
Minoru Matsuzaki

58

PeacePolicy Proposal
To the G7 countries, please give your blessings to the movement of the international
codification of the right to peace, which is discussed in the United Nations Human
Rights Council.
We are from civil organizations whose goal is peace. As such, we fear for theeffectiveness of the measures against the violation of wars and use of violence withregard to security in humankind as would be discussed in the G7 Ise-Shima
Summit.
From the experiences of two world wars in the 20th century, there has beena large amount of movements outlawing wars and prohibiting the use of violenceagainst humans. This is so even in the United Nations Charter, which in principle
the threat or use of force is prohibited (Article 2 paragraph 4). As for the use of force,
there is an allowance for the limited exercise of self-defense until measures
stipulated by the United Nations are taken (Article 51). In addition, the approval of
the Security Council is required to form the framework of international law.
However, in the Iraq war (2003-2011), the United States allowed the use offorce without any approval from the Security Council, the reason given being that
there were weapons of mass destruction, which did not exist. More than half amillion people lost their lives in this war (from the investigation by theinternational team led by Amy Hagopian from the University of Washington).
During the attacks on Fallujah in April and November 2004 by the Americans,white phosphorus munitions were used against civilians (RAI documentary
program by Italian National Broadcast). There are also evidences of tortures andinhumane handling in the Abu Ghraib prison (internal investigation reports within
the US army).
Moreover, in the Libya military intervention by NATO which lasted up to
10 months from March 2011, although it was based on a resolution of the Security
Council which called for the protection of human life of the Libyan people, theBritish and French armies called for the resignation of the Libyan government. This
casts doubts on the international laws. These attacks costs the lives of dozens ofcivilians (the NGO Human Rights Watch report). Rather than as a clear resolution
towards Syria by volunteer countries, the United States has explained that this isbased on the exercise of the right of collective self-defense and the United Nations
Charter Article 51 of the individual’s right to self-defense. Due to the intervention in
Syria together with volunteer countries, the fighting intensified, and any political

59

Peacemethod of resolution was made complicated. It resulted in huge loss of lives and thecreation of civilian refugees. More than 4 million refugees flowed into theneighboring countries of Syria while there are 7.6 million people who are internallydisplaced (reported by UNHCR · 2015 · 7)
In spite of a consensus within the international community on theprohibition of the use of violence, it is often the cause of wars, which results in war
crimes and the sacrifices of human lives continue. The work of the human rights
international codification of peace of the United Nations Human Rights Council is
to continue to search for solutions for such crises. The issue of peace and war should
not be regarded as problems among countries. Rather it should be viewed from thepoint of the people’s rights to peace. By codifying it in law, we can prevent the use offorce. Countries may make wrong decisions on policies. As such, there must be
measures to prevent this from happening.
The Constitution of Japan has admitted the mistake in decisions made by
the government. In the preceding sentence, “we here do proclaim that the sovereign
power resides with the people, to watch over the conduct of the government to notrepeat the horrors of wars”, “We strive to maintain peace as well as eliminate
autocracy and slavery, oppression and intolerance forever from the surface of theearth, as part of our bid to occupy an honored position in the international
community. We, all peoples of the world, are free from fear and want to make surethat we have the right to live in peace.” The message of these sentences is to path
the way to the rights towards peace.
In 2005, the Spain International Human Rights Law Association started
the "International Campaign for the Rights for Peace."

NGOs and experts invarious parts of the world met in overlapping meetings and issued the "Santiago
Declaration on Human Rights to Peace" in December 2010. This declaration
presented specifically the people’s rights towards the realization of peace. With theSantiago Declaration as a base, the Advisory Committee of the Human Rights
Council has created a draft declaration of the right to peace in April 2012. With achange of the Chairman of the Committee of Rights in 2013, there has been a
recommendation on the consensus method. As such, the draft by the Chairman
issued in June 2014 was put in the backseat and the advisory committee proposal
took precedence. The wordings on the Rights of Peace vaporized on its own. The
proposal by the advisory committee was opposed by the United States, EU, South
Korea, and Japan. It seemed that the Chairman's draft of 2014 was issued in suchcircumstances.

60

PeaceThe Summit supposed to be an event for sending a strong message toward
peace, while the rights of peace codification could be a big step forward to theprohibition of the use of force. However many of the participating countries haveadopted an opposite attitude to it. This is what we fear most. The work of the
Human Rights Council will start from July 2016.
To the G7 countries, in order to move forward with pressing for theprohibition of the use of force resolution, please show your support to theinternational rights of peace codification. This is especially so for Japan as the hostcountry, preamble to the Constitution as mentioned above, we the people have thepeaceful right to live.

Please raise this issue for discussion to demonstrateleadership in the Ise-Shima Summit. To the governments of the various countries,
please take note of the following:● Government of the G7 countries to recognize the “rights to peace” as a basic
human rights.
● At the UN Human Rights Council Committee in July 2016, the UN General
Assembly’s "Declaration on the preparation of society to live in peace" in 1978
and the United Nations General Assembly’s "Declaration on the people's right topeace" in 1984, the participating governments at the Summit supported theUnited Nations declaration of rights for peace in order to sustain development.
● Governments to discuss the deliberations in the foundation of the advisorycommittee proposed in 2012 at the United Nations Human Rights Council.
● Together with the prevention of war, governments from various countries cantake measures to ensure the rights of peace of the people as a duty of theindividual government in order to eliminate structural violence, such as poverty
and discrimination.
April 2016
Anti-war Network
Peace BoatJapan Peace Society Chubu・Hokuriku district
InstituteInternational Campaign for Rights for Peace・Japan Executive Committee
Japanese Lawyers International Solidarity

61

PeaceAssociation
Nagoya Gakuin University Peace Studies
Association

62

Peace■ respectfullyAnti-war Network



Peace BoatJapan Peace Society Chubu･Hokuriku district InstituteInternational Campaign for Rights for Peace･Japan Executive CommitteeJapanese Lawyers International Solidarity Association

Nagoya Gakuin University Peace Studies Association



Civic Institute for Civil Society

MIE NPO Network Center

Association of Yokkaichi NPOs

Universal Working CenterLilio Environmental Forum

Asian Health Institute

Sento-Tarui

Nagoya NGO CenterKyoko Shimizu



NISHII Kazuhiro



TERAO TerumiYamamoto Mihagi

Takekazu ItoTaro Abe

Isogai Jiro

UI ShioriInagaki Yasuo

masahiko shiraiShiho Kudo

Shoichi ImaidaSumire Kanda



FUJII KATSUHIKO

Jinin Oroka

Eiichi Takisato hitoshi

MASAKI MIZUSHIMAMITA KEIKO

Rikkyo University

63

Peace

Tsuyama Naoko

Masayoshi Iyoda



Nisigaki ChiekoMorino KenHirayama Megumi



Uemura Kazuko

Narushima Yuji

Utsunomiya Ryoji

Nobuhito Tetsui

64Immigrants and refugees / Multicultural

To the Leaders of the G7 Member States at the G7 Ise-Shima Summit：
Call for Policy-making and Enhanced International Collaboration on
Immigration and Refugee Issues
Current situation in the region hosting this Summit
The host country of the summit, Japan, is home to 2.23 million foreign
residents hailing from 194 countries as of late 2015. Within Japan, the host region of
the summit, Mie Prefecture and its neighboring prefectures (Aichi Prefecture, Gifu
Prefecture and Shizuoka Prefecture), are home to 17% of these foreigners, totaling
about 380,000 people. In terms of ratio of foreign residents to the total population, Aichi
ranks second while Mie is in third position. As such, foreign residents have become an
essential presence in the maintenance and development o f local communities.
Nevertheless, Japan is the only country among the G7 that does not have a defined andestablished immigration policy. In the MIPEX immigration policy evaluation of 38
countries, Japan came in 27th place, the lowest rank among the G7 states. The problems
lie in many areas, from the language barrier to disparities in work environment, lack ofunderstanding and bias against various religions, and wide gaps in school enrollment
and participation in higher education between Japanese and foreign youth.
The need for global efforts
In recent years, while the surge in refugees in the Middle East region has beenrecognized as an urgent issue, there are still outstanding and unresolved refugee issues
in regions like Tibet, Myanmar (Burma) and many other countries. About 20 million
people have been forced to move beyond national borders due to conflicts andpersecution. We therefore call on the G7 member states to adopt coordinated policies toreduce the number of refugees, and to serve as models to the rest of the world regarding
refugee and immigration policy. The countries within the G7 – except for Japan – havein place relevant policies in the legal system (immigration laws, social integration, etc.)
and these policies are subject to enforcement and review. However, in recent years,
there has been a sharp increase in the number of people crossing international borders,with international migration reaching 2.3 billion people in 2013. Therefore, the need forinternational cooperation on migrants and refugees has become extremely urgent.

65

Immigrants and refugees / Multicultural

In view of the above mentioned, we the following civil society organizations
appeal to the respective governments of the G7 member states, especially the hostcountry Japan, to adopt the recommendations listed below rapidly and practicably.
Recommendation 1: Recognize and inform the public about immigrants and refugees
within the society.
(1) It is the responsibility of governments to inform local residents accurately thatrefugees and immigrants are residing in and participating actively in community life.
Recommendation 2: Tackle the issue of immigration directly, and formulate policies on
immigration(1) Accept migrants as human beings with dignity rather than as a source of cheap
labor.
(2) In particular, the Japanese government must share the same definition of‘immigrants’ as the United Nations, and recognize “foreign technical trainees” asimmigrants.
Recommendation 3: Proactively resolve refugee issues(1) Proactively address refugee issues without limits on their country or region oforigin(2)

Learn from precedents and past experiences of local and international

communities(3) Establish policies ensuring that while new migrants preserve their own ethnic
identities, mother tongues and cultures, they also get used to the languages, culturesand customs of the region to which they migrate, and take a long-term view of how
immigrants and refugees can contribute to the development of the receiving country
Recommendation 4: To address the issues of multicultural societies(1) Guarantee the human rights of each individual, including migrants and refugees(2) Establish laws regarding race, ethnicity and religions, all of which work towards
the protection of the individuals(3) Establish an outlook of cultural relativism(4) Formulate and review policies that allow migrants and refugees to contribute to
and grow attachment to the local community; differences in language and customs
should not hinder their manifestation of abilities
66Immigrants and refugees / Multicultural(5) Political issues and foreign affairs should not threaten the safety and security of
individuals who live in their own country(6) Disseminate and share unbiased information, thinking beyond political interests(7) Actively implement education for human rights and international understandingat schools and in the community(8) Provide adequate opportunities for immigrants and refugees to learn the language
and social knowledge of their new country(7)

Commit to the resolution of immigration and refugee issues on the basis of

dialogue, and establish venues for such dialogue between the government and residents
In the face of rapid globalization, trans-border migration is likely to further
intensify in future years. Especially in light of these global trends, we in civic society
call on international society to collaborate to guarantee dignity and fundamental
human rights for all.

67

Immigrants and refugees / Multicultural■ respectfullyBolivian Residents Association in Japan

Children and Women Islamic Association



Door to Asylum NagoyaGaikokujin Helpline Tokai

Nagoya NGO CenterResource Center for Multicultural Community Tokai

Students for a Free Tibet Japan Mie chapter



Civic Institute for Civil Society

MIE NPO Network Center

Association of Yokkaichi NPOs

Universal Working CenterNPO aidensyaLung-ta ProjectLilio Environmental Forum

Asian Health InstituteAfrica Japan Forum

Hirugao: Voluntary Japanese Class for School Education



Sento-Tarui

NPO Tsutamaru

Yosinori Usamimasahiko shiraiShiho Kudo



NISHII Kazuhiro

Shoichi ImaidaSumire Kanda



Takeshi Minegishi



HIGA AYA

Jinin Oroka

Eiichi TakiMITA KEIKO

Michiko Sawa



Tsuyama Naoko

Mieko Kurokawa
68Immigrants and refugees / Multicultural

Masayoshi Iyoda

igarashi shieko

Daisuke Ochiai

Yuki Hisatomi



YUUKI INAGUMA

Fujio TANIGUCHI

Notre Monde Nagoya Shiho Deguchi

KAWADE KUMPEINOBUKI FUJIMOTO

Amnesty International Yuko Naito



Masashi KawamuraISHII Hiroaki

HARIKI Keiko

KYOKO KAIYAAKAO NAMITaniyama Ayako



Tatsuya KanemoriNobuhito TetsuiSocial Innovation Lab Tonomura Kayoko

69

Education

Appeal to the Leaders and the Peoples of the G7 member states;
Our views on Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) through Education for Sustainable
Development (ESD), proposed by the sectional meeting for “Education”
Today’s global society faces diverse issues ranging from social matters such as war and terrorism,
economic issues including disparity and poverty, and to environmental matters such as climate change
and reduction of biodiversity. The bipolarised structure between the developed and developing
countries will collapse, and we will no longer live in a place in which only the developed countries makedecisions for the world. Even national policy systems are getting weaker in the event of decision
making. Under the chaotic situation of the modern world in turmoil, the leaders and the peoples of theG7 member states, representing the developed world are expected to review the past achievements aswell as the failures and to seek an appropriate way to establish a peaceful and rightful society byco-existing with natural environment in a view of bioregion, while establishing a new global economic
system where people’s expectations can be fulfilled.
It happened to be the time when the international society reached an agreement for the Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs) in the 2015 UN General Assembly and started working to achieve the goals
between 2016 and 2030. To this end, furtherance of Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) and
its implementation will be crucially important.
We, therefore, a civic society in the Chubu region in Japan where the G7 Summit is held, arerepresenting “industrialized regions” and put forward this appeal to the leaders and the peoples of theG7 member states, the “industrialized countries”. Our Appeal consists of the seven-point proposals thatare stated hereunder to materialize better social orders by reviewing the roles of the states andinternational organizations along with the global economic system.
The seven-point proposals are aimed at materializing the following three objectives with more efforts
into ESD promoted mainly on a regionally-led basis.
“Making things with the Mutsumi (joy to produce together common goods)”: Economic reconstruction with the joy
and intimacy of producing things. (I, II)“Human resources development based on the Kokorozashi (personal aspiration, consciousness and conscience)”:
Cultivation of people with the ability to think critically, comprehensively, and creatively, and who can begenerous to others. (III, IV)“Building a future based on the Nagomi (peaceful reconciliation)”: Achieve a collaborative society which respects
diversity of nature and culture. (V, VI, VII)

Seven recommendations to develop the ESD for “Mutsumi, Kokorozashi, and Nagomi”
70Education

I.

Establish a global economic structure centered on equal and mutually-benefiting regional economy:
The values of subsistence economy based on the “Mutsumi-ai” ideology developed in Japan, toestablish a global economic structure which is mutually beneficial among all regions.

II. Examine about regional production and consumption based on each bioregion unit: Achieving abioregion-based sustainable society requires knowledge about the limit of permissible reproductionof the natural resources in the region. Further, an ideal style of production and consumption in acertain bioregion must be examined and reviewed by verifying the traditional knowledge.
III. Develop global human resources that can create sustainable regions: Development of humanresources that possess the “Kokorozashi” to understand and solve comprehensive issues of a region,and that are not only able to solve local problems, but also capable of carrying out a global dialogue
among bioregions. This human resources must contribute to the cooperation among the private
sector (corporate entities), the public sector (local government), the community sector (citizens andlocal community organizations), towards these diverse activities in community development.
IV. Develop human resources that can achieve autonomy for a sustainable society: Human resourcesthat can respect the local cultural diversity created by the natural environment, understand thesignificance of regional autonomy. This will make possible the building of a true participatory
democracy in which the state plays its subsidiary role.
V. Build a sustainable society through reconciliation and collaboration of diverse entities: In order tocreate a sustainable society through collaboration of diverse entities, human resources that
contribute in achieving “reconciliation" to eliminate environmental destruction, social conflict, andeconomic disparity, based on Japan’s “Nagomi” ideology, must be developed. Focus must be put on
cultivating peacebuilding capacity through a non-violent concept and a forgiving conscience.
VI. Develop human resources that enable collaboration of the developed, emerging, and developing
nations: ESD must be carried out to achieve an equitable and even more sustainable society which
benefits all countries, especially the most vulnerable nations such as the low income countries. Not
only the interstate cooperation, but also partnership and collaboration among regions must be
promoted.
VII. The above actions with regard to ESD must be started so that efforts to create a sustainable society
will be made through collaboration and mutual learning in order to achieve the SDGs, whichshould not be left to future generations for their implementation.
With the intention to realize the above recommendations, in concrete, we recommend that
“innovation in education” and “education for 21st century skills” which will be discussed at the G7
Kurashiki Education Ministers’ Meeting in Okayama will be promoted, focusing on a SDGs-centered
ESD. Further, we request that efforts will be made so that “innovation in education” which also
includes social innovation education will aim to “ensure inclusive and equitable quality education andpromote lifelong learning opportunities for all” (Target 4, SDGs) and will enable to “ensure that all71

Education

learners acquire the knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development through various
kinds of education for the contribution to ESD and sustainable development” (Target 4-7, SDGs).
End.

72

Education■

respectfully

DESD-SAITAMA

slowtimes.net

socialproduce.net

area information associates

UniversalDesign･Step



Eco-Communication Center

ESDSchoolEducation

Anti-war NetworkCivic Institute for Civil Society

MIE NPO Network Center

Association of Yokkaichi NPOs

Universal Working Center

Asian Health InstituteAfrica Japan Forum

Sento-TaruiJapan Youth platform for Sustainability

greenumbrellaJapan Education and Resource Network iEARN Taisho Koto Project leader Motoko Hirota

Tambo no gakkou

Motohiko Nagaoka



AKIE IWAMARUNISHII KazuhiroYosinori Usami



Public relations noble tacumin kinositaMikihito FujimoriShiho Kudo

Shoichi ImaidaSumire Kanda



HIGA AYA

Jinin Oroka



Ichiro Mutosato hitosi



MITA KEIKO



Tsuyama Naoko

Minoru MatsuzakiYaeko Sumi
73

Strong Civic Society

Citizens’ Summit Subcommittee Meeting: ‘Strong Civic Society’‘Is There Another Chance to Host the G7 for Japan?’April 2016
Adobono School Steering Committee
1.

Purpose of this Position Paper

Adobono School Steering Committee (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Committee’), the managing
body of ‘Adobono School’ serving lectures for citizens to raise advocates since 2015, consists ofthe significant members of various NGOs and NPOs regarding to international cooperation,
environmental or regional issues, and so on, in Kansai and Chubu areas.
As the Citizens’ Ise-Shima Summit (hereinafter referred to as ‘Citizens’ Summit’) is held at thesame time as the G7 Ise-Shima Summit, the Committee poses the problem of ‘participation andinformation disclosure’ as to Japanese government’s decision-making process about the G7
summit and other worldwide policies, as well as decision-making process of regional andnational policies to host the summit.

We make and announce this position paper for

numerous participants in the Citizens’ Summit to have productive discussions and proposals
through the ‘Strong Civic Society’ session with us.

2．The Recognized Problems
The NGOs and NPOs participating in the Committee have advocated in various fields such as
international cooperation, environment, local communities, and so on, and been involved ingovernmental discussions and forming policies at regional, national, and international levels.
Today, while some advanced ‘participation and information disclosure’ examples can be seen insome municipalities and national ministries, cross-sectoral sharing experiences, likeenvironment and international cooperation, regional and global issues, have not being
sufficient.

As advocacy skills are required to NGOs and NPOs in Japan, they are expected tohave sense of responsibility as advocates and need to improve their advocacy skills throughappropriate methods and opportunities.
Meanwhile, undoubtedly there is a trend against ‘participation and information disclosure’ in apart of Japanese society.

We surely feel that the ‘participation and information disclosure’ inthe governmental decision-making is gradually being oppressed under the present Abe regime.
The activities of daily living, such as learning about politics and policies, free thinking,discussing, and proposing his/her ideas to the society, are being undermined; visible/invisiblepressure is put on mass media, and the information about diplomacy, commerce, security, andso on, which should be open to the public, is kept secret.
This year, Japan hosts the G7 summit, the conference of seven nations ‘sharing the value of74

Strong Civic Society

democracy.’ It is doubtful that at present Japan is suitable to participate or host the summit
as a democratic nation.

We need to create a Japanese society that can contribute to

local/global problem-solving by forming an ‘elastically strong’ civil society which enhances
democracy in Japan, or this summit could be the last one held in this country.

3．Agendas（1）How to share, implement, and hand down the experiences and lessons of advocacy andexamples of ‘participation and information disclosure’ gained in various regional/global
fields.
（2）How to fight back the oppressing trend against the ‘participation and information
disclosure’ in the politics, economy, and society in Japan. How to create a community
where one can freely learn, think, discuss and propose his/her ideas.
（3）How and what to suggest as opinions of regional communities against international
politics, such as the G7 summit, which are proceeded irrelevantly to civic life.

4．Proposals（1）To NGOs and NPOs
① NGOs and NPOs do not exist to fill niches for governments or corporations, but to makesuggestions for sustainable solutions for specific problems, standing at the viewpoints ofpeople in/and regional communities.
②

Remember that YOU ARE the advocates.

Share and implement experiences and lessons of advocacy and the examples of‘participation and information disclosure’ beyond the border of regional/global or different
fields. Adobono School is willing to help you in spreading those know-hows nationwide.

（2）To Residents in Japanese Society③ Support NGOs or NPOs that interest you as possible.
objectives, and join the activities as possible.
around you.

75

Learn about their activities andShare and discuss on them with people

Strong Civic Society④ Beware of the information announced by mass media and internet.

Try to read news

articles reported by several media on the same matter. Do not hesitate to support thearticles you like and remonstrate against the ones you don’t.

（3）To Governments of Japan and Other Member Nations of the G7⑤ We denounce the short process of the preparation for the G7 summit and the lateannouncement of its agendas.

The regional communities and citizens do not merely

participate in the summit as festive decorations.

Start substantial conversation

immediately with civil society so that it can be deeply involved in discussions on the agendas
at the summit.
⑥ Although the enthusiasm of G7 leaders gathering to deal with global issues is appreciated,
it is dubious if discussing only among the leaders of particular nations far apart from directly
related people or areas is a proper way to solve the global problems. We strongly request
you to continuously consider discussion process and exchanging ideas with the related
people/areas for more appropriate problem-solution of global issues.

76Strong Civic Society■

respectfullyCitizens Environmental Foundation (CEF)Citizens Environmental Foundation (CEF)Fair trade Samasama

HUTAN Group

Anti-war NetworkCivic Institute for Civil Society

MIE NPO Network Center

Association of Yokkaichi NPOs

Universal Working CenterNagoya NGO Center

Asian Health Institute

Kansai NGO Council

Africa Japan ForumJapan Youth Platform for Sustainability

Satoko Matsuurak-shimiz@mtj.biglobe.ne.jp



NISHII KazuhiroYosinori Usami



Koizumi MasahiroMikihito FujimoriShiho Kudo

Shoichi ImaidaSumire Kanda



Tomoyo AraiYasumura TomikoOroka Jinin



Junko Kitaoku

Eiichi Takisato hitosi



MITA KEIKO



Nobuki FujimotoTsuyama Naoko

Mieko Kurokawa

77