Japan-East Asia Dialogue-Towards Building a Sustainable Society in East Asia-

REPORT

グローバル・フォーラム

The Global Forum of Japan（GFJ）

August 7, 2019
Co-Sponsored by

Meiji Institute of Global Affairs (MIGA)
East Asia Institute, National University of Singapore (EAI)The Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, University of Indonesia

3UHIDFH 

7KH *OREDO )RUXP RI -DSDQ *)-  DLPV WR SURPRWH D SROLF\RULHQWHG H[FKDQJH RI YLHZV
EHWZHHQEXVLQHVVRSLQLRQDQGSROLWLFDOOHDGHUVRI-DSDQDQGWKHLUFRXQWHUSDUWVLQWKHUHVWRI
WKH ZRUOG DQG WR FRQWULEXWH WR WKH GHHSHQLQJ RI PXWXDO XQGHUVWDQGLQJ DQG WKH IRUPDWLRQ RI
WKH FRQVHQVXV )RU WKLV SXUSRVH *)- KDV EHHQ DFWLYHO\ HQJDJHG IRU WKH SDVW  \HDUV LQ
RUJDQL]LQJSROLF\RULHQWHGELODWHUDODQGRUPXOWLODWHUDOn'LDORJXHV|HYHU\\HDUEHWZHHQ-DSDQDQGWKHLQWHUQDWLRQDOFRPPXQLW\
,W LV IRU WKLV UHDVRQ WKDW *)- KHOG WKH -DSDQ(DVW $VLD 'LDORJXH n7RZDUGV %XLOGLQJ D
6XVWDLQDEOH 6RFLHW\ LQ (DVW $VLD| LQ 7RN\R RQ  $XJXVW  7KLV UHSRUW LQWHQGV WR
VXPPDUL]H WKH DFKLHYHPHQWV RI WKHVH GLVFXVVLRQV EHWZHHQ -DSDQ DQG (DVW $VLD FRXQWHUSDUWV7KRXJK WKH SULQWHG YHUVLRQ RI WKH UHSRUW ZLOO EH PDGH DYDLODEOH WR RQO\ D UHVWULFWHG QXPEHU
RISHRSOHVXFKDVPHPEHUVDQGIULHQGVRI*)-DQGWKHLUFRXQWHUSDUWVLQ(DVW$VLDWKHIXOOWH[W
RIWKHUHSRUWZLOOEHDYDLODEOHDWKWWSZZZJIMMS
7KH -DSDQ(DVW $VLD 'LDORJXH n7RZDUGV %XLOGLQJ D 6XVWDLQDEOH 6RFLHW\ LQ (DVW $VLD| ZDVFRVSRQVRUHGE\WKH-DSDQ)RUXPRQ,QWHUQDWLRQDO5HODWLRQV -),5 0HLML,QVWLWXWHRI*OREDO$IIDLUV 0,*$  (DVW $VLD ,QVWLWXWH RI WKH 1DWLRQDO 8QLYHUVLW\ RI 6LQJDSRUH ($,  DQG WKH)DFXOW\RI6RFLDODQG3ROLWLFDO6FLHQFHVRIWKH8QLYHUVLW\RI,QGRQHVLD ,WZDVDWWHQGHGE\SDUWLFLSDQWVLQFOXGLQJSDQHOLVWVIURPFRXQWULHVDOORYHU(DVW$VLDLQFOXGLQJIURP-DSDQ3URIHVVRU2+7$+LURVKL:DVHGD8QLYHUVLW\3URIHVVRU,1$'$-XLFKL6HQVKX 8QLYHUVLW\ 3URIHVVRU ,72 *R 0HLML 8QLYHUVLW\ 3DUWLFLSDQWV H[FKDQJHG RSLQLRQV RQ
PDWWHUVRIVLJQLILFDQWLPSRUWDQFHUHODWHGWRWKHIXWXUHRIEXLOGLQJDVXVWDLQDEOHVRFLHW\LQ(DVW$VLD
1RYHPEHU  
:$7$1$%( 0D\X
3UHVLGHQW
7KH *OREDO )RUXP RI -DSDQ 






2SHQLQJUHPDUNVE\:$7$1$%(0D\X3UHVLGHQWRIWKH*OREDO)RUXPRI-DSDQ
3UHVHQWDWLRQVDQGOLYHO\GLVFXVVLRQVZHUHKHOGTable of Contents

Preface
I

Programs of The Japan-East Asia Dialogue
1. Program ............................................................................. 1
2. Participants List ................................................................. 3
3. Biographies of the Panelists .............................................. 4II

Minutes of Presentations and Discussions
1. Opening Remarks ............................................................. 11
2. Session I: Promoting the Cooperation & Enhancementin Building ȇSmart Cityȇ Concept and theRegional Environmental
Issues ........................................................................... 14
3. Session II: Cooperation on Tackling the Ocean Plastic
Pollution ...................................................................... 25
4. Session III: Further Development of a Sustainable
Society in East Asia ..................................................... 33
5. Closing Session ................................................................. 45

III

Appendix
1. Presentation materials...................................................... 49
2. Policy Recommendation ................................................... 60
3. Introduction of Organizers .............................................. 63
















ᶙ 3URJUDPV





















̏ ɿ 3URJUDP 
̐ ɿ 3DUWLFLSDQWV/LVW
̑ ɿ %LRJUDSKLHVRIWKH3DQHOLVWV
̏ɿ3URJUDP

1

2̐ɿ3DUWLFLSDQWV/LVWʴ-DSDQVLGHSDQHOLVWVʵ
:$7$1$%(0D\X

3UHVLGHQW-),53UHVLGHQW*)-

2+7$+LURVKL 

3URIHVVRU:DVHGD8QLYHUVLW\,1$'$-XLFKL

3URIHVVRU6HQVKX8QLYHUVLW\,72*R 'LUHFWRU0,*$DQG3URIHVVRU0HLML8QLYHUVLW\ $FDGHPLF*RYHUQRU*)-'LUHFWRUDQG'LUHFWRURI5HVHDUFK-),5
ʴ(DVW$VLDSDQHOLVWVʵ6DUDK721*                      6HQLRU5HVHDUFK)HOORZ(DVW$VLDQ,QVWLWXWH1DWLRQDO 








&DOYLQ&+(1*.DK:HQJ   8QLYHUVLW\RI6LQJDSRUH 6LQJDSRUH    5HVHDUFKHU(FRQRPLFV7UDGHDQG5HJLRQDO,QWHJUDWLRQ,QVWLWXWHRI6WUDWHJLFDQG,QWHUQDWLRQDO6WXGLHV 0DOD\VLD .XOODSD625$7$1$

   3URIHVVRU1DUDHVXDQ8QLYHUVLW\ 7KDLODQG  

0DULIH%$//(675(26             9LFH3UHVLGHQW3KLOLSSLQH,QVWLWXWHIRU'HYHORSPHQW 
6WXGLHV 3KLOLSSLQHV 
6KRIZDQ$O%DQQD&+2,58==$'  ([HFXWLYH6HFUHWDU\$6($16WXG\&HQWHU
8QLYHUVLWDV,QGRQHVLD ,QGRQHVLD ;8(;LDRSHQJ   9LFH'HDQRI,QWHUQDWLRQDO6WXGLHV'DOLDQ8QLYHUVLW\RI )RUHLJQ/DQJXDJHV &KLQD 

1*8<(1/(1JRF$QK     6HQLRU5HVHDUFK)HOORZ,QVWLWXWHIRU)RUHLJQ3ROLF\DQG 
6WUDWHJLF6WXGLHV'LSORPDWLF$FDGHP\RI9LHWQDP 9LHWQDP %RXQSKLHQJ3+(8$3+(7/$1*6< $FDGHPLFRIILFHURI5HVHDUFK'LYLVLRQ,QVWLWXWHRI )RUHLJQ$IIDLUV /DRV <X]LODZDWL$%'8//$+            $VVRFLDWH5HVHDUFKHU&HQWUHIRU6WUDWHJLF 3ROLF\ 
6WXGLHV %UXQHL .KLQ0DXQJ/<11                 -RLQW6HFUHWDU\0\DQPDU,QVWLWXWHRI6WUDWHJLF  ,QWHUQDWLRQDO6WXGLHV 0\DQPDU '\DNDQDO623+$/          7HFKQLFDO2IILFHU0LQLVWU\RI(QYLURQPHQW &DPERGLD 
ʤ,Q RUGHU RI DSSHDUDQFHʥ
ʴ6HFUHWDULDWʵ
.,.8&+,<RQD 'LUHFWRU6HQLRU5HVHDUFK)HOORZ-),5

2+<$0LQRUX 

5HVHDUFK)HOORZ-),5

7$.$+$7$<RKHL

9LFH3UHVLGHQWDQG([HFXWLYH6HFUHWDU\*)-6HQLRU5HVHDUFK)HOORZ-),5

7$.('$<XNL 

5HVHDUFK)HOORZ-),5<$127DNX\D 'LUHFWRU5HVHDUFK&RRUGLQDWRU-),5
ʤ,Q DOSKDEHWLFDO RUGHUʥ

3

̑ɿ%LRJUDSKLHVRIWKH3DQHOLVWV࠙ East Asia Panelistsࠚ
Sarah TONG

Senior Research Fellow,
East Asian Institute, National University of Singapore

Sarah Y. Tong graduated from Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics
and worked at the Development Research Center of China’s State Council for several
years. She obtained her Ph.D. in Economics from the University of California at San
Diego. She was Assistant Professor of the Department of Economics and Research
Fellow of East Asian Institute, both at the National University of Singapore.
Currently, she is Senior Research Fellow of NUS’ East Asian Institute. Her researchinterests concentrate on the recent development and transformation of Chinese
Economy, including development in trade and foreign investment, development ofregions, financial sector reforms, the reforms of state-owned enterprises, andindustrial policies and restructuring. Her work appeared in journals such as Journalof International Economics, Global Economic Review, China: An International
Journal, Review of Development Economics, China and the World Economy,
Comparative Economic Studies, and China Economic Review. In addition tocontributing chapters to numerous books on contemporary China, she also edited andco-edited three books including China and Global Economic Crisis (2010), Trade,
Investment and Economic Integration (2014), China’s Evolving Industrial Policies
and Economic Restructure (2014), China’s Great Urbanization (2017), China’s
Economic Transformation under the New Normal(2017), and China’s Economic

Modernization and Structural Changes (2019).
Calvin Kah Weng CHENG

Research Fellow,
Institute of Strategic and International Studies

Researcher in the Economics, Trade and Regional Integration Division at the Instituteof Strategic and International Studies (ISIS) Malaysia. He researches economic
policy issues related to economic development, inequality and poverty, and trade andregional cooperation. He studied Economics and Econometrics at Monash University
in Clayton, Australia, focusing on economic development. Prior to joining ISIS
Malaysia, he was an economist with an investment fund in Malaysia.

4Kullapa SORATANA

Assistant Professor,
School of Logistics and Supply Chain, Naraesuan University

Received M.A. of Environmental and Hazardous Waste Management, Chulalongkorn
University, Bangkok, Thailand in 2005 and PhD of Sustainability and Green Design,
Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, USA. in 2012. Served as Acting Deputy Director for Research andCommunity Services and Deputy Director for Administration Lecturer, Acting
Deputy Director for Research and Community Services and Deputy Director for
Administration Lecturer.
Marife Magno BALLESTEROS

Vice President,
Philippine Institute for Development Studies

Marife Ballesteros is currently the Vice President at the Philippine Institute forDevelopment Studies, where she has worked as Senior Research Fellow for the past
20 years.

She began her career as an economic researcher and moved to achieving

expertise in public policy analysis and advocacy. Dr. Ballesteros is a leading expert
in the field of development economics with specialization on housing policy, land
policy and urban development. She has been involved in several evaluation studiesof government regulatory policies and poverty programs.

She has also done workon several projects with the World Bank and ADB and those funded by JICA and
AusAID. She is a member of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Economics(SIOE) and the International Development Evaluation Association (IDEAS).
Shofwan Al Banna Choiruzzad

Executive Secretary,
ASEAN Study Center, Universitas Indonesia

Shofwan Al Banna Choiruzzad is a lecturer at the International Relations Department,
Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Universitas Indonesia, Depok, Indonesia.
He also serves as the Executive Secretary of the university’s ASEAN Study Center.
His research interests are regional cooperation and the intersections between ‘theglobal,’ ‘the national,’ and ‘the local.’ Shofwan has published academic articles andopinion pieces both for Indonesian and international audiences, including inContemporary Southeast Asia, Forest Policy and Economics, Asian Politics andPolicy, Indonesia, Global, The Jakarta Post, Nikkei Asia, Kompas, Good Governance
Africa, and some others. He was awarded as the 1st Winner of the St.Gallen Wings
of Excellence Award in 2009. Shofwan also assists various government agencies andinternational organizations to develop their strategies and policies in Indonesia and5Southeast Asia. He discusses international issues in Indonesian perspective throughhis podcast channel in Spotify, “Bebas Aktif.”
XUE Xiaopeng

Vice Dean of International Studies,
Dalian University of Foreign Languages

Graduated from China Foreign Affairs University, received Ph.D degree inInternational Politics. His research interest is Global Governance, Northeast Asian
Environment Governance and CJK Cooperation.
NGUYEN Le Ngoc Anh

Fellow Researcher,

Institute for Foreign Policy and Strategic Studies, Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam

Ngoc Anh has been working as a research fellow at the Centre for Security andDevelopment Studies, Institute for Foreign Policy and Strategic Studies, Diplomatic
Academy of Vietnam since 2011. Ngoc Anh shares her research interest on several
topics including ASEAN China Cooperation field, the integration policy in Vietnam,
sustainable development, non-traditional security issues… She got Bachelor andMaster Degrees in International relations at the Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam.
Yuzilawati ABDULLAHAssociate Researcher,

Centre for Strategic & Policy Studies, Brunei Darussalam
Graduated from University of Dundee, Scotland with an M.Sc. in Energy Studies infrom the Centre for Energy, Petroleum, Minerals, Law and Policy. She is an Associate
Researcher at the Centre for Strategic & Policy Studies (CSPS), a national think-tankin Brunei. Yuzilawati began her career in the petroleum industry, and later joined thefinancial services sector.

At CSPS, she currently heads the Brunei Futures Initiative

portfolio. Yuzilawati has been involved in numerous national-level projects at CSPS,
and provides training to government stakeholders in the area of strategic foresightand strategic planning.
Khin Maung LYNN

Joint-Secretary 1,
Myanmar Institute of Strategic and International Studies

U Khin Maung Lynn served in the foreign service of the Government of the Republicof the Union of Myanmar for over 36 years before retiring as Charge d’Affaires/
Minister-Counsellor at the Myanmar Embassy in Kuwait. He held various diplomatic
posts at the Myanmar missions in London, Geneva, New York, Tokyo, Islamabad,
Kuala Lumpur, Manila, Riyadh and Kuwait. During his career, he also served in

6various capacities in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Myanmar at the International
Organizations and Economic Department, Minister’s Office, and the Political
Department where he served longest. He was Assistant Director of the Boundary
Division, Political Department from 1993 to 1996 and served as Deputy Director in
the Southeast Asia Division, Political Department, from 1998 to 2001 and as Director
from 2005 to 2007. He led diplomatic missions to open new Myanmar embassies in
Riyadh in 2007 and in Kuwait in 2009. He retired from the Myanmar Foreign service
in January 2011 and since August 2012 he has been involved in Track II diplomacy
by attending some of the conferences and workshops in the region. He was also apart-time advisor from 2012 to 2013 with the International Management Group (IMG),
an intergovernmental organization, helping with the implementation of capacity
building projects for personnel of the Myanmar civil service including the Myanmar
Foreign Service, with funds provided by the Norwegian Government and the EU. He
has been serving as Joint Secretary (1) of the Myanmar Institute of Strategic andInternational Studies (MISIS) since its formation in 2013.
Dyakanal SOPHALTechnical Officer,

Department of Hazardous Substances Management, Ministry of Environment
Received M.A. of Business in Management, Royal University of Law and Economics,
Phnom Penh, Cambodia, 2015 and M.A. of Sustainability and Environmental Policy
in Environmental Policy and Management, University of Seoul, 2018. Served asCommunity facilitator, UN-Habitat Secure Tenure Campaign and Housing Right
Programmes of the Urban Poverty Reduction Unit (2004-2005),

Administrative andFinancial Assistant, Cambodia Environmental Association (2006-2009), Technical
Officer, Siem Reap Provincial Department of Environment (2012-2015), Technical
Officer, Department of Marine and Coastal Zone Conservation, Ministry ofEnvironment (2016-2018).

ʴ Japanese Panelistsʵ
WATANABE Mayu

President, JFIR / President, GFJ

Graduated from Chiba University. Received M.A. in Education from the Graduate
School of the University of Tokyo in 1997. Joined the Japan Forum on International
Relations (JFIR) in 2000 and appointed Senior research fellow in 2007, during which
period she specialized in global human resource development and public diplomacy.

7

Appointed Executive Director in 2011 and assumed Senior Executive Director in2017. She has served as President since 2018. Concurrently serving as President of
the Council on East Asian Community (CEAC).
ITO GoAcademic Governor GFJ / Professor, Meiji University

Graduated from Sophia University. Received Ph.D. at the Josef Korbel School ofInternational Studies, University of Denver in 1997. Served as Associate Professor
at Meiji University in 1998, and assumed the current position in 2006. Also served
as Visiting Professor at Beijing University, Academia Sinica (Taiwan), Bristol
University(Britain), Australian

National

University,

andVictoria

University(Canada), Adjunct Professor (International Security) at Waseda University as well as
Sophia University, and as Adjunct Researcher of the House of Councilors. Recipientsof the Eisenhower Fellowships in 2005 and the Nakasone Yasuhiro Award in 2006.
Concurrently serves as Superior Research Fellow, JFIR.

INADA Juichi

Professor, Senshu University

He received his M.A. in international relations and graduated from doctoral courseof the University of Tokyo (Japan). He has experiences of working & studying atseveral think-tanks such as the Nomura Research Institute (1980-81), the Japan
Institute of International Affairs (1986-90). He was also a Research Fellow at theCenter for International Affairs (CfIA) at Harvard University (1992-1994). He has
his experiences of working at the World Bank twice.

Once in 1996-97, he joined

into some research works at the Policy Research Department (DEC/PRD).

More

recently in 2004-2005, he worked for LICUS (Low Income Countries under Stress)
Unit (OPCS). He has a lot of experiences of engaginvolving into researches on fragile
states, especially regarding the relationship between security and development,
governance and institutional aspects of development, socio-economic analyses, andevaluation of ODA projects and programs.
OHTA Hiroshi

Professor, Waseda University

Professor at the School of International Liberal Studies (SILS), Waseda University,
received a Ph.D. in international relations from the Department of Political Scienceof the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences of Columbia University. Some recent
works include: Hiroshi Ohta, “EU and Japanese climate and energy security” with

8

Katja Biedenkopf, in Emil Kirchner and Han Dorussen eds., EU-Japan Security
Cooperation: Trends and Prospects (London and New York: Routledge, 2019);
Kankyo-to-enerugee-wo meguru shuyoukoku-no hikakuseiji: Jizokukanou shakai
heno sentaku (Comparative Politics about the Environmental and Energy Policies ofMajor States: Make a Choice for A Sustainable Society) (Tokyo: Toshindo, 2016:
536pp.); “Global Governance and China: The Hu Jintao Era and Governance ofInternational Public Goods,” The Japan Institute of International Affairs (JIIA),
Japan Digital Library International Circumstances in the Asia-Pacific Series: China
and Korean Peninsula, JIIA, March 2016; H. Ohta and Yves Tiberghien “Saving the
Kyoto Protocol: What Can We Learn from the Experience of Japan-EU Cooperation?”
P. Bacon, H. Mayer, and H. Nakamura, eds., The European Union and Japan: A New
Chapter in Civilian Power Cooperation? (Surrey, UK: Ashgate, 2015: 169-184); and
H. Ohta “Climate Change and Human Security: the Convergence on Policy
Requirements” in S. Takahashi ed., Human Rights, Human Security, and State
Security: the Intersection (Oxford: Praeger, 2014: 75-96).
(In order of appearance in the “Program”)

9









,,  0LQXWHVRI
3UHVHQWDWLRQVDQG'LVFXVVLRQV,,  3URJUDPV
0LQXWHVRIᶙ  3UHVHQWDWLRQVDQG'LVFXVVLRQV














2SHQLQJ6HVVLRQ 



6HVVLRQ,

3URPRWLQJWKH&RRSHUDWLRQ (QKDQFHPHQW 

LQ%XLOGLQJd6PDUW&LW\b&RQFHSWDQGWKH 



5HJLRQDO(QYLURQPHQWDO,VVXHV



6HVVLRQ,,
&RRSHUDWLRQRQ7DFNOLQJWKH2FHDQ 
3ODVWLF3ROOXWLRQ ̏ɿ
3URJUDP 
6HVVLRQ,,,
̐ɿ 3DUWLFLSDQWV/LVW)XUWKHU'HYHORSPHQWRID6XVWDLQDEOH̑ɿ%LRJUDSKLHVRIWKH3DQHOLVWV
6RFLHW\LQ(DVW$VLD



&ORVLQJ6HVVLRQ



 23(1,1*6(66,21

Kikuchi Yona
Excuse me. Now, the time is 1330. I’d like to open the Japan-East Asia Dialogue Towards Buildinga Sustainable Society in East Asia, sponsored by the Japan Forum of International Relations and cosponsored by the Global Forum of Japan; Meiji Institute of Global Affairs; East Asian Institute, National
University of Singapore; and the Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, University of Indonesia. This
event is also supported by The Japan Foundation Asia Center.
I am Kikuchi Yona. I’m a director and senior research fellow of JFIR. I would like to express our
gratitude to all of you for your attendance today. In the opening session, now, I’d like to invite Ms.
Watanabe Mayu, President of the Japan Forum of International Relations as well as Global Forum ofJapan for her opening remarks. Ms. Watanabe, please?
Watanabe Mayu
Good afternoon. I am Watanabe Mayu, President of The Japan Forum on International Relations andthe Global Forum of Japan. It is with pleasure to host the Japan East Asia Dialogue under the cosponsorship of the East Asian Institute of National University of Singapore, and The faculty of Social andPolitical Sciences of University of Indonesia, and the Meiji Institute of Global Affairs, MIGA. First ofall, on behalf of the organizers, I would like to express my deep appreciation to all the panelists andaudience who have gathered here today. Especially, I would like to extend my warm welcome to the
distinguished guests from overseas: Dr. Marife Ballesteros of the Philippines, Mr. Khin Maung Lynn ofMyanmar, Dr. Sarah Tong of Singapore, Dr. Shofwan Al Banna Choiruzzad of Indonesia, and other fellow
experts. Also, I would like to thank The Japan Foundation Asia Center for its support to make thisconference possible.
In recent years, East Asia has undergone a marvelous development as a global center of the world.
But on the other hand, the global issues that no one country can solve alone are becoming apparent,
particularly the reduction of ocean plastics that are severely harming the marine ecology. Developmentof smart city which is adaptable of the issues like waste management, constructing interregional
information sharing platform of the environmental issues are urgent needs to be dealt with for fulfilling theenvironmental initiatives such as sustainable development goals, SDGs.
The ASEAN Plus Three Framework has been strengthening the regional cooperation to counter suchenvironmental issues. Last year’s ASEAN Plus Three Summit, for example, to clear up the ASEAN Plus
Three marine plastics debris, cooperative action initiative, to promote the environmentally appropriate
waste management, and plastic pollution management, and three R’s—reduce, reuse, and recycle.
Also, within the G20 framework, the Osaka Blue Ocean Vision, a comprehensive initiative to reduce
the spread of plastic debris in the ocean was declared by the host country, Japan, and warmly welcomed at
the G20 summit held in June this year. Under the circumstances, JFIR has organized a research project
on “Towards Building a Sustainable Society in East Asia” led by Professor Ohta Hiroshi of Waseda
University and Professor Inada Juichi of Senshu University.
1111

As part of this project, today’s dialogue focuses on three topics as shown in the program. In closing
my remarks I wish today’s dialogue will be a fruitful exchange of discussion for all. Thank you verymuch.
Kikuchi Yona
Thank you so much. Next, I’d like to invite Professor Ohta Hiroshi of Waseda University for his
keynote speech. Professor Ohta, please?
Ohta Hiroshi
Thank you for the introduction. Thank you for coming to this seminar on “Towards Building a
Sustainable Society in East Asia”. In the era of Anthropocene, in which human beings have become aforce to influence and change the earth’s ecosystem, our civilization or the growth of civilization becomesstrategic to ourselves. So, the concept of sustainable development has become the key to our survival.
This concept spread during the run-up period to the Rio Summit or Earth Summit, something called the
Rio Summit which was held in Rio de Janeiro in Brazil, June, 1992.
In September 2000, the Millennium Summit was held and adopted the Millennium Declaration witheight Millennium Development Goals to reduce poverty by 2015. Ten years after the Rio Summit, theWorld Summit on Sustainable Development was held in South Africa in 2002 to accelerate the action torealize Agenda 21 for global sustainable societies. Twenty years after the Rio Summit, the United
Nations Conference on Sustainable Development or Rio+20 was again held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in
June 2012 to accelerate international action towards sustainable development. Then September 2015, theUnited Nations Sustainable Development Summit adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Developmentwith 17 SDGs, sustainable development goals, at the core.
These are the 17 sustainable goals. It’s very much important, the 17 goals are interlinked. We
should pursue in a comprehensive way so that we can achieve the sustainable societies. But today, weare going to focus on several sustainable development goals. One of them addresses the marine plastic
litter and microplastics which is Goal 14, SDG 14 which deals with the life below water. Particularly,
14.1 addresses to reduce marine pollution, particularly by 2025, to significantly reduce marine pollution of
all kinds, in particular, from land-based activities including marine debris and nutrient pollution.
Now, the transboundary movement of microplastics becomes a global environmental problem. That
requires a global governance approach, galvanizing all the stakeholders—governmental,
nongovernmental; and integrating all the levels of efforts—international, regional, national, local, andindividual. Also, it means the international legal instruments – expand the existing international legal
instruments such as MARPOL Annex V ship-generated plastic waste, and also Basel Convention which
deals with transboundary movements of hazardous wastes; and UN Environment Assembly Resolution 4/7
on marine litter and microplastics et cetera.
This government is making efforts to address these issues on a voluntary basis, like, G20
Implementation Framework for Actions on Marine Plastic Litter, and also ASEAN Framework of Action
on Marine Debris. We should try to establish a new legally binding agreement on marine litter andmicroplastics since the current approach is fragmented and does not necessarily adequately address the
problem.
1212

Furthermore, we need to strengthen current measures by going beyond merely addressing or reducing or
prohibiting single-use plastics or plastic bags, focusing more on addressing the problem of microscopic
plastic particles or microbeads which occupy by the vast majority of plastic discharged into theenvironment. Here, the private and industry associations, environmental NGOs and individuals should
be brought into the solution. The product of cosmetics, for example, need to produce microplastic-free
products, and at the same time consumers should avoid using mircobeads containing product with the helpof environmental NGOs’ awareness-raising campaigns. All actions need to be carried out based on
sound science and cost-effective and environmentally-friendly ways. Thus, it’s crucial to enhancescientific means and promote science-based policies and innovative solutions so that we can assess fairly
relative advantage and disadvantage of the multi- [Unclear] and substitution, finding substitutions, and use
multi [Unclear] recycling, and waste-to-energy which tries to extract energy from waste, and also
convergence of technologies.
Now, I’d like to turn to another issue relating to energy transitions and smart cities – changing this slide.
This is another focus for the afternoon seminar. All the 17 SDGS, Agenda 2030 for Sustainable
Development are interlinked but three of them—Goal 7, Goal 11, Goal 13—have a very strong synergistic
effect to address these issues.
Goal 7: Ensure access to the affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all.
Goal 11: Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable.
Goal 13: Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts including adaptations.
Government is making efforts such as G20 Karuizawa Innovation Action Plan on Energy Transitionsand Global Environment for Sustainable Growth, and also G20 Action Agenda on Adaptation andResilient Infrastructure. These are the outcomes of the last G20 held in Karuizawa.
Energy transition driven by the electrification by renewable energy sources such as solar and wind
could reduce 75% of energy-related carbon emissions which we’re required to limit the global rise intemperature to well below 2 degrees Celsius by 2050. If we add the effect of improved energy efficiency
through renewable electrification, we could reduce 90% of that emission. The clean electricity generated
by renewables combined with smart digital technologies is a path to a sustainable future by promoting theelectrification of end users, transport, building, and industries, decentralization of power system anddigitalization of power sector. Most of the technologies are already available to realize these logistic
effects.
For transport, for instance, many electric vehicles indeed are already on the road. The widespread
application of rooftop solar PVs and micro wind turbines and heat pumps are providing electricity andheat to local communities through decentralization of power system. Digitalization of society is enabling
the management of large amounts of data and optimizing system with many small generation units. The
application of smart meters and sensors, the Internet of Things, and artificial intelligence can enhance thedevelopment of smart cities. The cutting down [ph] of conventional energy such as fossil fuel use andeconomic growth in East Asia will stimulate the economy, create employment, and further invite

13

13

investment in new technologies in these regions while mitigating and being able to adapt to climatechange.
That’s the options and tools and [Unclear] galvanized world. Let’s work together to achievesustainable development. Thank you very much for your attention. Please enjoy the rest of theseminar.

 6HVVLRQᶙ3URPRWLQJWKH&RRSHUDWLRQDQG(QKDQFHPHQWLQ%XLOGLQJd6PDUW&LW\b&RQFHSWDQGWKH5HJLRQDO(QYLURQPHQW,VVXHV
Kikuchi Yona
Thank you so much, Professor Ohta. Now, I would like to open Session 1, Promoting the Cooperationand Enhancement in Building Smart City Concept, and the Regional Environment Issues. Let me invite
Professor Inada Juichi of Senshu University to chair the first session. Professor Inada, please?
Inada Juichi
My name is Inada. I’m professor of Senshu University. I was nominated as the chairperson. But
I’m not an expert on this kind of environment issues. My major task is to be a timekeeper of the
program. I would like to mention or explain the background of today’s program. You might know that
ASEAN Plus Three has a think tank network. This time, The Japan Forum on International Relations
held a working group on this topic. This time the major topic is “sustainable society” how to attain asustainable society. But the definition of sustainable society is very wide including not only theenvironmental aspects but also economic aspects and cultural aspects.
In our program, we would like to focus especially on environmental aspect of sustainable society.
Two specific topics are raised. One is smart city, and another is ocean plastic pollution. One of ourmajor tasks of the working group is to make recommendations to the ASEAN Plus Three a little bit
higher-level meeting. In fact, yesterday, we held a one-day closed session. The members are the same.
Today, we are now holding an open session to the public. I am sorry. The time is very limited to 5
minutes. I will not stop your presentation at 5 minutes sharp but I’d like to ask each presenter not tomake your presentation too long. I would like to invite our first presenter, Ms. Sarah Tong, SeniorResearch Fellow of East Asian Institute of National University of Singapore.
Sarah Tong
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m very happy too. Thank you for having me here. Even though I’m
not a specialist in the area, yesterday’s one-day discussion has been very fruitful and I have learned a greatdeal. I also want to say that my institute is proud to be co-sponsoring this event. In addition to that, I’m
going to say three things in 5 minutes. First, the importance of this event in the cooperation. Second,
Singapore’s views and commitments. The third one is Singapore practices in this area of smart city
development and regional environmental issues.
First, I think the importance is quite well-known. The region, East Asia and wider Asia in general arefacing some common challenges due to the nature of the environmental issues. The other aspect is thatthe economy is becoming increasingly interdependent. Those two mean that we have to face thechallenges together. The second aspect is that new technologies provide opportunities and risks. These

1414

opportunities can only be benefited by the economies by working together, and working together also toaddress the risks that new technologies are presenting.
Second, Singapore’s views and commitment to sustainable development, smart city, or smart nation in
Singapore’s case, and also the environmental issues. First, as a highly open economy, Singapore has avery strong commitment to openness and to cooperation because Singapore is very dependent on external
relations economically and otherwise. The other thing is Singapore also lacks resources. Those
combined together, Singapore has always been a strong supporter of openness and cooperation.
Second, in terms of Singapore’s view, is that Singapore thinks the smart portion of the development andsustainability are complementary elements of the same thing. They complement each other. By
stressing the smartness or the employment of new technologies, we are also promoting sustainability of asociety.
Third, Singapore’s commitment is that it’s going to try or at least have practice strong leadership andstrong cooperation within the nation. Strong leadership, I discussed yesterday, the efforts to promotesmart city, smart nation is under the direct leadership of the Prime Minister’s Office. That was started in2014, the smart city, smart nation initiative, and a lot has been done over the past 5 years.
Last one, in terms of Singapore’s commitment and views is that the cooperation has different layers.
At the first layer, perhaps within the government institutions, across different agencies, the cooperation isquite important. The second is, within Singapore, cooperation between private and public and society
and NGOs, there’s another layer of cooperation. The third layer is cross-border cooperation. I thinkthat’s also part of the efforts by the Singapore government to promote cooperation across the board.
The last thing I want to say is the practice. As I mentioned, the smart nation initiative was proposed inlate 2014. Since then, the practice has gone from focusing on certain areas to a much broader,
comprehensive, and integrated approach. Originally or initially there’s emphasis on data, digitization of
government services and government data, and has gone beyond that. If I want to highlight some of the
programs, the 2015 Sustainable Singapore Blueprint, that emphasizes a lot on the greenness, gracious
community, eco-smart and so on and so forth. The Urban Redevelopment Authority Draft Master Plan in2019 has gone much wider covering various areas.
In terms of cooperation, international cooperation, let me just say three things. First, Singapore isstrong supporter of the Paris Agreement. Second, it also supports the United Nations Sustainable
Development Goals, the 17. The last one highlights – Singapore has done a substantial amount of work
to provide training for officials from different countries—just some examples of Singapore’s practices.
I think I’ll end here.

Thank you very much.

Inada Juichi
Thank you, Ms. Tong. I’ll invite questions from the floor later after completing four presentations.
I’d like to ask Mr. Calvin Cheng Kah Weng, Research Fellow at the Institute of Strategic and International
Studies of Malaysia.
Calvin Cheng Kah Weng
15

15

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Many thanks for the very kind host at JFIR and Meiji
University, and distinguished audience members. My name is Calvin Cheng. I research economic
policy in ISIS, Malaysia. Today I’ll keep my points very brief. I made comments yesterday at theworking group meeting. I’ll be firstly talking a bit about the amazing experience with smart cities andurban development initiatives. We have two examples. One not so good, and one quite good. The
first of course is Cyberjaya, and second is the smart villages and smart communities program in Malaysia.
Secondly, I’ll be talking about some focus areas and potential avenues for international cooperation
regarding this initiative.
On Cyberjaya I want to share the experience with our city-building project. Cyberjaya was a project
initiated in 1997 by the Malaysian government to build a large hi-tech city about 40 minutes south ofKuala Lumpur. Yet today, in 2019 about 2 decades and billions of ringgits later, the success of
Cyberjaya as a smart city is quite mixed. Numerous challenges including the onset of the Asian financial
crisis and a failure to attract enough knowledge, industries, away from culturally vibrant cities like Kuala
Lumpur and Penang meant that instead of becoming a Silicon Valley of Malaysia like Utopia as
envisioned, Cyberjaya ended up being a place where large corporations merely parked their backend dataprocessing call centers and other auxiliary functions. This Cyberjaya experience emphasizes thechallenges surrounding smart city development. I think it shows that even if you get most of the hard
infrastructure and technology correct, physical development alone is not enough to build a smart andsustainable city.
Ensuring that there is sufficient demand in the first place, and ensuring sufficient network effects is
crucial, equally as important is making sure that there is enough soft infrastructure in place. Here, I’m
talking about entertainment, culture, restaurants, bars. Focus on smart technology often addresses theneed for this soft infrastructure, but the reality is that a city needs vibrancy and liveliness to be truly
livable.
Moving on to the next example of the smart communities and smart village programs in Malaysia.
These programs were initiated somewhere in 2014. These programs try to bring smart development
efforts outside of the major cities to smaller towns, to remote rural communities, with the aim of
decreasing regional disparities and encouraging more equitable growth across the nation.
The smart community projects outfitted smaller urban areas across the country with tech-based
solutions including smart flood announcement systems—of course, flooding is a huge problem in someparts of Malaysia—and also Internet access centers and tech-training programs to encourage local
innovation. Meanwhile, the smart village initiatives focus on more remote rural areas. Here, the efforts
are more basic including electrification, helping local villagers increase their income sources throughsmart agri business, farming, eco-farming.
In light of this, what are the potential focus areas for future inter-country collaboration? I think one
key area in which inter-country collaboration will be most useful is on implementation. This isespecially true for developing nations where we can build the infrastructure and the tech needed, but it’soften the post-construction implementation and maintenance that poses major challenges.
The second area in which, I think, inter-country collaboration would be useful is also in addressing andcompensating for the disadvantages and risks that come with smart city development, that come with16

16

large-scale deployment of smart technologies. Here, I’m talking about disadvantages like increased
inequality, increased exclusion. Smart cities, especially large-scale manufactured smart cities, often
seem designed for the wealthy, doing little to help other communities living nearby. One clear exampleof this in Malaysia is the Forest City Project in Johor. At ISIS Malaysia we conducted a national study
on the Belt and Road Initiative. We interviewed residents of villages nearby for a city. Many of theselower-income villages were unhappy with the project. They felt excluded. They felt it was an
exclusive area for elite, for foreigners. They thought they would be not welcomed there despite living
literally steps away from Forest City. And as such, inter-country collaboration and cooperation needs tofocus on how to make smart city developments more inclusive to both the communities living in thedevelopment, around the development. Also similarly, we also need to ensure that this focus on smart
cities does not mean we neglect the smaller urban areas or rural areas in a country.
There are other concerns too. I’ll just briefly talk about this like cybersecurity risks, data privacy
concerns. Do lesser developed states in Southeast Asia necessarily have the resources or know-how toensure that their networks are secure? How can regional cooperation and regional institutions help
ensure that data and privacy of smart citizens are not abused for political reasons or whatnot?
Lastly, just briefly what are some potential avenues for cross-country collaboration on this front? I
think in my view it’s a huge opportunity to increase collaboration between the ASEAN Plus Three and theAsia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, APEC, on smart cities. APEC has been doing a lot of work on
smart cities for a long time now, even before Singapore. In fact, APEC member economies pledge in2014 to enhance cooperation across businesses, academia, with regards to smart cities. They evenestablished the APEC Research Institute for Smart City Initiative in China in 2014. In view of the factthat APEC and ASEAN Plus Three are both Asia-focused regional institutions that share very similargoals and share very similar member economies, I think the scope and room for collaboration on this issue
is very large.
In the interest of time, I’ll end my presentation here, today.
Inada Juichi
Thank very much, Mr. Calvin Cheng.
professor of the university in Thailand.

Thank you.

I would like to ask the presentation of Dr. Kullapa Soratana,

Kullapa Soratana
Thank you. Hello, everyone. A little bit of my background: my background is in sustainability andgreen design. Today, I would like to discuss on how we can make a smart city become more sustainable.
Smart city is the city that utilizes technology and innovation in order to improve community services andto help people in the community reduce resource consumption and also to reduce their living expenses.
We can achieve that by promoting social involvement and setting up a good plan so that we can have alivable and modern city as we long for. However, by employing only technologies cannot guarantee that
we will have the livable city that we want.
The reason I say that is because currently in Bangkok, that’s the capital city of Thailand, we are having
several infrastructure construction sites for sky trains and for subways all over the city. That’s caused
impact not only on the environment but also on human health – caused impact on their respiratory systems
from particulate matter 2.5, that’s like the very fine particles of 2.5 micrometers, size of micron particulate17

17matters. What we need is a sustainable smart city which is the city that encourages healthy living,increases transportation choices and decreases automobile dependence.
To reach a sustainable smart city, some projects can be done. For example, rather than using a hightechnology public transportation system, maybe we can adjust it to a sustainable public transportation
system. By that I mean rather than having very high technology vehicles, we can just simply shift fromfossil fuels to renewable energies. Most of the sky trains and subways in Bangkok are used bymiddleclass people. That way, they can have accessibility and also they can afford to use the commute.
Another thing that we can do is green public space and by locating green spaces or parks in the city.
By city, it’s not limited to only the urban areas; it can be in rural areas as well so that people can use theareas to go do some exercises or do some social activities. Another one can be urban planning through apublic hearing process or with certain level of community involvement.
I’ll keep my presentation pretty short today. In conclusion, in order to have a sustainable smart city, I
would like to propose five points here. These recommendations are based on smart city program that’s
been going on in Thailand. The first one is, we need a comprehensive database on, for example, resource
consumption and production, and also on impact per capita. The second point is, we need a decentralized
system to increase level of community involvement. The third one, we need an implementation plan toinform the community on what they should do to build a sustainable smart city, something beyond just a
policy because in policy, sustainability is the term that has been used a lot but we don’t exactly have theplan for it.
Next one is, we need research-based policies. The policies should be set up based on results of someresearch, from studies. Last but not least, we need a monitoring system to assess the city’s performanceand to ensure that we are moving in the right direction without creating unintended consequences.
I will end my presentation here.

Thank you.

Inada Juichi
Thank you very much, everyone. I think 5 minutes is too short to explain the contents of one side.
Anyway, the final presenter of this session of smart city is Dr. Marife Ballesteros, Vice President of thePhilippine Institute for Development Studies.
Marife Ballesteros
Hello. Good afternoon. Thank you for this opportunity to present the initiatives in the Philippines
with regards to smart cities. My discussion will be broken into three parts. One would be, what are themajor initiatives with regards to smart cities? What are the evolving issues with regards to the practice ofsmart city in the country? Then, some recommendations on areas of possible cooperation orcollaboration for development.
Compared to the concept earlier of the eco city, the green city, I think the Philippines is embracing
greater, I guess, passion, the concept of smart cities. I think it has something to do with the digitaltechnology and transformations that can be done through technology and innovation.

18

18

The initiative of the Government of the Philippines basically on smart city is built on the concept ofdigital transformation and modernization. We have adopted the innovation of digital technology indifferent government platforms – in disaster response and disaster risk management, community healthtracking system, and public safety system. At the same time, around the country, you will see certain testsites, buckets of pilot areas where we have well-developed, well-planned small areas with better
infrastructure.
All of these innovations are actually undertaken both at the national and at the local level. At the local
level, there are significant investments and prioritization of investments in terms of ICT infrastructure.
However, most of these efforts are actually only in experimental or pilot stages. In fact, there are a lot ofsectors – and I would say areas – that we consider as still a large proportion of areas that is left behindfrom these modernization activities. One sector is of course agriculture. There is still a slow adoptionof technology, both for production and for processing. In the environment, we have yet to incorporate
smart concept when we talk of solid waste management, water resource management including clean
energy. Of course, there are still large areas where we have smart cities within the city there are stilllarge areas surrounding the smart city which – actually we have a lot of informal settlements, settlements
which have no access to basic infrastructure.
When we look at all these initiatives, there are a lot of issues that have emerged from the adoption andpractice in the country. One of these is, it remains unclear about the scalability of these pilot or test
projects. Secondly, it’s not clear how and where the smart city becomes embedded in our urban andsocial fabric. That still remains an issue.
There are sectors that are actually raising concerns that smart cities have this potential of undermining
equality or democracy. It is actually the area of challenge because most of the developments are not citywide. There is a challenge of whether these cities or projects are inclusive, and whether it is woven
within the urban and social fabric of the local area or the community.
Given that, what I think the areas for development and cooperation within the region would be thepromotion of the concept of smart nation, which is actually the concept that was provided or actually
defined how Singapore, for instance, and the EU define what a smart city is. It’s really nationwide rather
than just pockets of development. It should be a holistic approach to the concept. I think in the
discourse of smart city we should be able to not leave the environmental issues over that of digitaltechnology.
We did just a quick review of the discourse on smart city since 2014. What we find out is that only
about 1% of this discourse on smart city pertains to environmental sustainability; and most of the others
are about connectivity, infrastructure, data analytics and so forth.
I think the other are for cooperation would be to engage our local leaders; especially this is a clear casefor the Philippines because we have in advance decentralized system. It is the local governments that are
taking the lead in terms of management of their local areas. In the promotion, in cooperation andcollaboration, the local leaders should also be part of that discussion.
There’s also a need to engage our external actors, the Asian Development Bank, JICA, the World Bank
through the official development assistance to ensure that these developments of smart cities are done
19

19

simultaneously with the environmental concerns; and similarly, engage our private sector, the industry, inproviding the balance to environmental concerns and modernization.
I’ll end my presentation with that note.
Inada Juichi
Before this session, I said that the definition of sustainable society is wide. I would like to focus
especially on the environmental aspects. But as Dr. Ballesteros mentioned, smart city initiatives might
have negative impacts on equality and democracy. The discourse on smart city is not limited to theenvironmental issues but also many other aspects. I think the discussions and questions can be possible
to many aspects of the smart city concept, and the initiatives and actions of smart city.
I would like to invite questions from the floor to any presenter. I think it is better for us to invite
questions on Professor Ohta’s presentation as well. If you have any questions and comments, pleaseraise your hand and identify your name and affiliation, please. Yes.
Female Participant
Hello. My name is Michiko Iwanami. I am from Sojitz Research Institute. I have question to, if
possible, all the panel members here. I have two questions. The first question is within the various
aspects of smart city such as mentioned in agriculture. It might be water resource management. It
might be solid waste management. For us, myself being Japanese and being from a Japanese company,in which areas would you like to see investment or joint research for Japanese companies or Japanese
research institute? Which areas would you like to collaborate with research?
The second one is related to the strength of your country. In which aspect of smart cities, do you think
you have strengths? In other words, how – in which areas do you think you can help us being Japanese?
Inada Juichi
Could you identify the name of the presenter you ask the questions to?

Or maybe anyone can.

Female Participant
I did say all. If you feel that you are not really prepared for, I’m sorry that’s fine.
panel, I will be very grateful.

Anyone from the

Sarah Tong
Before I answer the questions, I do have a few points to add in terms of cross-border cooperation. I
think in terms of cooperation, we all know cooperation is good but we want to think more practically on
what area. I think in our proposal of cooperation, there are a couple of areas. Number one isinformation sharing, sharing the good practices, and also the not-so-great practices for others to prevent
such not successful practices. The first one is information sharing of various practices across countries.
Perhaps some of the practices would say, okay, Malaysia is doing well and that might address thequestions how we can teach each other.
Number two concerns training, education and awareness, increase awareness among public as well as
local leaders and so on and so forth. I think someone touched on that point yesterday. It’s not just thatpublic need awareness but the leaders at every level also. That’s the part I mentioned about training.
20

20

Singapore has provided training for officials domestically as well as from other countries. Perhaps that’s
one of the strengths for Singapore to be relatively more developed, and also facing much more risks, moreurgent environmental issues, so on and so forth.
The third aspect is technical support or technical cooperation in terms of research, in terms of practices,
whether it’s water treatment or sewage systems, so on and so forth. That also combines – technicalsupport also combines in terms of pool of experts in different areas so that countries know who are goodin which areas.
The last one, the fourth area of cooperation is financial assistance. I think earlier speaker mentioned
about ADB, World Bank, and other forms of assistance. That’s the financial aspect of cooperation. I
mentioned yesterday some kind of ODA mechanism or the ADB mechanism, or other institutional settings
would also be a useful aspect.
The question in particular, areas of collaboration or cooperation with the Japanese companies, I thinkalso there are two aspects of that. Number one is financial aspect. But being a company, financial
aspect has to be – it’s not ODA, it’s profit-driven. I think that depends on the strength of the company.
In addition to the financial aspect, the company is good at doing what. I think that’s important. That’s
the first question.
The second question, the strengths of my country, Singapore. I think in terms of domestic institutionalsetting is perhaps one but that’s not – each country has different system. That doesn’t mean that thesystem works in Singapore – works in other places as well. But I think training is one; that’s training ofexperts and exchange of practices. That’s obviously benefiting everyone. I think the other aspect,
Singapore has been learning is to be not focusing on just the government, is also trying to encourage
participation of private sector and citizens in general, and societies.
There are a lot of pilot programs within Singapore’s smart city, smart nation initiatives, and community
building, and community involvement. Actually there was a certain smart community pilot project,transportation system, car light. There’s a lot. That’s why it confuses me to say too much about that.
But there’s a lot of information in terms of Singapore’s practice. Hope I’m not doing a too messy job.
Thank you very much.
Calvin Cheng Kah Weng
Thank you. I don’t think I’m in a position to officially comment on which aspects that Malaysia
would like to see investments or assistance. But I’ll quickly comment on what I think are important
areas for Malaysia and where it’s lacking. I think one of the areas in which it’s important is humancapital development. Malaysia has traditionally always been lacking human capital development
element. I think the societal aspect of smart city initiatives are very important as well. I think that’s
where traditionally we have been lacking. We’ve always had lots of collaboration in terms of tech, interms of infrastructure, but on the human side it’s less so.
The other thing is of course on implementation as I mentioned earlier. The thing that – I suspect a lotof states as well – is that we can build; we have the technology infrastructure but what comes after the
post-implementation and the maintenance, that’s the tough bit. Thank you.

21

21

Kullapa Soratana
For the first question I will say similar to Ms. Tong that it depends on the company’s strength. But
based on the situation, in Thailand we are more focusing on the agriculture part since the country has been
undeveloped for this – trying to be agricultural country. That’s still for the second question as well. I
think Thailand, our strength in agriculture. That’s not based on the technology but cooperation. The
joint research will be based in terms of Japanese providing the technologies. Thailand has long beencollecting data and resources to conduct research in that aspect. Thank you.
Marife BallesterosThank you for the question. If we look at the investment of the Japanese companies in the Philippines,
I think we are actually happy about how it is being done in terms of being concerned not only about justbuilding the infrastructure but also being involved in environmental impact assessment, social impact
assessment. I guess it should continue along that line. But in addition to the infrastructuredevelopment, we would need support in terms of water conservation, and technology and innovation interms of solid waste management.
I think research and development is very critical for us especially in the case of the agriculture sector.
We have local inventors but usually without the support from external sources in terms of how you cancommercialize or how you can – those inventions. What is happening in terms of local invention is thatthey test it and then eventually it will not be adopted. We have a lot of experience in that in terms of the
agricultural processing sector.
Governance is really a weakness, I would say, in the Philippines. But we have a lot of human resource
capacity in terms of, I guess, interest in – for this digital technology, data analytics. We have graduatesof engineering and science. But there’s not enough opportunity where they could really put theircapacities into practical aspects. If there could be joint collaboration in this area of research anddevelopment as well as in commercialization of inventions, I think that really would be another important
contribution from the external sources.
Inada Juichi
Are there any other questions or comments to this session?
Male Participant
My name is Muraishi, from Musashino university. I’m not an expert in this subject, so my question
maybe vague. I’ve got two questions, a general one and a particular one. The particular one is to Dr.
Kullapa Soratana. I think you referred to a “smart people.” I’m afraid I’m far from being a smart
person. I’m really interested in asking this question. What do you mean, could you be a little more
specific about “smart people”? The general question is I don’t know who to ask, but regarding thispanel, building a sustainable society in East Asia. Is there any difference between sustainable society inEast Asia and sustainable society, for example, in Europe? Anyone could answer this. Thank you verymuch.
Kullapa Soratana
For smart people in terms of smart cities is that – people in the smart city will be educated andknowledgeable, and living in the smart city that they can utilize the community services that have been

22

22

equipped with the technology and innovation so they can live in the smart city.
and knowledgeable. Anyone wants to add on that?

They need to be educatedInada Juichi
Who can answer the differences, the applicability and concepts of smart city between East Asia andEurope?
Ohta Hiroshi
I’ll just give a very general answer. As a matter of fact, we did not discuss the difference between
smart city in Europe and in East Asia. But just kind of an impressionistic response is that, I think EU,
actually the core states in Europe – Germany and Scandinavian countries, they are very much smart cities
type of cities, kind of many cities utilizing digital technologies, IoT, and also artificial intelligence andothers, also public transportation system is very good. The street car systems, using rubbers something like
this, which is fine, very sophisticated and modern, energy efficient, sustainable European cities, evenvillages.
In terms of East Asia, I think we still have a different level of development in technology and economic
growth so that we cannot have – except Japan, Korea, and southern part of China, very much advanced interms of technological development, and also utilization of digital technologies. We may find somecities, and also company living some smart city like National – Panasonic and Toyota building a particular
city as being very much energy efficient using renewable resources. But because of the different level of
economic development, also technological development it’s quite difficult to find smart cities in East Asia.
But through our discussions, I think we should not transform our Japanese or Korean model to Asian
countries because it’s different, and natural environment is also different. Human resource is different.
Also, they have abundance of natural resources, more than we have. They should have their own model
to be developed. This is kind of the things we have been discussing.
They are much more interested not only in smart technological cities but also more sustainable
societies, addressing education and also gender equality, including. Those are the things we have been
discussing, maybe a different model and different ideas, maybe more ideas emerging through these
discussions. Someone?
Sarah Tong
We didn’t talk about how we are different. But being East Asian, we just naturally think East Asia.
That’s where we start – we didn’t try to distinguish ourselves. But to think about the question now thatyou raised it, just some thoughts. First, I think, just been mentioned, East Asia has a huge variation interms of development. Development itself means a lot to East Asia because we are still in very different
stages of development. That means sustainable development for us is still a lot of focussing on
development, while in Europe perhaps the development level is relatively more similar. They may focus
more on the sustainability issue but we are also equally emphasizing development and sustainability
because we do have economies that are still at the starting-up position in development, while in Japan – inthe case of Japan, they have advanced quite a bit.
I think the second issue—if I were to think about East Asia versus Europe—is that East Asia is
economically very integrated and interdependent. But institutional setting has been much lagged [ph]relative to Europe. Europe has a lot more institutional setup working together in terms of many areas,
23

23

while in East Asia we are economically very dependent on each other, but institutional-wise we are still ata relatively initial stage. In that sense we are somewhat different. But to put East Asia in there, I thinkit’s just being natural. East Asian, we talk about East Asia. We won’t pay much attention to the rest ofsustainability issues, not that they are not important, not that they are different, it’s just that we haven’t got
the chance to think about that yet. Thank you.
Calvin Cheng Kah Weng
Just briefly. I think some excellent points by Dr. Tong and Dr. Ohta. I am sure there are a host ofdifferences between East Asia and Europe models. But I think one aspect especially if we also look at
the smart manufacturing aspect is that the level of state intervention is very different. How each region
uses state resources to further these initiatives are quite different. In the East Asia approach, we see a lotof direct state intervention, direct state sponsorship, subsidies, very intensive government help in thisrespect; whereas in Europe, we see more the state playing an enabling role, so direct state subsidies, lessintervention, a lot of use of tax credits to incentivize indigenous research and development. I think thisdifference will have very different outcomes for each region.
Inada Juichi
Are there any questions and comments? [Japanese] I am thinking to ask Professor Ohta to explain thevery summary of yesterday’s discussion about smart city. So, very, very briefly.
Ohta Hiroshi
This is not the final because I had to ask the members to check. Anyway, we have discussed thefollowing content. The idea of smart city is not necessarily commonly shared among East and Southeast
Asian nations. But this concept is closely related to the various sustainable development goals,
especially SDG 4, which is: Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education, promote lifelong learning
opportunities for all. SDG 7: Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all.
SDG 11: Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable. SDG 13: Takeurgent action to combat climate change and its impacts. This also points to some technological elementsthat suggest integration, energy, transport and industry managed by IoT, AI – artificial intelligence, bypromoting renewable energy sources, the electrification of local communities, and integrated water waste
management scheme et cetera.
The notion of smart city should go beyond the boundaries of the city to rural communities seeking afair, resilient, livable, finally an environmentally benign society recognizing the necessity of addressing abroad range of sustainability.
We are going to suggest to the ASEAN Plus Three and some other forum the following policy
recommendations. First, we urge the creation of information sharing platform in East and Southeast Asia
to share necessary data and information, know-how and examples of the best practices to promote asustainable society.
Second, we encourage a demand-side approach to create a smart city by incorporating local culture andtraditional wisdom into the blueprint of sustainable community aiming at strengthening various regional
and international cooperation for sustainable development.

24

24

Third, we should galvanize all the stakeholders such as public officers, entrepreneurs, investors,
financiers, environmental caretakers, local people to participate in planning and building a smart
sustainable society. The keys to achieve these policies are universal and quality education, and bottomup as well as community-to-community approaches and government-to-government approaches. These
are the kinds of tentative proposals from our team. I just typed up this morning. We want to circulate
not only our members of smart city but also rest of the participants, and maybe even public audience, if
you had any comments later. Thank you very much.
Inada Juichi
Thank you very much, Professor Ohta. In fact, the time is already up. If you have any specificquestions and comments you would like to raise, is it all right? Then, I would like to go to the break, a
10-minute break. The next session will begin at 2:55, 5 minutes before 3 o’clock. Thank you.
[Break] 6(66,21 ᶚ&RRSHUDWLRQRQ7DFNOLQJWKH2FHDQ3ODVWLF3ROOXWLRQ 
Inada Juichi
We would like to start Session 2. Could you gather and sit down? We would like to start Session 2.
The topic is “Cooperation on Tackling the Ocean Plastic Pollution”. There are three presenters. I think
we have a lot of time. I’d like to ask each presenter to make your presentation up to 10 minutes. Yes,
we have still a lot of time for discussions. I would like to ask the first presenter, Mr. Shofwan Al Banna.
He is the Executive Secretary of ASEAN Study Center of Universitas Indonesia.
Shofwan Al Banna Choiruzzad
Thank you very much, Inada-sensei. Thank you very much to all participants and colleagues here.
Good afternoon, everybody. It is a great honor for me to be here, discussing an important event thatpretty much will affect our common future.
Today, I will share the efforts to combat marine plastics pollution – ocean plastics pollution in East
Asia. We are all aware this is already a global concern and Asia is in the spotlight because it is in Asiaand particularly in East Asia which is often said to be one of the major producers of plastic pollution in thesea.
To start with, I would like to remind us all that water has been long becoming very central to our life.
This is the site is the site from the Mesolithic Age in the eastern part of Indonesia. This is the waste ofclams that were eaten by our ancestors during the Middle Stone Age. This shows how water areas had
been providing us with the necessities of life since our ancestors. It’s no wonder that oceans are often
considered in our country as the source of life.
What we had done to this source of life, this is the picture of the Bahagia river. It’s in Bekasi in thewestern part of Java, the most populous island in the world. Bahagia literally means happy, but I don’t
think this river is happy right now because of less water than the plastics and the trashes there. From
this, we understand that the problem of plastics waste is very alarming. We have tons of trashes—you
can see the numbers here—are thrown into the water every day. Even in our conference, we are using

25

25

plastics. Soon, this will also – in one way or another, even if it’s recycled or not, it will affect theenvironment to some extent.
This is recently circulating also in our news media. This is a container full of trash exported from
Europe to be recycled in developing countries like Indonesia. But recently we heard the news thatcountries like Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines are rejecting such imports because it is also then to someextent illegal. Legally, illegally – it’s a gray area in which many players are playing inside that. With
that kind of problem, most of the plastics pollution in the ocean are macroplastics, things that we use everyday. Larger than 5 mm is considered as macro. But a lot of process then turns this into the secondary
source of microplastics. But there are also macroplastics that already become microplastics when they
are produced by the industries such as in the cosmetics and other daily products that we use, like shampoo,
facial wash and other things. This will affect, as many scholars have noted, this will create a lot of
problems from the entanglement and ingestion.
We see this cute seahorse is taking our ear cleaner. It cleans our ears but it makes the ocean dirtier.
It will not be decomposed for a long time. We all have seen the picture of turtles, tortoises, seagulls
trapped in plastics. But those are the things that we see. Apart from that, there are more dangers that
we cannot even visually see because then a lot of other problems are also introduced. It will come backto us. For example, in economic terms marine pollution leads to losses in fishing, shipping, tourism andinsurance amounting to $12 billion per year. This is the number in 2010. I believe the number isincreasing.
The impact goes beyond the economy. More than 693 different species, at minimum, that wererecognized and known by scholars had been affected by ingesting plastics. The real number might beworse, might be bigger. This of course will come back to us because in East Asia, 25% to 65% of ourprotein intake is from the sea, from fishes, from other ocean species. We go to sushi shops, most of them
are coming from our polluted seas. That will of course affect us too since these animals are eating
microplastics and then we eat them, so the microplastics are also entering our bodies.
With this as a background, there are regional initiatives to tackle this. In ASEAN, we already have an
ASEAN action plan on combating marine plastics debris. But we also have the larger regional
mechanism, the East Asia Summit mechanism. Now, the process is on the regional plan on combating
the marine plastics debris. In the sense that this issue had been taken into an important issue at theregional level, it’s already there. But I am afraid that we are not quick enough. We are not effective
enough in preventing further destruction of our oceans. There is a need to accelerate the process and to
make it more effective. To do so, there are several things that need to be realized. First, apart from thenational governance and the regional mechanisms that are already discussed, it is important to understandthat most of the pollution, the plastics waste that came to the seas starts from the land. Inland, theauthorities that manage the waste are mainly local authorities, are mainly municipalities or cities. It is
important to put them at the forefront.
Currently, the regional or the global mechanisms are built up with the national governments as therepresentatives of each country. But then there will be bureaucratic complexity on how thesecommitments then be translated into actions at local government level. I think it is important to design
an institutional cooperation that puts local governments more at the forefront. There needs to be direct26

26

cooperation, direct technology transfer, direct knowledge sharing between cities and between
municipalities.
The other dimension that I would like to highlight is the international dimension. As the picture that I
showed you before shows, tons of plastics waste are coming from not this part of the world but
somewhere else. It’s traveling thousands of miles, thousands of kilometers from the developed countries
in Europe, from Australia, from the United States. I’m not really from Japan. But my friends are doinga survey on the accumulated waste. We get lots of plastics waste that are not coming from our market.
We get plastics snacks packages from Australia, from the United States, from Europe, which are notavailable in Indonesia actually, but the wastes are coming. It is also important to take this into account,
and any efforts to combat the plastics debris must also must also tackle this issue – how could we manage
this illicit or semi-illicit export and import of trashes because it’s huge?
The third point that I think is important to put into our consideration is that maybe sustainable society is
not always gained through linear process. The higher the technology, the easier it is to prevent pollution.
That’s true in many sense. But in many countries with less advanced technological situation, looking attheir traditional culture might be the source of innovation by which we could prevent further destruction to
our environment.
This is an example of how the private sector is making their innovations based on both technologicaladvancement and/or through traditional inspiration. The first picture is funny. This is a company inBali producing plastic-like material based on cassava. This one is a Vietnam-based company producing
straws from bamboo that replace plastics. I think initiatives like these should be further promoted
through various incentives to make the entrepreneurs look at the alternatives of plastics.
At the same time, encouraging the use of traditional packaging might also be helpful even though more
research is needed to be done on how the use of this traditional packaging will affect the environment
overall. For example, in Java we have different ways of presenting food and packaging food using
banana leaves. There are other methods, not only using banana leaves but also suing palm leaves andother leaves. I think maybe it is good to look at this old wisdom again. This is from bamboo. It could
be used to be a bag or other thing to replace plastics.
I think I will end with this: to accelerate the efforts to combat ocean plastics pollution. I think the firstthing to do is to further strengthen the expertise and experience needed by the countries, by the
stakeholders, by the actors to combat ocean plastics pollution. Capacity building is needed. The
database is also needed. Effective cooperation could only be done if we have standardized measurement
which until now we do not have that standardized measurements. Researches are conducted by different
agencies with different measurements, with different standards. Sometimes we do not really know what
is really happening. I think it is important to have standardized measurements and joint research between
countries.
The other aspect is by accelerating institutionalization through creating platforms for sharing bestpractices, collecting information, sharing information, sharing the best practices based on local wisdoms
that might be learned by others, technology transfer and include the inter-regional dimension in thecooperation ideas.

27

27

The next point is by connecting collaboration and creating stronger collaboration amongst stakeholders,and maybe promoting sister cities programs because many of the waste management authorities are at
local level. If the cooperation is at national level, it’s often difficult to be translated into action.
Lastly, it is important to raise the awareness of various stakeholders. One more point related tocapacity building that I would like to highlight is that action, learning by doing is the best way ofknowledge and technology transfer. Rather than more training, maybe it is good to have more joint
projects. We are building the knowledge through that joint action. Thank you very much. Hopefully,
this is beneficial for our discussion. Thank you.
Inada Juichi
Thank you very much. In fact, this slide, the message Shofwan made is a summary of most
discussions we made yesterday regarding plastics pollution issues. I would like to ask the next presenter,
Dr. Xue Xiaopeng, Vice Dean of International Studies, Dalian University of Foreign Languages in China.
Xue Xiaopeng
Thank you, Chair. Thank you all. Today, I just want to make several points clear about the ocean
plastic waste since it is really a very serious problem that we are facing now. The first point is – what is
the general information about ocean plastic waste? The world produced about 380 million metric tons ofplastic in 1950, and about 55% of plastic waste was discarded in that year, that is 2015, and 25%
incinerated and 20% recycled. The rate of recycled plastic is very low all over the world. Since plastic
was introduced into the consumer market in 1950s, only 9% of the cumulative total has been recycled.
According to UN data, about 300 million tons of wasted plastic are produced every year, and 8 million to
12 million tons end up in the oceans annually. Packaging including everything from the plastic bags tobubble wrap accounts for 44% of plastic production. That’s to say the plastic bags we are using every
day just occupy nearly half of the plastic production every year. This is a really very high rate.
While dealing with the ocean plastic waste, we can do ourselves and it is more practical. The second
point I want to make clear is all the plastic products we throw and discard into the sea will be cut into very
tiny pieces by tides, winds, and sun. The fish and other ocean creatures will digest the plastic debris.
We finally eat them. We are not saving the ocean creatures and protecting the sea; we are saving
ourselves and protect our generations. What is the idea of protecting environment? It’s to live withnature, not live over the nature since we are part of nature. We are not god. We have to deal with the
problems since we have to live, and our children, our generations have to live in this earth forever, we
hope.
Ocean plastic problem is not a problem we can ignore; it is a problem we have to deal with; we have to
face. We have to be successful in dealing with. That is why we are sitting here, and we take one and ahalf days for discussing how to deal with it in our region. I think it is urgent and it is very necessary totalk about that.
We know that we, human beings, we have borders and problems. Plastic wastes they do not haveborders. They float with the tides. That’s why we need international cooperation. Since no states
have power and have desires to deal with it on their own, but we know that global governance has threelevels. Domestic, that is national level; regional level; and global level. The question is – is the global

28

28

governance on the ocean plastic waste enough to solve the problem?
enough. It’s not strong enough to deal with the problems.

No, definitely not.

It’s notGlobally we don’t have regulatory convention and the problem does not attract enough attention fromthe world as climate has done. Globally speaking, we need more attention. All of the states need to pay
more attention to this issue. The leaders, the elite from all over the world, they should pay more attention
and recognize the ocean plastic wastes are the problems. This is the first starting point that we recognize
this is the problem. This is the urgent problem that we have to deal with now, at present, not in the
future. This is the starting point.
Second, I think globally we need a convention. Yes, we have conventions but we don’t have theregulatory conventions. That’s to say, all the states, they promise to do something to fight against
climate change. For example, I will decrease CO2 in 2050 or something like that. But not all the states
like to make promise on ocean plastic waste. We need a regulatory convention first at the global level,
and then we can do something at the regional and national level.
In the East Asian region, is it enough to deal with the problem. No? Yes, we have the action plan.
We have the ideas and we have the willingness, but it’s not enough to deal with the problem. We have atleast three angles [ph] clear about the problem. Firstly, now we are relatively clear about the amount ofocean debris but not clear about how many plastic waste from the river outlets, sea farming, fishing andsea exploration et cetera. That’s to say we do not know how many ocean plastic wastes actually are fromthe land activities. Yes, we know that most of the plastic wastes come from land activities but we don’tknow the amount. We do not know the concrete data and information.
Second one is, the main sources of ocean plastic waste are not clear. We don’t have the data andinformation of various plastic industries. So, we couldn’t trace back the source of the waste and thus
can’t set the measures. We need to know more about that.
Third, the plastic transferring route is not clear. The present detective station especially in China are
set nearby the coast. It is not enough to analyze and model the transferring route of the plastic debris.
We need more information to settle what happens nearby our coast, but we don’t have enough informationand data. Actually one I’m talking about is we should know the transferring route of the plastic waste.
I don’t mean that we should settle down who should be greatly responsible for that. I think it is nonsense
to argue about who should be responsible for what kind of things. What is meaningful is how to deal
with it.
We are all responsible for that since it is a cross-border problem. We need to cooperate together toprovide the data and provide the information every state has in order to let the region cooperate to be clear
about what happened in our region. This is the situation in our region. Yes, we have the willingness.
We have the working plan. We have the roadmap. We have the action plan. But it’s not strong
enough to deal with the matter, and we should do more.
Is the state governance strong enough to solve every state problem? No, definitely not. In China, I
guess I know, we are not strong. The national governance is not strong enough to deal with the domestic
ocean plastic pollution in China. Things are serious also in many Asian countries including China,
Japan, and South Korea and so on. In China, from 2007 China has begun ocean waste detection; and in29

29

2016 China began microplastic test and detection. The results show that China plastic waste occupies
80% of all wastes. Ocean plastic pollution is still very serious in some places especially in seaside
villages, ports, and downstream seas. In the cities, things are better. But in the rural areas, things arevery serious. People there, they don’t have any mind about – we should cut down the use andconsumption of plastic bags and plastic packages, something like it. Things are very serious in China.
China is one of the biggest producers and consumers of plastic production. Actually we are thebiggest nation and we have a very serious problem, but China is still very weak in governing the problem.
So, we need international cooperation, and we need to attend joining the international cooperation, joining
other countries to deal with the problem. China has a strong mind and resolution to do that.
According to the data, China contributes 58% to 65% to the ocean plastic pollution in the North Pacific.
We have the responsibility. China just faced a great international pressure recently. How to deal with
that? Many speakers just mentioned the international cooperation. This is the way of dealing with the
problem and how to do it. First, I think joint research, joint detection, and joint actions are necessary.
Why I say we should do joint research is because we can change our way of packaging. We can do that.
We must do it. But the final solution to the problem is technology improvements. Why we use plasticbags is because it is cheap and it is convenient. We should have the alternative to take place of plastic
production. Also very cheap, also very convenient. It will be more popular. We should change ourway of packaging, way of doing things, and also we need technology improvements to help us. Also, weneed technology improvements to decrease the present plastic production.
Joint detection: now we have EANET. That is a kind of network in East Asia. That is Acid
Deposition Monitoring Network in East Asia. I think we can have another network. We can call it the
Ocean Plastic Monitoring Network in East Asia, EANOP, in order to do the joint detection to make clear
what happens in our region.
Second, that is to do the officials and public education. Education to public is very necessary, but
education to officials working in the environmental ministry is also very necessary. Since not all theofficials working in the environmental ministries of nations can’t really think that ocean plastic pollution
is serious. Firstly, we should let the officials recognize – leaders recognize this is a really very serious
problem.
The last one, I just want to stress and make clear is that we should promote the international standards
in our region. Our regional culture and diplomatic relations determine the model of cooperation in East
Asia. We need the new convention but we don’t have it now. What we have to do now is to justintroduce the international standards in our region and to let the nations to obey the international
standards, and then to push every country – to push every state to upgrade and improve their ability ofnational governance.
We have three international conventions concerning ocean plastics debris: that is London Dumping
Convention, 1973; and Convention on Prevention of Pollutants from Ships, 1972; and Basel Convention
on Cross-border Dangerous Wastes. The three conventions just provide us the very concrete criteria andtechnique index but effectiveness in each country is still not satisfactory.

30

30

We should introduce the international standards and regional cooperation can provide information,
experiences, and financial support for countries implementing the global convention to promote the state
governance as well. That’s all for my presentation. Thank you.
Inada Juichi
Thank you very much. The final presenter is Ms. Nguyen Le Ngoc Anh, Fellow Researcher, Institutefor Foreign Policy and Strategic Studies, Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam. I would like to ask you tomake your presentation between 5 minutes and 7 or 8 minutes.
Nguyen Le Ngoc Anh
Thank you, Mr. Chair. My presentation here focuses on Vietnam’s effort to combat marine plastic
pollution. Firstly, I want to mention the situation of plastic pollution in Vietnam. Here, I provide yousome numbers showing the very serious situation in Vietnam. According to a World Bank study, now
Vietnam is the 17th biggest plastic waste producer and ranks the 4th in the world in terms of plastic waste
release to the ocean. With 112 estuaries, 80% of Vietnam’s marine debris comes from land activities.
Also, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN, it is estimated that 1.8 million tonsof plastic waste is produced in Vietnam each year, while the plastic consumption is projected to increase
per year.
According to Vietnam Plastics Association, in 2010 each Vietnamese person consume 43 kilos ofplastic. This number is expected to reach 45 kilos in 2019 and 2020. However, despite a huge amountof plastic waste each year, Vietnam’s capacity for plastic waste management and treatment is still limited.
90% of Vietnam’s waste generally is disposed by burial and burning. In many Vietnam trash treatment
plants, the initial classification of waste is almost unavailable. Therefore, the current waste treatment
technology is limited.
Now, I also show you some photos taken in Vietnam recently for the exhibition named “Save our Seas”.
As you can see here, the plastic wastes go floating and many long beach have become garbage dump, andmany children are also playing in the toxic environment. This is the image of Vietnamese people
throwing the rubbish to the beach. While we have a huge amount of plastic waste – I show you thispicture. One of the reasons is because of the habit of using plastic products by the citizens. It is regular
to see plastic bags in Vietnam. In such situation, we’ve taken action to reduce the number of plastic
waste against plastic pollution. First at the national level, it’s now in need of strong solution to reduce
plastic waste. It can be seen in strong political commitments in plastic waste management.
We are working on the national action for the management of marine plastic waste, and also integrate
additional commitments to marine environment in the national strategy for sustainable development of themaritime economy. We also issue many legal documents on environmental protection. We’re also
preparing a plan with clear and specific goals and actions on minimizing ocean plastic waste. The
Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment has recently launched a campaign to encourage people tochange their habit of using single-use plastic bags. Now, here I have a picture in which our prime
minister is walking on the street at the opening ceremony of the campaign.
We also are planning to construct a waste treatment complex. In addition, recently we have increased
the tax for plastic bags and reduced the tax for enterprises producing eco-friendly products. Next, at theinternational level and regional level, Vietnam has actively participated in international cooperation
31

31

framework since 2019 until now. We attended the Group of Seven Summit in Canada. Our prime
minister proposed establishing an expanded cooperation mechanism between the G7 and ASEAN nations
for clean ocean free from plastic waste. Also, at the Global Environment Facility Assembly 2019 in Da
Nang, Vietnam, Vietnam also proposed building a regional partnership in East Asia on ocean plastic
waste. At the G20 summit in 2019, our prime minister also proposed establishing a global network on
ocean data serving for preventing plastic waste.
At the ministerial meeting on marine debris in Bangkok, 2019, we reaffirmed that we’re willing tocooperate with ASEAN countries and other partners to join hands to solve the problem of the ocean plastic
waste. However, in the process of implementing our policy, Vietnam also faces some challenges intackling the marine plastic pollution. I hope that you can help us to solve this problem.
Firstly, we have difficulty in changing the habit of using plastic bags by every citizen in Vietnam in ashort time. The second is, it is not easy to raise awareness on environmental protection for low educatedpeople. The next one is the intensive skills on plastic product is disproportionate to the attention paid tothe management of such waste.
In Vietnam we don’t have the system of initial classification of waste at the waste treatment plants oreven at the household or public areas. The next one is we only have very small treatment facilities which
use simple technology instead of advanced technologies. The next one is, we also need the financial
support for plastic marine pollution treatment.
My point of view, I think no single country can solve this problem unilaterally. I raise somerecommendations to enhance the cooperation between countries to cope with this situation. The first one
is, we should foster discussion and sharing the initiatives to manage plastic waste and boost regional
cooperation through capacity-building and workshops. The second one is, we should foster global andregional network on ocean and sea data sharing. The third one is, we should strengthen the activities toraise the awareness of people such as campaigns of the contents.
The next one is, the countries in the region should have the most stringent approach to single-use
plastics and require plastic producers to cooperate with the governments in handling the waste issues.
The last one, the nation should devise suitable policy to encourage firms to develop technologies that
could shorten the lifespan of plastic waste. I’ve finished my presentation here. Thank you for listening.
Inada Juichi
Thank you very much. We have 6 or 7 minutes for the discussion for this session. I would like toinvite any questions and comments from the floor. Could you raise your hand if you have any questions
and comments to the presentations of this session? Nothing?
All three presenters mentioned their own recommendations or challenges of this issue. They areoverlapping. If I would add some more points or recommendations that we discussed in yesterday’s
session, I’d like to summarize some. Firstly, almost all participants mentioned the importance ofpromoting regional cooperation in sharing experiences, good practices, methods, data on this issue.
Secondly, the importance of facilitating participation of many stakeholders to the actions to combat
against marine debris. Thirdly, it is interesting that some participants mentioned the importance of
creating market-based mechanisms of waste management or alternative material usage. Also, many32

32

participants mentioned the importance of implementation, not only policy-making and planning.
Implementation is important. For that purpose, not only for the purpose but it is important to include
local people and local stakeholders into the implementation process, maybe also the decision-making
process of this issue.
Finally, also many participants mentioned the importance of making the data transparent, and make it
for the public to access the data. This is still a temporary summary of the recommendation in thisSession 2. Again, if there’s someone who would like to make comments and raise questions to this kindof recommendations and contents of the presentations, could you raise your hand? Yes, please.
Male Participant
According to your presentations, Vietnam is 17th largest plastic producer in the world. I’m very
startled to hear that because considering the economy, that’s too big. Would you please explain why
Vietnam is so dependent on plastic?
Nguyen Le Ngoc Anh
Thank you for the question. The reason why we depend on plastic products is because the plastic
products in Vietnam are very cheap especially the plastic bags, also some products like cups or straws.
As I mentioned, recently we just increased the tax for this kind of products. But actually it’s not much.
That is the simple reason. The other reason is because most Vietnamese people have low income. They
just buy the cheap products for their life to use.
Inada Juichi
Just I would like to ask you to identify your name and affiliation.

Could you?

Male Participant
Kawamura, a foreign policy watcher.

 6HVVLRQ ᶛ)XUWKHU'HYHORSPHQWRID6XVWDLQDEOH6RFLHW\LQ(DVW$VLD
Inada Juichi
Thank you. It is the time to complete this session. Based on the program, we should continue to
Session 3 on sustainable society. Is it all right to ask the presenters in the final session? The firstpresenter is Mr. Bounphieng Pheuaphetlangsy, Academic Officer of Research Division, Institute ofForeign Affairs of Laos.
Bounphieng Pheuaphetlangsy
Thank you, Mr. Chair. First of all, I would like to thank the organizers of this event for the invitation
extended to my colleagues and me. In order to save time – we have a very short time today – I’d like tofocus on four issues, four things on my presentation today. First, I’ll briefly introduce SDG of Laos.
Second, I’ll focus on key aspects of sustainable society. Then third, I’ll focus on the challenges
associated with building a society that is sustainable. The last, I’ll give some recommendations.
Let me start. For many countries, they have 17 SDGs. But for Laos, we have 18 that is unique toourselves. We add one more goal that is, lives safe from unexploded ordnance or UXO. The reason
why we add this goal into SDG is because during the war Laos was bombarded so much with – I don’t33

33

know how many – millions of bombs; that’s why we need to make sure our citizens, farmers, they can live
safely. They can do agriculture safely for their living. The priority of our government is to focus onpoverty reduction. That is goal number 1 of SDG.
Goal number 4 is quality education. We want to invest in our human capital because comparing toother countries, the capacity of our people or human resources is quite low within ASEAN, I think. The
next goal is G number 8, it’s decent work and economic growth, which is very important to our country.
We want to uplift our status from the least developed country to middle-income country by 2024. G
number 9 would be infrastructure. We are investing in a lot of infrastructure project these days. One ofthese is – the biggest one is Laos-China railway project. That is a big project for Laos.
Then let me move on to – actually, one has to be honest. Laos is a very small country. We don’t
have smart cities like in Japan or South Korea or in Singapore. We don’t have much to share but I’ll
explain the current status of our country. Actually, the term “sustainability” or “sustainable
development” or “society”, whatever you call, there are so many aspects. There are so many elementsthat we should focus on. But I think we focus on only three things, three aspects. The first one is
economic, social, environmental aspect. In order to get to the destination of sustainability or sustainable
development, we need to balance between the three things, the three aspects of development.
What I’d like to state is that sustainable society is a society that is beautiful, that is a wonderful place tolive in. However, building it is not easy. So many big deals, so many big tasks that we need to address.
The first one is ineffective governance. Our colleagues, we discussed the whole day yesterday and the
day before, governance. What do we mean by governance? Governance is the way we make decisions;
the way we make policies. We need to make sure everybody can engage in the process of making policy,
otherwise we tend to forget local communities. We don’t know what they want, actually. In order toimprove our governance, we need to do lots of things as well.
In addition, it’s not easy for countries like Laos and maybe Cambodia, maybe Myanmar or otherdeveloping countries to balance between economic development and environmental protection. It’s noteasy. It doesn’t mean that we don’t care about the environment. We do care. But we want our people
to have better lives, better income first. Like Singapore, you are here; it’s okay you can come to focus onenvironment. In addition to this, another problem is the lack of responsibility and accountability. It’s
another big problem.
In here we have governance. I don’t know if we have the same understanding of the word governance.
Like I explained before, we have three or four levels of governance: local, national, regional, international
or global level. We call global governance. In here, the SDG number 13, it’s climate action. We only
focus on the big players like the U.S., China, India, and other big economies. We want to achieve – wewant to address climate change, but as you know the U.S. just rejected – withdrew from Paris Agreement.
That is a big question. The question is that – how can we bring China, the U.S., and other big countries
to come together to take action to address climate change? This is the big question. I want to throw iteveryone here. I ask myself too, but I have no answer to this question. I look forward to hearing youranswers.
Actually many others are problems or challenges associated with building sustainable societies, but wehave very short time so I’ll just jump to recommendations.
34

34

I have four or five recommendations here. The first one is related to governance. We have weak
governance or weak institution. What we’re supposed to do is improve governance including local,
national, regional, and international governance by making sure everyone, every stakeholder could
participate in the process of making policy or making decision. The reason why I say that is because in asustainable society we want to make sure everyone is not left behind. We want to make sure everyone isbetter off, having better life. Prior to that, we have to make sure they can engage in the process ofmaking policy.
Regarding governance, it’s all about implementing policies. We have to make sure, like otherspeakers said, we want local communities to get engaged, to participate in implementing policies. We
should start from making policy with others or with many stakeholders getting engaged so that they canparticipate in the process of implementing policy meaningfully, otherwise they don’t feel the sense ofownership. Maybe they wouldn’t give cooperation to that policy; maybe they reject in some countries.
Also, what is important here is to apply evidence-based policy. What does it mean by evidence-based
policy? I want to say if possible every policy should be made based on evidence, not based on ideology,
not based on the experience of leaders. Make sure we get evidence before we formulate policy. But the
problem in here in using evidence is that sometimes we start fighting, takes so much time to get the result.
Some project, pilot, it takes 3 years, 4 years to get the result. But the politicians say, for example in
Thailand – their term, I don’t know how many years, 3 or 4 years. Then, they want to do something rightaway when they get into power. That is the problem. Anyway, just recommend to use evidence.
The next is to ensure transparency about the environment by creating database so that we can share
information so that everybody – the public, NGOs, the government, researchers can get access to that
information so they can understand maybe fully, or maybe half, but they can get the idea about the impacts
on the environment.
Let me just give this recommendation. We discussed yesterday as well, apply market-based
instrument. What do we mean by market-based instrument? I got asked yesterday as well, thisquestion. By applying market-based instrument is one kind of environmental policy. Like in Vietnam,
people use a lot of plastic bags. The reason is simple, the price is cheap, and then people use a lot.
What we can do is to apply pricing strategy, adding more price maybe 10%, 20% to the price of the plasticbags. Then, this is going to help people to reduce the consumption. They’re going to change their
behavior maybe in a short period of time or maybe in a few years if we add the price. This is theexperience from Australia. They did that actually. First time I went to Australia and I went to market, I
buy apples, whatever, and then they say, you want plastic bag? Do you want a bag? Yes. But theysay, 20 cents. 20 cents, that’s money. I think about money in my own pocket. Next time, okay, I’m
going to use again that same plastic bag. It’s not like two. Reuse, reuse again and again if we can.
That’s the idea of market-based instrument.
The next one is to develop environmental education program to increase environmental awareness andto impart environmental loving attitude to our public, to our kids. This is important as well. What’smore important is that we should develop regional environmental impact assessment standard, forexample, within ASEAN if we can do it. There’s still problem as well when it comes to implementation.

35

35

Anyway, I’ll just move on to the next recommendation. It’s to innovate energy efficiency technology,
just to help us save energy so that we can reduce CO2 that we produce. The next recommendation is also
important – like our colleagues, other speakers also mentioned earlier – we need to transfer technologies
to other developing countries from developed countries. We need technology in order to save energy, inorder to build a sustainable society. We need that. Also, if possible shift to renewable energy that ismore friendly to the environment.
The last one is to create database like the other speakers have mentioned.
presentation today. Thank you.

That’s all for my

Inada Juichi
Thank you very much. We still have three more presentations. I believe all the presentations arevery useful and very impression and important. But I’d like to ask all the presenters to make yourpresentation – you can have more than 5 minutes but please do not exceed 10 minutes. Next presenter is
Ms. Yuzilawati Abdullah, Associate Researcher, Centre for Strategic and Policy Studies, Brunei. Please.
Yuzilawati Abdullah
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I am Yuzilawati Abdullah, anassociate researcher from the Center of Strategic and Policy Studies. We are actually a national thinktank run privately, but we are still funded by the government. We give where we can, as much as wecan, independent recommendations, independent views on domestic socioeconomic issues in the country.
Today, I’d like to speak about where Brunei is in terms of SDGs. I’m not an expert in this but I will
try my best to give as much as I can. Just a little bit of background. We’ve adopted this SDG in 2015.
We established the following year a special committee for coordinating SDGs, which is currently the
Department of Economic Planning, a unit under the Ministry of Finance and Economy. There is no
official report at the moment. Next year, they will publish an official report. At the moment, I’m justseeking some information from this department to share with me on where we are.
What you see in front of you is Wawasan Brunei 2035. Wawasan Brunei is the country’s vision, thenational vision, the Brunei vision. Under this Wawasan, we have three different goals that we hope toachieve in 2035. We would like to achieve highly educated, highly skilled and accomplished people.
We would like to have high quality of life. We also like to have a dynamic and sustainable economy.
Now, under these three goals, we have our own national-level outcomes; there are about 12, and each ofthem have their own KPIs. But when it comes to – you said 17 but for us it’s 17-plus-12. There’s a lot
more. But having said that, I do believe most of the outcomes are overlapping with SDGs. I have notseen it being addressed properly. That’s why I hope to see that all these outcomes together with thenational outcomes, the SDGs, to be properly addressed with their relevant KPIs. When we talk about
KPIs or indicators, SDG still has about 244 indicators. When you add them with our indicators, about
30, there’s an overwhelming number of indicators. Aside from that, it is overwhelming for all theministries and the departments when I have spoken to them in terms of SDG. But the key challenge is tolook beyond these indicators and actually have a solid set of strategies in order to achieve the Brunei
vision together with the SDGs.

36

36

Again, these are just some of the indicators of the SDGs. They did some analysis looking at the SDGs.
In the country we have a problem of data. We do. I do not deny that. In fact, when we look at SDGs,
we only have data for perhaps only half of the indicators. Some of them require some assistance as well.
We need to look at the current indicators and see how we can modify that and to look at how best we canmeet this.
I will touch on one goal which is goal number 9. It talks about building a resilient infrastructure,promoting inclusive and sustainable industrialization and so forth. Now, 9.1 talks about the proportion ofrural population who live within 2 kilometers of an all-season road. We have achieved only 97%.
These are very basic indicators. There are several rural villages that have not been connected by roads.
Road is one issue. Another issue is transportation. These are just basic.
Then, we’ll talk about the access to ICT, information, communication, and technology. As of 2018
when it comes to 2G, 3G, and 4G, yes, more than 90% are connected. There are plans by 2022 toembrace the 5G. We spoke a lot this afternoon about building a smart city. But in Brunei the focus ison having a smart nation. Why? Because we have a small population of less than 450,000. It’s
426,000 people. We are not looking at being it as a city when 70% is covered by forest. We’re looking
at having a smart nation. The idea is still the same. We need to improve the lives of the nation using
technology as an enabler. Within the country, it is a collaboration between several ministries, homeaffairs, development, and transport and communication, and together with the private sector as well.
Recently with the slow growth, GDP growth of Brunei, we realized that the government won’t be able
to support us. We can’t go relying on oil and gas anymore. We need more and more investment.
That’s where the private sector comes in. Collaboration with the private sector is paramount.
I’m going to talk about some of the current situations, current digital landscape when it comes todelivering the smart nation. For example, looking at some indexes of the digital landscape, for the egovernment development index and innovation index, we can see an improvement over the years. Overthe years, we have improved our ranking. However, in other measures such as the ICT development
index, competitive index, cybersecurity, there is room for significant improvement as well.
These are just some of the ongoing initiatives. We have recently established a digital economy council
and they are in the progress of formulating a digital economy master plan to look at the bigger picture, tolook at the policies, the framework on how we can actually have a smart nation. Unfortunately, I cannot
share with you any framework because it is currently being developed.
Other smart initiatives such as infrastructure improvement are ongoing. We want to be able tofacilitate all these businesses, reduce the cost of doing business and increase productivity. We are in a
public-private partnership project with the introduction of a smart meter system. We’ll integrate water,electricity together. That’s ongoing. We have also recently formulated a framework of digital payment
system. We’re looking at fintech as well. But all of these are actually in the infancy stage. Brunei
being a high-income country, however in terms of development we are still behind – very much behindamong all the East Asian countries as well.
Here are some of the initiatives that I’ve spoken earlier on. We’re also trying to have an intelligent
transport system for public transportation. We are heavily dependent on cars at the moment. This is a37

37

problem. We did a land transportation master plan. At the moment, everyone is using cars. I get towork in 20 minutes’ time. But if we don’t do anything about it by 2035 itself, I will probably get to workin more than an hour if we don’t change our public transportation system. The reliability – we need tochange the reliability of public transportation to reduce car dependency.
I’ll just share with you a bit of the challenges that we face. There are many, many gaps in fundamental
infrastructure services. We do need a holistic approach looking at the big picture, looking at polices,looking at impacts, even obtaining simple data and so forth, many things really. There are manyrhetorics. We need to move to the fourth IR but from the rate we are going, I think we’re still stuck in
the first and the second IR. We also need to capitalize more. We need more PPPs. We spoke about
this so much in the last 10 years that it’s about time we materialized more and more PPPs in order to savethe country as well, the country’s growth.
Our colleague just now spoke a lot about learning by doing, re-training and re-skilling, changing theway of doing things. Another thing I’d like to add – our colleague here talked about evidence-based
policy-making. In Brunei that’s not the issue. In Brunei it’s more of a reactive policy approach.
When something happens, then, okay, we need to do something. We lack more anticipatory policy
approach, anticipating before looking at emerging issues when setting up policies, when setting up rules
and regulations and so forth. We need to adopt a more proactive approach when it comes to policymaking.
Do I still have time?

I don’t think so.

All right. Thank you very much for your attention.

Inada Juichi
Thank you very much. Next presenter is Ambassador Khin Maung Lynn, Joint Secretary 1, Myanmar
Institute of Strategic and International Studies, Myanmar.
Khin Maung Lynn
Thank you, Mr. Chair. It’s my pleasure to be here and join our friends to discuss about further
development of a sustainable society in East Asia. I’m a trained diplomat and now retired, and joined
this think tank under the foreign ministry for 6 years now. This is my first lead [ph] meeting. I’m very
honored to be here in this famous university. Thank you all the organizers for inviting us.
I would focus more on the political aspect of East Asia because East Asia is our dialogue partner, very
important, three countries—Japan, Korea, and China, which are leading investors and traders of ASEAN.
Of course, we need to grow together—ASEAN and ES [ph]. We sincerely hope that ES countries canshow us good examples of friendship, understanding, and cooperation among them as well as we need to
grow together. We need to help each other. We are all Asians. We need to settle our differences
through negotiation to find a peaceful solution. There are no matters that cannot be discussed if you aresincere, open, and genuinely interested in the peaceful prosperous future for all of us because war or
conflict or contradiction make matters much worse, and much harder to settle. If we keep on quarrelling,
we can get only negative effects.
I just want to say a few things about Myanmar, what Myanmar is doing. Myanmar is trying to comeout from a shell, and starting to open up and starting to transform education and also thinking. Most
important is education system because we have lost two generations under military rule which makes the38

38country backward, and became a poor country among the ASEAN. Now, Laos has a much higher GDP
than Myanmar. Myanmar is the last. We have the internal problems. Peace process – we are fighting.
Some of the ethnics are still fighting.
There’s illegal immigrant problem in the west, and problem between military and civilian government
still unresolved due to this 2008 constitution which was drawn by the military. The constitution drafting
took 15 years. That’s a record, I think, for the country. Anyway, we are trying to progress as wellbecause our second city, Mandalay – Mandalay is trying to be a smart city. Its rank is now number 5.
It’s not bad because they have waste management, traffic control. The mayor there is a very smart
mayor. He employs a lot of smart people to practice smart policies.
Mandalay: our last king was taken from there by the British colonialist. Now, it’s transforming into asmart city and is progressing very well. It’s number 5 among the targeted 26 smart cities in ASEAN.
To become ES, we need smart leadership. Yesterday, we discussed about smart leadership, smart people
to lead the country, to meet the challenges, and how to deal with these new challenges and new problems
that we are facing today because of many fast-changing political landscape in East Asia and over thewhole world.
We have natural disasters that are threatening our livelihood. I think it is time now that we all work
together. There’s a political will, and it’s very important. We have to forgive and forget about the pasthistoric animosities or mistakes. In every good relationship, each person or each country helps others togrow. I think it’s now time to help all East Asia and ASEAN to grow together as dialogue partners.
Myanmar: we are now building infrastructure development. There are more Japanese investments in
Myanmar. They are quite successful in Thilawa project. Even the Chinese, our think tank friends, theywant to learn why the Japanese are more successful now than the Chinese before. I think there’s also
something good between Myanmar and Japan in people-to-people contact.
We look forward to have a more open and more transparent, in fact looking for more opportunities inour own countries, and work together with our East Asian friends, become smarter every day. There’s asaying, a smart mouse has more than one hole. We can try holes in every country. There are many
chances; we just need to find them. We need good friends, good company, and then look for the mutual
benefits. Equality is very important; sincerity and generosity also counts. Thank you very much.
Inada Juichi
Thank you very much, Ambassador Lynn. The final presenter is Mr. Dyakanal Sophal, Technical
Officer, Ministry of Environment of Cambodia. Please.
Dyakanal Sophal
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon. I’m great to be here. This afternoon, I want to talk about
the challenge, and the Royal Government of Cambodia’s strategic opportunity in pursuing the Cambodiansustainable development goals. In the pursuit of this work agenda, there remain four major challenges.
First, slow growth in agriculture. Second, the limited efficiency in managing natural resources. Third,
rapid growth in urbanization resulting in imbalance in development. Fourth, inability to respond to theimpact of climate change.

3939

In order to address the challenges, the Royal Government of Cambodia set out the strategic goals as
follows: The first goal: promoting the agriculture sector and rural development by strengthening the role ofagriculture in generating jobs, ensuring food security, reducing poverty, and developing rural economy.
Second: sustainable development of natural resources and culture by ensuring a balance between
development and preservation aimed at contributing to advancement of agriculture, industry, and tourism
sector, strengthening of management of mineral resources, and ensuring sustainability of forest andfisheries resources and ecological system, protecting and developing the national cultural heritage.
Third: strengthening urbanization management by developing livable city with clean and charming
environment, enhanced well-being of the people, and promote socio-economic efficiency.
The last one: ensuring environmental sustainability and readiness to respond to climate change by
minimizing environmental impact, enhancing capacity to adapt to climate change, and contribute to
reducing the global climate change as well as ensure sustainable development.
That is all.
Inada Juichi
Thank you very much. I’d like to open the floor for questions and comments. If there are any
questions and comments from the floor, could you raise your hand? Yes, please.
Nguyen Bich Ngoc
Thank you. First of all, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the organizers and co-sponsors
for having me here. I really enjoy the discussion, yesterday and today. I just want to have a comment.
I very much agree with the points made by our Laos presenter. Actually I think that when we talk aboutsystem and society, it is about how to make our people and our lives safer and prosper, and how to makepeople live in harmony with each other and with nature.
First of all, I would like to support your ideas, your recommendations. Second point, I would like toraise some ideas about your question – how to bring the big players into cooperation with the ASEAN
countries? I think there are two things that we need to have so that big players want to cooperate with us.
One, the first thing is that we need to have ASEAN unity because ASEAN can be attractive to big players,
to external partners only when ASEAN is in line. That is one thing.
The second thing, I want to attach importance is the rule of law. I think if ASEAN countries can act –and we have common action in accordance with law. If we can play by the rules, and if we can convince
big players, external partners to play by the rules, then we, ASEAN, will be attractive to big players.
I will end my comments.

Thank you.

Inada Juichi
Could you tell us your name and affiliation?

40

40

Nguyen Bich Ngoc
My name is Nguyen Bich Ngoc.

I’m from the Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam.

Thank you.

Inada Juichi
I think the first response should come from Mr. Pheuaphetlangsy.
Bounphieng Pheuaphetlangsy
That’s right. Questions? Actually, I like your comments. Thank you so much for that. There aregaps in reality. We have rules. We have international laws, like treaties. But in reality there’re gaps
when it comes to implementation. The U.S., the big power, when they want to do anything, they can –even withdraw from a treaty. We mentioned – we discussed the other day, yesterday about China-U.S.
trade war. What about WTO? Can it do anything or do something? It’s under the U.S. That’s thething that I want to raise again. Although we have rules, who make the rules? We have to ask thatquestion. Is there any willingness to implement or to follow it, to comply strictly or loosely? That’s thepoint. Thank you.
Inada Juichi
I find two people raising their hands.

Professor Ohta and Professor Tong.

Ohta Hiroshi
Thank you all for the presenters. Not picking an issue but the colleague from Laos raised a very
important question. Also, this one is for Laos. It’s quite important. As you know, you want tomention about WTO and other institutions like IMF and other things. This is a U.S.-led institution,
which the current leaders of liberal economic order is opposing. I think in the future, I hope that when
the changing of regime in US then they may be back – years taken back, US to come back to its own oldcreation of the institution, I think everybody benefits, even China and also Cambodia and Laos if you haveinternational economic order.
The first comment – the first issue we raise is about climate change. I think we discussed yesterday.
Just making sure, maybe two kinds of comments which are based on evidence, which is the Paris
Agreement, not only address climate mitigation, reducing emissions, but also for the first time, to address
the adaptations. Those communities are willing to help –developing countries – the least developed to beable to adapt to climate change because it’s almost too late to really mitigate to solve the problem. We
have to prepare for the adaptation, prepare for the worst case scenarios. I think this is my opinion. It’s
different from the Kyoto Protocol which does not address the adaptation. We have international rules tobe introduced with the consent of the developing countries. I think we should support this new
agreement.
Also of course, nobody can persuade Donald Trump to go back to the Paris Agreement. Nobody can.
But many states in the United States—California, New York and Oregon very much support the Paris
Agreement, even ahead of the federal government. There’s substantial reduction in emissions, and also
introducing various measures in electricity – wind power, solar power to name a few, which extracts lotsof oil. Now, wind power is much cheaper than oil. They are producing lots of renewable and generate
electricity through windmill. I think the United States is changing, even though the current federal or
central government tries to withdraw from the Paris Agreement.

41

41

As a matter of fact, the United States has not withdrawn from Paris agreement because there areregulations. After a few years, they can submit a letter of withdrawal. After 1 year of submission,
United States can withdraw. Until next year, United States cannot withdraw from the Paris Agreement.
Still there are parties, even though they are not trying to help. This is the second one.
Thirdly, I think even though the government – you cannot persuade the big governments. But
businesses already changed the course, because Paris Agreement gives their signal. We’re going tochange the economy from the conventional fossil fuel energy economy to new energies. The major
institutional investors like social welfare funds are now divesting from coal industry and investing more in
renewable new technologies. Even the United States government is trying to change the course. I think
the whole world, particularly business sectors very much changed their course and they are now leading.
I think it’s much more powerful, I guess.
Governments cannot give the seed money but private sector really drives the change. I think this is thekind of hope for me. These are the comments that I wanted to make. Thank you very much. I really
understand the needs of development. Of course the quality of the need is also important, I guess.
Thank you.
Inada Juichi
I would like to invite further questions and comments from the floor first. After that, I would like to
ask the presenters of the session to respond to their comments and questions if you have any. Please.
Sarah Tong
Thank you. I have a couple of specific questions and some comments. The first specific question isfor Abdullah. When you talked about the indicators, some available, some are not, the not available ones
were different colors. I’m just wondering what those colors are because the available one is one, theunavailable ones have been separated.
Some points, first, you mentioned about the ASEAN unity is the key. I think what’s also important is
ASEAN leadership. Within ASEAN we also need leadership that would help with the unity, whether its
Indonesia – it’s the largest in ASEAN – or Singapore being one of the most developed. I think that’s
another point I want to highlight – leadership versus unity.
The other point I think is looking at Japan’s experience. I understand when I visit some of lessdeveloped ASEAN countries, there is a sense of understanding that Japan’s involvement in the lessdeveloped countries are more successful than what China is doing. But when I talk to my Japanese
friends or people specializing in Japan, they say, no, we are more successful now but at the beginning we
also had problems. I think the Japanese experience in the earlier years of involvement in Southeast Asia,and the recent more successful ones are both important and useful for China to learn how to engage withless developed countries in terms of providing cooperation and otherwise, investment and so on and soforth. That’s the point.
I think talking about today’s global politics, most of us are not very optimistic given what Donald
Trump is, unpredictability and this and that. But I think there are two things. Number one, the crisis or
problems we are facing in the global politics is a structural issue, it’s not just Donald Trump. Even
without Donald Trump, we are still going to face issues, just not as irrational as his behavior but the42

42

problems are going to be there because we are facing some structural changes in global power relations.
That is a result of populist politics rising [ph] globally, in Europe, in North America and otherwise.
Those are the things we have to take into account, not just “when we get rid of Donald Trump, everyone ishappy”. No, it’s not like that. We have to be more aware that we are going to face some issues forsome time to come. That’s my last comment.
Last one, I still want to say the future of Asia depends on East Asia. We have to depend on ourselves
to make a better future. On top of that, I think Northeast Asia has a lot to do, has a lot of work to do.
The three countries, the three big guys here have to work together regardless of the history, otherproblems. The future is that we have to work together for a better East Asia in general. Thank you verymuch.
Inada Juichi
Thank you very much. There are several important big issues. Before inviting the responses fromthe presenters, maybe even other participants of the working group, I’d like to invite any other questions
and comments from the floor. Are there any? If there are no additional questions or comments fromthe floor, I would like to ask, firstly, presenters of the session to respond if you have any. Also, I guess
you have. No. Okay. I would like to invite your responses.
Yuzilawati Abdullah
For the first question, Dr. Tong, the colors do not indicate anything really because for every SDG there
are, in fact, a lot we don’t have the data for. Half of them, like I said, we have only data for 114
indicators. In every SDG, there are some we have, there are some we don’t. So, the colors don’t refer
to anything particular. Thank you.
Inada Juichi
That is the first technical question.
Xue Xiaopeng
I just want to respond to the question from Vietnam. You just mentioned law and rule. Actually,
what is rule and what is law? It is a social fact. What is the social fact? That most of us believe in
that, that is fact. Actually, while we’re talking about law and rule, we have a model. If you think therule and law, in EU is the rule, is the law; that is us and has no rule, has no law. But actually we noticethat ASEAN, they have their own way of cooperation and it does work for several years, for several
decades.
In governance we have two kinds of rules, or we have two kinds of laws. First one is a strong one, astrong law, that is regulatory governance. The other one is the loose governance, that is depending on
the soft laws. ASEAN, of course the East Asian cooperation, we are loose governance depending on thesoft laws. Soft ones still have power. Actually, we have our own culture of cooperation. We justdepend on the soft laws.
We have already achieved a great fruit in recent years. Especially ASEAN is a really very best
example for that. I think it’s good for East Asia to cooperate depending on negotiation, depending on
different situations of different countries since we are so different in East Asia. It is good. It’s really4343brilliant and full of wisdom to cooperate among so many different countries.
powerful. We should have confidence on that.

I think soft one is still

The other one I want to respond is to respond to the professor’s question. Climate change is anenvironmental governance area. Climate change cooperation has the longest history, and has the mostsuccessful fruits. Trump just came out and then withdrew from that kind of international cooperation.
But he cannot change all of the things. This kind of idea is already deep in everyone’s mind. Several
leaders in several states in the United States, they promise that they will still keep the promise of the Paris
Agreement. I think Trump cannot change all of the things. He can change some of the things, part of
the things but not all of the things. People all over the whole, they have a kind of idea that we should dosomething to save our climate – climate change is really a very serious problem. I think the process is tokeep it on, do not retreat back.
While we are talking about the governance, we have new changes in governance especially with the riseof China. But actually what I want to say here is China; we have very fast speed economic growth.
That is the truth, but the other truth is China is still a developing country. Actually in global governance,
we are the newcomer and we are still weak in some areas. We should cooperate with other countries andwith other states in order to make our world better, in order to provide the public good to the world.
Since I have done a research in environmental cooperation and governance for several years, I just want
to stress the importance of Japan in this area. Actually, Japan has done a lot in East Asian environmental
cooperation, not only in ASEAN countries but also in China. The technology and the way of cooperationis – Japan’s way of cooperation with other countries is very flexible and depends on different situations ofdifferent countries and just obey or inconsistent with the cooperation of East Asian culture. This is reallyvery good. In environmental cooperation, I think Japan can do much in the technology transfer and also
explore the new style of cooperation based on the market to do the environmental cooperation, to establish
coal company, maybe.
Professor Tong just mentioned the China-Japan-South Korea cooperation. We can do many things.
We should do some things, and wanted to add new energy to the East Asian cooperation. Thank you.
That’s all.
Inada Juichi
Are there any participants who would like to respond to the comments and questions from the floor?
Is it okay? Do you have? No. Time is up. Before going to invite the summarization from Professor
Ito, I would like to say, please excuse me to say my personal impression within one minute. Honestly
speaking, almost 35 years ago I was a research fellow of Japan Institute of International Affairs and wasengaged in many works, organizing symposiums and programs. At that time there was already ISIS,
Asian think tank network existed. Also, we had Japan-South Korea-China tri-lateral symposium
network, which was held regularly every year.
Currently, this kind of ASEAN Plus Three network was combined into one. I’m very glad and very
impressed to see that this kind of ASEAN Plus Three think tank network has been strengthened. It is mypleasure to be invited to the working group meeting this time. That is my personal impression.
I would like to invite the final concluding remarks from Professor Ito.
44

44 &ORVLQJ6HVVLRQIto GoThank you, Professor Inada. I’m supposed to make the final summarization of the conference but
actually before getting there, Professor Inada already did much of the things that I have to do. Actually I
may have to have some kind of roles for the conference towards the end of these very significant sessions.
I will have to explain about myself a little bit. My name is Go Ito. Ito, I-T-O, is my family name.
I’m actually the convener of this conference today. The reason is that I have several different heads.
One is the Director of Research at the Japan Forum of International Relations. At the same time, I’m the
Director of Meiji Institute of International Relations at Meiji University, of course, this university. Bymaking use of my professorship, we have been able to make use of this conference room.
First of all, as a convener of this conference I would like to thank you, not just the participants, thepanelists, but also audience and volunteers and others for attending this conference and spending 4 or 5hours with us, and listening to the very important and significant speeches and also questions and answers.
First of all, I have to give gratitude to all of the participants of this conference.
As the convener, like the Japanese way, I may have to make a little bit of apology for the – to be honest– the shortage of audience. The reason is that, when I had a chance to take a look at the number of theaudience this morning, more than 50 or 60 members of the audience are supposed to be here actually.
But when I actually came here we found that probably less than half of that; those who applied for theattendance today didn’t come probably because it’s too hot outside. Temperature probably prevented
them from coming over here.
This kind of hot and humid weather, it’s like when you have a chance to go out. Of course it’s not justhot – but this hot weather of course automatically brings us to make use of air conditioners. In one place
the usage of the conditioner creates the heat wave. Accumulation of heat wave brings the people to use
the air conditioner. It’s a typical case of vicious circle. I may have to actually get into the substance of
this discussion by picking up the example of this air conditioner. This is of course the logic of entropy.
One thing actually in the world – one place – bad things can be pushed to the other. Finally, the viscous
circle has been created.
Three points would be important. First, entropy is of course too bad. But actually how we would be
able to get this bad entropy into issues like inclusiveness, inclusive societies, and also sustainable society.
It’s actually one thing that we have to pay attention to. The spectrum between the entropy andinclusiveness, how we would define our position between these extremes is going to be quite significant.
We’ve already listened to the sessions regarding ocean plastic litter. That’s creating terrible cases of
toxic things for human beings. We have to actually avoid that. One place that is toxic can be of course
pushed to others. It’s like logic of entropy. We get into the discussion like the case of the smart city inthe first session. Smart cities of course, we are always paying attention to environmental issues andtrying to include these environmental issues into the entire construct of the society. I think all of thesessions in this conference touched on these actually very significant issues.

45

45

The second innovative framework I would actually refer to is the issues of the governance. The ocean
plastic reduction, that’s of course pushed to the local cities. As seen in the conference sessions, these badlitters have been addressed and also managed by the local villages or towns, or the local cities, whatever.
All of development things, all the fruits have been enjoyed by the people in the center. The public bad ofcourse are pushed to the locals. That’s not just the issues within the domestic side but alsointernationally speaking, this is of course a perennial issue between the developed and the developing
countries.
I think inclusive society, and also sustainable development, deals with the issue that we have to change
our perspectives, change that viscous circle into creation to more advantageous directions. That’s thesecond framework I’d like to pay attention to. Public bad actually can be changed into public good.
The third framework is, of course, the spectrum between how the viscous circle of the public bad can bechanged into more advantageous public good. That’s the issue that I mentioned a little bit in the session
yesterday. That’s also the issue that all the sessions have been touching on. I think the costly [ph]disadvantageous can be changed into more beneficial advantageous – that’s of course the public good.
But it’s not an easy process. We are actually Asian. Professor Inada mentioned the ASEAN Plus
Three, the combined framework, and geographically pretty close. I think it’s time for us think moreclearly about this interdependent situation and how we would be able to make inclusive societies andchange the public bad into public good. That’s the thing would like to say. It’s three points.
Professor Ohta mentioned in the keynote speech – already the terminologies are available, like, recycle,
reuse, and also waste-to-energy conversion, substitution, materialization. Terminologies are also in here.
That actually means that we’ve already started to think about these new ideas. We have to pay more
attention to these new ideas, really think more specifically about the implementation plans for our future.
I’d like to conclude my talk by saying another three points but that probably doesn’t last forever. FirstI have been convening this kind of conference so many times but take a look at the gender balance at theparticipants of this conference today. Eleven international guests from overseas. But 6 out of 11 areactually women—female participants, those panelists, which is actually really good. I think that also is
not just a good thing but also trying to realize more inclusiveness of gender balance for us to think about
this significant topic for our future.
Second, this conference is funded by The Japan Foundation Asia Center. I just made greetings tosome of the people from The Japan Foundation Asia Center in a business card that the slogan of the Asia
Center right now is “Asia in Resonance” Hibikiau Asia. That sounds very fantastic. One country’s
points reverberate into others – good music reverberating the resonance in the region as a whole. This isprobably the thing that we are looking forward. I think this slogan is for us to realize the inclusive
society and sustainability. The Japan Foundation Asia Center’s slogan, we actually would like to makethe resonance. We would like to realize the “Asia in Resonance”.
Finally, some of the people here might already know this, ASEAN Plus Three, but one country is
missing. I would like to emphasize that this does not have any political connotation at this time, does nothave any political connotation. We would be happy to talk about these important issues with the country
who is absent today. We are living in one place in Asia. We’d like to continue this talk.

46

46

I would like to finish my talk by thanking all of the panelists especially the chairperson, Professor
Inada; and also the keynote speaker, Professor Ohta; and also the 11 participants from overseas, and also
audience, and my students in front of the reception area, before [ph] this room. All the people cooperate
and they contribute very eagerly for this conference. I would like to thank you very much, all of thepeople. I would like to close this conference. Thank you very much.
Inada Juichi
Thank you very much.

This is the end of the conference.

>(1'@


  

47

47

Thank you for your participation.










   ᶙ,,, 3URJUDPV$SSHQGL[   ,,,$SSHQGL[




















̏ ɿ 3URJUDP  ̐
3UHVHQWDWLRQ0DWHULDOV
ɿ 3DUWLFLSDQWV/LVW ̑,QWURGXFWLRQDQG%ULHI6XPPDU\RIWKH'LDORJXH'LVFXVVLRQ
ɿ %LRJUDSKLHVRIWKH3DQHOLVWV
 ,QWURGXFWLRQRI2UJDQL]HUV

 3UHVHQWDWLRQ0DWHULDOVKeynoteSpeech:

Hiroshi OHTA
Professor, Waseda Univerity (Japan)

49

50

51

52

Session I: Promoting the Cooperation and Enhancement in Building‘Smart City’ Concept and the Regional Environment Issues

Kullapa SORATANA
Professor, Naraesuan University (Thailand)

53

Marife Magno BALLESTEROS
Vice President, Philippine Institute for Development Studies (Philippine)

54

55

Session II: Cooperation on Tackling the Ocean Plastic Pollution

Shofwan Al Banna CHOIRUZZAD
Executive Secretary, ASEAN Study Center, Universitas Indonesia(Indonesia)

56

57

NGUYEN Le Ngoc Anh
Fellow Researcher, Institute for Foreign Policy and Strategic Studies,
Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam (Vietnam)

58

59

 ,QWURGXFWLRQDQG%ULHI6XPPDU\RIWKH'LDORJXH'LVFXVVLRQ
(1)Background
In East Asia, regional cooperation and integration have been promoted, as seen in the cases ofthe establishment of ASEAN+3 (APT) in 1997, East Asian Summit (EAS) in 2005, and ASEAN
Community in 2015, focusing on the fields of economy, finance, education, disaster prevention, etc. inparticular. Especially, economic mutual dependency has deepened as East Asia observed a rapid
economic development, which promoted the formation of supply-chain within the region. In themeantime, as the integration progressed, the negative side effects of it including various trans-borderthreats are spreading regionally and globally. Such threats can only be dealt with the multilateral
cooperation, because it would make a major impact politically, economically and socially, therefore no
single country is able to combat alone.
Then, what is the global/regional challenge the East Asia is facing today? That is to say, whether
we could build a sustainable society and continue the development accordingly, with the Sustainable
Development Goals in mind. The “sustainable society” is generally defined as the society in which thenatural environment is appropriately preserved, and the development is conducted to fulfill the needsof the current generation while not passing down the cost to the future generation. In East Asia, thebuilding of the sustainable society and its development is being disturbed by the severing environment
issues, and various related issues are surfacing.
For example, disaster risks originating from the climate change are rising in Asia, and the ocean ispolluted by 8 million ton of disposed plastics annually, posing a serious threat to the marine bioecosystem. What makes those issues challenging to tackle originates from the lack of region-wide
information sharing platform, or of an environmental education, hence the lack of a multinational
cooperation scheme.
Under the framework of the ASEAN Plus Three (APT), Meeting of the Ministers of the Environmenthas been held once a year since 2002, and twice since 2015. The ASEAN+3 Marine Plastics Debris
Cooperative Action Initiative that aims to promote environmentally friendly management of plastic
wastes and of 3Rs –Reduce, Reuse, Recycle- was proposed, which was widely welcomed at the APT
Summit Meeting last year.
In a case of Indonesia, the understandings to the environment cycle were deepened thanks to theenvironment education given to the youth of the community and females, so they turned to organic
farming or growing various products in small units. The community businesses were further supportedwith micro-financing, and it generated the cash revenue for those who sell the manufactured farm
products (e.g. chocolates, vegetable snacks, etc.), helped decline the number of females and younglings
moving out of the city, while in return increasing the number who moves in and remains to stay. In
Japan, ‘recycle stations’ have been placed in the cities to promote habitants-led collection of recyclable
products and the environment education. It is observed that the activities related to the recycle station
has let not only the reduction of the wastes, but also made the area friendly for senior citizens, singleparents, or children living in poverty to live in, resulted in having strengthened the social capital of the60

area.
Such good-practice can be adopted in other countries, too, though it still remains to be an example
within that area due to lack of measures to analyze it or of information sharing platform. While APT
framework has ASEAN Working Group on Environmental Education (AWGEE), providing a platform
for a mutual reference on the environment education practiced in the member countries, yet it has not
given a function to collect region-wide data of good-practices or to transfer know-hows to abroad. Basedon such circumstance, building of a rapid response scheme particularly in the environmental issues isinevitable to further promote the sustainable development in East Asia.

(2)

Objective
The Japan-East Asia Dialogue 2019 examines the possibilities of developing a new approach aswell as constructing the network of cooperation on the environmental issues in particular, such as ocean
plastic pollution, building of ‘Smart City,’ the environment education, while utilizing the current
existing schemes, to further develop a sustainable society in East Asia. The Dialogue was expected to
identify the major challenges, examine possible areas to improve or further develop and prepare
recommendations to the APT Summit from the standpoint of Track II diplomacy.

(3)

Challenges
Given such backgrounds, how shall we consider the possibilities of developing a new approach

as well as of constructing the network of cooperation especially on the environmental issues, such as
ocean plastic pollution, building of ‘Smart City,’ the environment education, while utilizing the current
existing scheme, to further develop a sustainable society in East Asia, to further promote the sustainable
development in the region? In the Dialogue, the participants proposed to discuss (1) how shall themember states of APT cooperatively tackle the ocean plastic pollution to further promote the sustainable
development of the region, and deepen such notion as a region-wide, collective one, as well as toenhance and strengthen the measure internationally; (2) how shall APT members promote its
cooperation and enhancement in building ‘smart city’ concept, and the regional environment education;(3) what kind of system would be created based on a cooperative network to tackle the environmental
issues regionally, to achieve a sustainable development.

(4)

Discussions at the Dialogue
15 experts from APT countries and the sponsoring organization, the Global Forum of Japan,

took part in the Dialogue as panelists in Tokyo on 7 August 2019 which was organized in a keynote
address and three sessions: Session I “Promoting the Cooperation & Enhancement in Building ‘Smart
City’ Concept and the Regional Environment Issues;” Session II “Cooperation on Tackling the Ocean
Plastic Pollution;” and Session III “Further Development of a Sustainable Society in East Asia,” asillustrated in the “II Minutes of Presentations and Discussions” in this report.

61

(5)

Policy Recommendations


Based on the discussions held at the Dialogue, the participants agreed the lessons presented
and reflected them in the form of policy recommendations summarized as follows:1.

Promote regional collaboration in shearing experience, methods, information, technology inboth modern and traditional, finance system with good practices, in not only governmental but alsoprivate sectors.
2.

Facilitate participation of many stake holders to the actions combat against marine debris not

only plastic debris.
3.

Conduct Education including all generations to realize plastic debris impacts and promotechanging actions in daily life (do not use one-way plastic products and good manage of waste)
4.

Conduct additional Trans-disciplinary researches to get precise current situation and future

impacts through standardized methods and shear the results with reliable data.
5.

Create new business based on Waste managements and alternative material usages.

6.

Promote participation of local governments and collaboration inter-regional actions.

[END]








62

,QWURGXFWLRQRI2UJDQL]HUV
(1) The Global Forum of Japan (GFJ)
Objectives and History
The Global Forum of Japan (GFJ) originates from the Japan Chapter of the Quadrangular Forum (QF), which wasestablished in 1982 in Washington to serve as an informal promoter of the exchange of policy-oriented views andopinions among Japan, US, Europe, and Canada. As the Cold War ended and its aftermath faded away, QF ceased its
activity in 1996. The Japan Chapter of QF survived the vicissitudes and developed into the Global Forum of Japan(GFJ) as an independent institution of Japan for international intellectual exchanges. Since then, GFJ has been active
as a hub for international exchanges with the global intellectual community at large.
Organization
The Global Forum of Japan (GFJ) is a private, non-profit, non-partisan, and independent membership organization in
Japan. Business Member, Political Member, and Academic Member support its activities as Governors and Members.
The Secretariat is housed in The Japan Forum on International Relations. GFJ is currently headed by ITO Kenichi as
Chairman, WATANABE Mayu as President, and TAKAHATA Yohei as Vice President and Executive Secretary. The
membership is composed of 11 Business Members including the 2 Governors, ISHIKAWA Hiroshi and YAGUCHI
Toshikazu; 11 Political Members including the 4 Governors, KAKIZAWA Mito, SUEMATSU Yoshinori, SUZUKI
Keisuke, and FUNADA Hajime; and 54 Academic Members including the 4 Governors, ITO Go, KAMIYA Matake,
TAKAHARA Akio and WATANABE Hirotaka.
Activities(1) e-forum “Giron-Hyakushutsu (Hundred Views in Full Perspective)” operated on the website of GFJ(2) Monthly held meetings of “Foreign Policy Luncheon” and “Diplomatic Roundtable”(3) PR and Enlightenment through publication of “Bulletin,” the website, mail magazine, etc.
(4) “International Dialogues” convened 3 to 4 times a year on policy-oriented issues with counterparts invited fromvarious parts of the world. Recent International Dialogues are as follows:

Years andMonths2019

The Japan-East Asia Dialogue “Towards Building a Sustainable
Society in Asia”

Jul.

The Japan-China Dialogue “Towards Building the New Japan-China
Relations”
The Japan-U.S. Dialogue ȈU.S.-China ȈNew Cold WarȈ?: Implications
for Japan and the United StatesȈThe Japan - Indo-Pacific Dialogue “Free and Open Indo-PacificInitiative and Maritime Order”

Jan.

Dec.
July

Mar.
Feb.
2017

Counterparts

Aug.

Feb.

2018

Themes

Aug.
Jun.

Mar.

The Japan-Russia Dialogue “Possibility of Japan-Russia Cooperationin an Increasingly Complex Northeast Asia”
The Dialogue with the World “GEOECONOMICS and The 21stCentury World and Japan”
The Strategic Dialogue with Central Asia “Strategic Prospects ofRegional Cooperation and Security in Central Asia”
The Japan-U.S. Dialogue “China Risks and China Opportunities –Implications for the ‘Free and Open Indo-Pacific Strategy’ –”The Dialogue with the World Eurasia 2025
“Central Asia + Japan” Dialogue “Prospects on the Current andFuture Japan-Central Asia Relations
The Japan-ASEAN Dialogue “Changing Regional Order in the Asia
Pacific and Japan-ASEAN Cooperation”

The Japan-U.S. Dialogue “The Japan-U.S. Alliance in the Era of the

63

Meiji Institute of Global Affairs (MIGA)
East Asia Institute, National University ofSingapore (EAI) (Singapore)
The Faculty of Social and Political Sciences,
University of Indonesia (Indonesia)
Shanghai Institute for International Studies(SIIS) (China)
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace(CEIP) (U.S.)
Meiji Institute of Global Affairs (MIGA)
Meiji Organization for International
Collaboration
Pathfinder Foundation (Sri Lanka)ȈRoutledge Studies on Think AsiaȈ
The Far East Branch of the Russian Academy of
Sciences (FEB RAS)The Japan Forum on International Relations(JFIR)The Japan Forum on International Relations(JFIR)
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace(CEIP) (U.S.)
The French Institute for International andStrategic Affairs (IRIS) (France)
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of JapanThe S. Rajaratnam School of International
Studies (RSIS) (Singapore), Nanyang
Technological University / The University ofSocial Sciences and Humanities, Vietnam
National University (VNU-USSH) (Vietnam)
Institute for National Strategic Studies,
National Defense University (INSS) (U.S.)Feb.

Trump Administration: Crossroads or Continuity?Ȉ
The Japan-China Dialogue “Prospect of Japan-China Cooperation in
Aging Society”

Shanghai International Studies University /Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences / Fudan
University (China)

Contact
Address: 2-17-12-1301, Akasaka, Minato-ku, Tokyo, 107-0052, Japan
TEL: +81-3-3584-2193 FAX: +81-3-3505-4406 E-mail: gfj@gfj.jp URL: http://www.gfj.jp/j/(2) The Japan Forum on International Relations (JFIR)The Japan Forum on International Relations, Inc. (JFIR or The Forum) is a private, non-profit, independent, and nonpartisan organization dedicated to improved understanding of Japanese foreign policy and international relations. The
Forum takes no institutional position on issues of foreign policy, though its members are encouraged not only to analyze
but also to propose alternatives on matters of foreign policy. Though the Forum helps its members to formulate policy
recommendations on matters of public policy, the views expressed in such recommendations represent in no way thoseof the Forum as an institution and the responsibility for the contents of the recommendations is that of those members of
the Forum who sign them alone.
The Forum was founded on March 12, 1987 in Tokyo on the private initiative of Dr. OKITA Saburo, Mr. HATTORI Ichiro,
Prof. ITO Kenichi, and 60 other independent citizens from business, academic, political, and media circles of Japan,
recognizing that a policy-oriented research institution in the field of international affairs independent from thegovernment was most urgently needed in Japan. On April 1, 2011, JFIR was reincorporated as a “public interest
foundation” with the authorization granted by the Prime Minister in recognition of its achievements.
JFIR is a membership organization with four categories of membership, namely, (1) corporate, (2) associate corporate,and (3) individual. As for the organizational structure of JFIR, the “Board of Trustees” is the highest decision making
body, which is in charge of electing the “Directors” and of supervising overall activities of JFIR, while the “Board of
Directors” is an executive body, which is in charge of the management of day-to-day operations of JFIR.
ŶBoard of TrusteesŶBoard of Directors

ARIMA Tatsuo

ITO Kenichi

HAKAMADA Shigeki

WATANABE Mayu

President

HIRONO Ryokichi

HANDA Haruhisa

Director

ISHIGAKI Yasuji

ITO GoDirector

KUROYANAGI Nobuo

ITO Masanori

Director

OHYA Eiko

KAMIYA Matake

Director

SAKAMOTO Masahiro

KIKUCHI Yona

Director

SATO Ken

MORIMOTO Satoshi

Director

WATANABE Toshio

TAKUBO Tadae

Director

YANO Takuya

Director

YAMAGUCHI Norio

ChairmanŶAuditors
NAITOH Masahisa
WATANABE Kenichi
The Forum’s activities are composed of such pillars as “Policy Recommendations,” “e-Forum” “Research Programs,”“International Dialogues & Exchanges,” “Participation in International Frameworks,” “Information Gathering,” and “PRand Enlightenment.” Of these pillars of activities, one important pillar is the “e-Forum: Hyakka-Seiho” which means“Hundred Flowers in Full Bloom” (http://www.jfir.or.jp/cgi/m-bbs/). The “e-Forum,” which started on April 12, 2006, isopen to the public, functioning as an interactive forum for discussions on foreign policy and international affairs. All
articles posted on the e-Forum are sent through the bimonthly e-mail magazine “Meru-maga Nihon Kokusai Foramu”
in Japanese to about 10,000 readers in Japan. Furthermore, articles worth attention for foreigners are translated into64

English and posted on the English website of JFIR (http://www.jfir.or.jp/e/index.htm) as “JFIR Commentary.” They arealso introduced in the e-mail magazine “JFIR E-Letter” in English. “JFIR E-Letter” is delivered bimonthly to about 10,000
readers worldwide.
Contact
Address: 2-17-12-1301, Akasaka, Minato-ku, Tokyo, 107-0052, Japan
TEL: +81-3-3584-2190

FAX: +81-3-3589-5120

E-mail: jfir@jfir.or.jp URL: http://www.jfir.or.jp/j/(3) Meiji Institute of Global Affairs (MIGA)᫂἞኱Ꮫᅜ㝿㛵ಀ◊✲ᡤ
Director: Go Ito (Professor, Meiji University)
Tel & Fax: 03-3296-4163
E-mail: meijimiips@gmail.com
1) The Meiji Institute of International Policy Studies (MIIPS) was established in January 2013 within
Meiji University as a research unit engaging in international studies.
2) In collaboration with the Meiji Institute for Global Affairs (MIGA), the MIIPS held an international
conference entitled “What are Big Power Relations?: Toward Peace, Prosperity, and Stability in the
Asia-Pacific” with distinguished invitees such as Douglas Paal (Vice President of the Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace), Gerald Curtis (Professor, Columbia University), and SongYanghui (Academia Sinica, Taiwan).
3) During 2013-2015, with funding from the US-Japan Foundation, the MIIPS conducted a joint study
with the Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies (Honolulu, Hawaii) on the role of the US and Japanfor maritime security in the East and the South China Seas.
4) In December 2014, the MIIPS invited Professor John Mearsheimer (Professor, University of Chicago)
for his first visit to Japan. During his visit, he conducted lectures on offensive realism at the Cabinet
Office, the Foreign Ministry, the Defense Forces, various universities and thinktanks, including “TheAsia-Pacific in Power Transition: How Many Powers?” co-sponsored by the MIIPS and the Global
Forum.
5) In July 2015, the MIIPS conducted an international conference entitled “Enhancing Cooperation for
Peace and Stability in a Maritime Asia” with invitees from the United States, the Philippines,
Vietnam, and Taiwan.
6) In April 2018, together with the closing of the above MIGA, the Director of the MIIPS decided totake over the name of the MIGA (with a slight modification from the Meiji Institute for Global Affairs(MIGA) to the Meiji Institute of Global Affairs (MIGA)) to advocate studies on international affairs
at Meiji University. Organizationally speaking, the new MIGA is a research institute independentof the former MIGA.
7) The new MIGA has been conducting such studies as US security commitment to Asia with China’srise, the role of the self-defense forces in natural disasters, and possible agenda on the US-Japan
cooperation for maritime peace and stability in the East and South China Seas. The new MIGA is
now planning to publish a book on the future configurations of Indo-Pacific international relations.

65

(4) East Asian Institute, National University of Singapore (EAI)The East Asian Institute (EAI) was set up in April 1997 as an autonomous research organization undera statute of the National University of Singapore. It is the successor of the former Institute of East Asian
Political Economy (IEAPE), which was itself the successor of the Institute of East Asian Philosophies(IEAP), originally established by Dr Goh Keng Swee in 1983 for the study of Confucianism.
The main mission of EAI is to promote both academic and policy-oriented research on East Asiandevelopment, particularly the political, economic and social development of contemporary China(including Hong Kong and Taiwan), and Chinaȇs growing economic relations with the region and theworld at large, including Japan, Korea and ASEAN.
To promote academic exchange and to enable its research findings to reach out to a wider segment of
the public, EAI organizes seminars and publishes research papers on a regular basis. EAI also
participates in joint research projects with government ministries and statutory boards in Singapore,promotes collaborative programmes with similar institutions in the region as well as organizes regional
and international conferences and workshops on East Asian issues.
The long-term vision of EAI is to develop into the regionȇs foremost research institution on East Asiandevelopment. While its initial focus was on contemporary China, the Institute has extended its research
efforts to Japan and Korea as it builds up its resources.
[Address]
469A Bukit Timah Road, Tower Block #06-01, Singapore 259770
General Enquiries: (65) 6516 3715  Fax: (65) 6779 3409

(5) The Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, University of Indonesia
Faculty of Social and Political Sciences Universitas Indonesia (Fakultas 11mu Sosial dan 11mu Politik FISIP UI) was established in 1968 one of the faculties in UI with most students and study programs,
until mid of 2018 FISIP UI has 20 study programs with 1 63 lecturers, and 4,8 1 4 students. There areseven departments or schools in FISIP UI: (l) Department of Communication(2) Department of

Political Science; (3) Department of Criminology; (4) Department of Sociology; (5) Department of Social
Welfare; (6) Department of Anthropology; and (7) Department of International Relations.
࠙VisionࠚTo become a leading faculty in social studies in Southeast Asia
[Address]
Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Universitas Indonesia, Depok Campus, 16424, Indonesia
Tel. : +62.21.7270006, 7872823Fax. : +62.2 1 7872820
Email : fisip@ui.ac.id66

GF-III-E-B-0052

グローバル・フォーラム
The Global Forum of Japan（GFJ）〒107-0052 東京都港区赤坂 2-17-12-1301
2-17-12-1301,Akasaka,Minato-ku,Tokyo,107-0052,Japan
TEL：＋81-（0）3-3584-2193
FAX：＋81-（0）3-3505-4406
E-mail：gfj@gfj.jp
URL：http://www.gfj.jp