会員フォーラム
（会員の意見や提言を掲載します。２～３ページ以内。幹事への申し込みの新しい順に掲載します。）
（2011年APEC研究センター・コンソーシアムカンファレンスへの出席報告として投稿）
外務省ＡＰＥＣ室の『ＡＰＥＣ政策評価』で、第三者所見を求められて寄稿（２０１１年５月末）
第三者の所見（学識経験を有する者の知見の活用）
山澤逸平（一橋大学名誉教授）
① ＡＰＥＣ横浜会議の成果・意義 ＡＰＥＣは昨年で２１年目、特に１９９４年のボゴール宣言を翌年の大阪行動指針に基づいて実現努力を続けてきた。昨年はその中間評価の年で、開催国日本はそれを中心になって果たした。さらにグローバル化の進展に対応して広げてきたさまざまな太平洋地域協力活動を、包摂的・持続可能・安全等の５つの範疇に改組して、ＡＰＥＣ成長戦略として共同推進する首脳宣言を打ち上げた。アジア危機以降地道路線にシフトして、東アジア共同体構想等に押されがちだったのが、なお健在な地域協力機構として打ち出した意義は大きい。開催国のイニシャティブと十全の準備活動で他メンバーの期待に応えた。
② 今後の活動方向 ＡＰＥＣは日本が発足当/*初からイニシャティブをとり、育ててきた地域協力組織。ＷＴＯ交渉が難航している中、ボゴール目標の完全達成に向けて開かれた貿易投資自由化円滑化の継続推進は非常に重要。かつ日本が纏め上げたＡＰＥＣ成長戦略の諸活動も、率先して実施に取り組んでほしい。
③ ＡＰＥＣの広報 横浜での開催ゆえ、メディア報道も例年になく盛り上がり、一般へも情報・知識が浸透したと思う。ただ管総理のＴＰＰ交渉参加表明が国内政治問題化したため、メディア報道が偏り、ボゴール目標の中期評価や成長戦略の意義が広く共有されなかった感があるのは残念。これは財・学も官に協力して強化する必要がある。
日本がＴＰＰに参加する3つの理由
山澤逸平 2010年12月
ＴＰＰ（環太平洋戦略経済パートナーシップ協定）に参加すべきか否かの議論が盛んである。2つの理由がマスメディアで流布している。いずれも耳に入りやすいが、もっぱら国内向けで、対外的な説得力に欠ける。日本がＴＰＰに参加して、それを引っ張って行くためにも、対外説得力を持った第3の理由が必要である。
第1の理由は管首相の「第2の開国論」である。日本人・社会が成熟化して、内向きになるのを止めて、積極的に対外進出するきっかけとしてＴＰＰに参加する。ＴＰＰ参加の障害となる農業保護を変える農業改革を実施しなければならない。その通りだが、実は農業保護を続けても老齢化と後継者難で日本農業は衰退しつつある。農業改革はＴＰＰがなくとも、本来自発的にやらなければならない。事実日本国際フォーラムは2年前にすでに国際競争力をつける農業改革をやらなければならないと麻生首相に提言したが、取り上げられなかった。農業以外でも、雇用慣習の変革等日本の制度・慣習には変えるべきものが多々あるが、それらを自発的に変える気運が弱いのは残念である。
第2の理由は「ＴＰＰに参加しないと日本は差別され、グローバル化から置いていかれる」というもので、経団連を代表とするビジネス界が声高に叫んでいる。経産省の試算も「参加しないコスト」を挙げている。これはＦＴＡのドミノ議論ないしは競争的自由化論で、「周りがやるから自分も」と急かされている。さらには参加すれば、未参加国を差別して貿易転換効果をメリットとする。これはベストの政策論とは言えない。
少子高齢化が進み、成長の活力が減退した日本では、日本企業は国内市場のみでは生きて行けない。海外、特に成長著しい近隣アジア市場に進出して行かざるをえない。そこでも自由で、安定したビジネスが行えるように、シームレスのビジネス環境を整えなければならない。それは日本企業だけでなく、アジア企業にも必要であり、それを近隣諸国に呼びかけて来た。これは東アジア共同体の理念として2006年の通商白書にも掲げられていた。ＴＰＰへの参加はそれに?がるものでなければならず、これこそ第3の理由である。現在のＴＰＰ論で流布している、中国やＡＳＥＡＮの主要国が参加しないＦＴＡであっては意味がない。ＴＰＰは太平洋を橋渡しするが、アジアを分断するものであってはならない。（日本国際フォーラム『百家斉放』）
Members' Forum
Three reasons why Japan should join the TPP
By Ippei Yamazawa, December 2010
The 2010 APEC meeting in Yokohoma ended one month ago but the Japanese media is still discussing whether or not Japan should join the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP [1]). Prime Minister Kan planned to announce Japan’s accession officially at the leaders’ meeting so as to make it a highlight of APEC 2010 but he had to postpone it until June next year because of strong objections of agricultural protectionists.
Two arguments in favour of Japan’s joining the TPP have already been made. The first centres on ‘second country opening,’ and the second centres on ‘discrimination’. But both of these reasons appeal to a domestic audience but are not persuasive to Japan’s foreign partners. Japan needs to present a third reason to persuade its Asia Pacific partners why it should join the TPP and lead regional integration efforts in the Asia Pacific.
Turning to the first reason, the ‘second country opening,’ as Prime Minister Kan has explained, as Japan’s economy and society have matured, it has become inward-looking. Japan should join the TPP in order to arrest this process and promote active advancement overseas. To this end, Japan must undertake agricultural reform so as to remove the agricultural protection that is currently impeding its accession to the TPP.
But in any case, the fact is that the number of Japanese farmers has decreased by 25 per cent over the past decade. Reform that produces a competitive agricultural sector is therefore imperative regardless whether or not Japan joins the TPP. An opinion group, of which I was a member, proposed [2] a program of nurturing competitive farming without protection to then Prime Minister Aso two years ago but no response was forthcoming. Indeed, there is a need to reform Japanese institutions and practices in quite a few areas, but strong political leadership is currently blocked by huge vested interest groups.
Turning to the second reason, business leaders have argued that Japan will be discriminated against and left behind the globalisation trend if she does not join the TPP. This is the domino theory of FTA or competitive liberalisation which urges you to ‘join as your neighbors do’. Once joined, you can gain from trade diversion by discriminating against non-members.. This justification is shallow – by itself, it cannot provide the best possible policy.
This brings us to the third reason. As made clear by the first reason, Japanese firms cannot survive global competition by targeting a domestic market with an aged population.. It is thus imperative to produce a seamless business environment in which both Japanese and other Asian firms can do free and stable business internationally. This environment is the East Asian community. Joining the TPP should lead eventually to the merging of the Pacific and Asian markets. This is the third, and most compelling, reason for Japan to join the TPP.
The current design of the TPP seems to exclude fast growing Asian economies, which may impede the move toward the Asia Pacific-wide market. As my third reason makes clear, the TPP is trans-Pacific, but it should not divide Asia from the Pacific.
（posted on East Asia Forum, Australian National University, 22 December 2010 ）
Has APEC Achieved Its Mid-term Bogor Target? – An Assessment of 2010 APEC Yokohama –
Ippei Yamazawa, December 2010
2010 APEC Yokohama was completed three weeks ago with three major achievements, first the mid-term assessment of its Bogor target, second a concrete direction toward Free trade Area for the Asia-Pacific (FTAAP), and third APEC’s growth strategy. The first two give us a future prospect for APEC’s main activity of Trade Investment Liberalization and Facilitation (TILF), while the last packages its new initiatives undertaken for the past decade in order to combat with changing economic environment in the region. Discussion has so far focused on TPP as a possible route to FTAAP but others seem to be missed since the Yokohama meetings. This short essay aims to discuss both the first agenda and continued TILF of the second.
APEC SOM reported the assessment of the Mid-term Bogor Goals achievement to Leaders’ Meeting in 2010 (APEC/SOM 2010). It included five industrialized economies designated to achieve the free and open trade by 2010 plus eight economies which volunteered to be assessed this time, namely Chile, Hong Kong, ROK, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, Singapore, and Chinese Taipei. They were not assessed individually but as a group of five plus eight economies. Leaders summarized their achievement as the 13 economies as follow (APEC/LM 2010b).
- The overall growth in commodity trade for all APEC economies increased by 7.1% annually for 1994-2009, services by 7.0%, and inflow and outflow of FDI by 13.0% and 12.7% respectively.
- The 13 economies reduced their simple average tariffs from 8.2% to 5.4% for 1994-2009, far lower than the world average of 10.4%, as well as further tariff reduction within their FTA framework.
- They opened their services markets through unilateral reform of domestic policy and maintained liberalized investment regime.
- They have also taken significant steps on trade facilitation to streamline customs procedures and align standards and conformance procedures. Under the Trade Facilitation Action Plan (TFAP) they have reduced transaction costs in the region by 5% for 2002-2006 and are achieving an additional 5% under the second TFAP by this year.
On the other hand, Leaders also noted that impediments still remain in sensitive sectors;
- Higher tariffs in agricultural products and textile and clothing,
- Remaining restrictions in financial, telecommunications, transportation, and audiovisual services, and the movement of people least liberalized,
- Sectoral investment restrictions in the form of prohibitions or capital ceiling and continuing general screening system.
- Non-tariff measures need further efforts
- Further works need to be done in standard and conformance, customs procedures, intellectual property rights, and government procurement,
- Behind-the-border issues need to be addressed by facilitating structural reform.
Leasers concluded as “It is a fair statement to say that the 2010 economies have some way to go to achieve free and open trade in the region. APEC challenges in pursuing free and open trade and investment continues. APEC will continue to review economies’ progress towards the Bogor Goals of free and open trade and investment. We recognized that all APEC economies must maintain their individual and collective commitment to further liberalize and facilitate trade and investment by reducing or eliminating tariffs, restrictions on trade in services, and restrictions on investment, and promoting improvement in other areas, including non-tariff measures and behind-the-border issues.” (APEC/LM 2010b)
“APEC has achieved much since its inception, evolving to become the pre-eminent economic forum in the Asia-Pacific, the world’s most dynamic and open region. Looking back over the past 15 years, the progress made by APEC in pursuit of the goal of free and open trade and investment has reinforced the fact that full achievement of the Bogor Goals for all economies should continue to provide direction for APEC’s work of trade and investment liberalization and facilitation” (APEC/LM 2010b)
This is a fair assessment of APEC’s achievement, considering the severe constraints that the WTO/DDA negotiation has got stumbled and the Bogor process has been implemented under non-binding liberalization modality. APEC’s TILF process will continue for all APEC economies, including the 13 economies summarized as above. However, it is not clear from the Leaders’ statements and report how this process will be conducted.
- Will all 21 economies conduct the peer review process of IAP/CAP at SOM?
- Will the 13 economies assessed this time be subject to a new form of review, focusing on their remaining impediments?
- Will all 21 economies be subject to a new review process toward the final target of 2020?
The past three rounds of the IAP peer review process were criticized occasionally because of its huge works and voluminous documents and ambiguous focus due to its positive list formula. SOM’s assessment report this time is also based on detailed data collection and reports submitted by the 13 economies. This is a good opportunity at the mid-term assessment for reshuffling the IAP review process.
I proposed earlier how to reshuffle the IAP review process so as to make it more effective in encouraging APEC economies’ liberalization efforts (presented at APEC Tokyo Seminar in December 2009 and included in Yamazawa 2010). I found by my independent quantitative assessment that the thirteen economies differed greatly in their achievement and remaining eight economies have achieved much less toward the Bogor Goals. They may be treated differently according to their different extent of liberalization and facilitation. What about each of the thirteen economies list up the areas which it perceives insufficiently achieved the Bogor Goals and voluntarily report its continuing efforts every three years? It will become another IAP reporting in negative list formula. On the other hand, it is no use for the remaining eight economies to continue their current IAP reporting as before. They may be better advised to change it to the IAP in negative list formula to be submitted every three years. It will change the IAP process more effective in promoting liberalization and facilitation.
(posted on PECC Forum, December 9, 2010)