 Good morning everyone. Sorry to interrupt conversations, but I want to be sure we stay on schedule. Hey, Jim. Good morning. Welcome to CSIS. Welcome to CSIS. My name is Matthew Goodman. I hold the Simon chair in political economy here at CSIS and I'm delighted to see such a big group in the room on a cold day and appreciate your coming out. Also want to say a word of welcome to our online viewers. We always have lots of loyal viewers around the world And I'm told I should say that those of you on Twitter can follow us at CSIS using the hashtag CSIS Live. I have no idea what that means, but I'm sure it's important. I also want to thank our generous sponsors JICA, the Japan International Cooperation Agency and the Gates Foundation for making this event possible. The inspiration for this event came from a conversation that I had with Mr. Nakazawa, the JICA representative here in Washington during the grand opening of this building in October last year. Nakazawa-san told me that this year 2014 is the 60th anniversary of Japan's being an aid donor, which actually surprised me because I happen to know from personal experience that Japan, well first of all in 1954, when Japan joined the Colombo Plan, Japan was still recovering from the trauma of World War II and so the fact that it started giving aid already was was significant. And I also knew from personal experience that for another dozen years Japan was still borrowing money from the World Bank because in 1966 the World Bank made its final loan to Japan and my father was the Japan desk officer at the World Bank in charge of that loan. He was very skeptical about the loan because Japan two years earlier had already joined the OECD, had hosted the Olympics and had launched the Shinkansen bullet train and so it didn't seem that Japan, a country like Japan, really needed concessional financing from the World Bank, but nevertheless he pushed the loan forward and I'm delighted that my father, who's 97 years old and still with us here today, could join us. And his charming escort and red there is my wife, Patty. So delighted that she could join us as well. So over the past six decades Japan has been a major force in the international development assistance scene. For a time it was the leading contributor of ODA and it's still fourth or fifth I think in the world. But obviously over that six decades the world has changed, the development field has changed and of course Japan's approach to ODA has changed. And that's what we're here to discuss today. We've assembled a really interesting and I'd say eclectic group of experts from Japan and the United States. Both official representatives and NGOs. We also have a recipient country represented of Japan's ODA and so we're going to look at, all of these people are going to give a kind of 360 degree view of Japan's experience and its collaboration with the United States in development assistance and then look forward to the challenges ahead and where the areas for partnership may be between the U.S. and Japan and with other actors and players in the development space. So in just a minute I will introduce our first opening speaker. But first let me just run through some of the, today's program and some of the housekeeping issues. So after the opening keynote our first panel will assemble on stage and we will discuss lessons learned from six decades of development assistance. We will take a brief coffee break at 10.45. Coffee if you haven't already discovered that is on the terrace behind us, behind you, out there. And then we will reassemble promptly at 11 a.m. for the second panel which is on key challenges ahead and opportunities for partnership. There will be a buffet lunch served on the terrace at 12.15. If you could bring your plates back in here and eat as long as you want. But at about 12.30 we will invite our lunch and keynote speaker to join us on stage and then that will take us to the end which will be roughly one o'clock. So that's the day's events. Restrooms are out the glass doors to the right and back around to the right again. And again there's coffee throughout the morning outside if you would like to enjoy that. Finally please turn off any iPhones, cell phones, Galaxy phones whatever and not branding anything here. And any other noisemakers appreciate that. So with that let me introduce our first speaker. Mark Fierstein is the associate administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development, USAID or USAID some people call it. He fulfills the duties of deputy administrator and he is also the assistant administrator for Latin America and the Caribbean. He has a long career at state at AID in the public opinion research world as a journalist and so he brings a lot of experience from a number of perspectives to AID's business. And I'm delighted to welcome Mark up to the podium. Thanks Mark. Good morning. I very much appreciate the opportunity to open what I'm confident will be a most enlightening and interesting conversation on U.S. Japan Development Cooperation. And you know when I came in this morning I was thinking what a difference 12 hours makes. Last night if you're watching the Olympics and my Japanese friends just acknowledged that they were watching the snowboard competition. And they were in fact rooting for Sean White to slip up which is fine. But I do want to congratulate Japan for winning two big medals yesterday both the silver and the bronze in the snowboard. So last night we were competitors. Tonight we talk about cooperation. Of course we have a big snowstorm coming in so perhaps tomorrow we can all cross country ski to work and I'll be happy to take you guys on in that. CSIS is really the perfect venue for such an event and I've been attending CSIS events now for 27 years since I first came to Washington back in 1987. It's made me a much better public servant today as a result and it's positioned me to speak here. I've been waiting 27 years for the opportunity to speak at CSIS so I finally made it. It was worth the wait. And I always admired your old offices. I thought they were pretty nice over 18. Pretty special. And I was just told by someone as I came in that the old offices weren't quite as nice if you looked real close. But this is a really terrific testament to all the work that you guys have done over the years. And of course the center has established itself as a thought leader on a whole host of issues including on development. And at USCID we often turn to CSIS publications for guidance. We often reach out to the many experts that you have here and I think that we really perform better as an agency thanks to all of you. I do want to thank a few people for helping to organize this event particularly Matt and Dan Rundy and their teams. And very much grateful for your efforts overall particularly in putting together this event. Now I understand that Dr. President Tanaka will deliver remarks at the conclusion of this event. And my boss Dr. Rajiv Shah very much regrets that he did hear the beginning part. I'll tell those jokes again. And Dr. Rajiv Shah my boss very much regrets that he cannot be here this morning. But he and Dr. Tanaka will have a chance to meet later on today and talk about some of the subjects that we take on here this morning. Dr. Tanaka has been a terrific leader of JICA and a great partner for USCID. And we very much appreciate his commitment to the US-Japan relationship and we're excited to engage with him and all of his colleagues on what will be the first. What is the first US-Japan development dialogue which of course was launched by Vice President Biden last year when he went to Japan. Now my colleague Denise Rollins who heads up our Asia Bureau will participate on the second panel today and she'll be able to expand a bit on some of the points that I'll be hitting on. We'll also be hearing from Janet Ballantyne former USAID official. She has an advantage as being a former official. She's able to speak a bit more candidly than the rest of us but we're all pretty recanted. We learn well from Janet. It's true, never stopped her before. But each agency has recently celebrated a notable milestone as we heard from Matt. Japan is celebrating 60 years of providing development assistance. I think JICA itself is celebrating its 40th anniversary and two years ago USAID turned 50. And as we recognized our 50th anniversary, Caroline Kennedy was on hand to commemorate what her father had launched five decades before. And it's really most important for us that she is now ambassador and playing such a central role in helping to advance the dialogue between JICA and USAID and helping to advance. The relationship overall between our two countries. Now both of our agencies are proud of our histories and our accomplishments. We also continue to evolve as organizations. And just two weeks ago USAID issued a new mission statement and it focuses the agency on working to end extreme poverty and to promote resilient democratic societies. And the focus on extreme poverty is a notable one and the development community is increasingly focused on that particular challenge. You may recall that a year ago in the State of the Union Dress, President Obama called upon Americans to come together and to work to help eradicate poverty by 2030. To help eradicate extreme poverty in the world by 2030. And organizations like the World Bank, USAID, JICA are coming together to focus on that. It's a goal that seemed frankly out of reach 10, 15, 20 years ago. But given the progress that's been made in recent years, it's now a goal that's in sight and we believe that we can replicate and accelerate the progress that's been made in recent years. Now on the one hand, both USAID and JICA have significant resources to put toward the goal of ending extreme poverty. We rank number one and two among donors in the world in the amount of assistance that we provide. And together we represent 40% of donor assistance in the world. So if you have a conference like this about US and Japan, you really are talking very much about the full spectrum of development cooperation around the world. But of course the role development assistance is changing and it's not all about our budgets. Today private capital flows vastly exceed official development assistance and it was very much the reverse a couple of decades ago. We all know that private philanthropic organizations are increasingly playing a significant role as funders of development programs. In some cases even more than what aid agencies are doing. And we can now take advantage of innovative technologies that are creating new possibilities in health, energy, education and a range of other sectors. So we are very much looking at a new model of development in which we leverage other actors and serve really more as a catalyst for collective action. And both USAID and JICA recognize we need to work together to take advantage of these dynamics and maximize our development contributions. And throughout today we'll be eager to hear from you and get your suggestions on how we can take advantage of these new dynamics and particularly with this focus on extreme poverty. How should our approach change other things we should be doing differently in the particular sectors that you think we might be more effective in than others? We're very much eager to get your thoughts on that. Now one area in particular in which both of our organizations are coming together is with regard to the empowerment of women. And as you know for decades USAID has been leading global efforts to achieve gender equality. And last year Japan committed to investing $3 billion to advance gender equality both within Japan and outside. And USAID and JICA recognize that if we can erase inequities and put women on equal footing with men we can unlock even potential on a transformational scale. And we already are working together to advance that goal. Last week Carla Coppel who's the chief strategy officer at USAID and also the former gender advisor there was in Tokyo to represent USAID at a joint USAID JICA training event for women entrepreneurs in Africa. And we're very much looking forward to other opportunities to work together in this area and be eager to get the thoughts of all of you as well. So we're eager for this gathering and we're confident that we at USAID are going to learn an awful lot. I regret very much I will not be able to stay for the whole session but I look forward to getting your report and I'm sure Dan will put together a fine publication. And really this is a real opportunity for all of you to help shape what USAID does, what JICA does and what we can all do together. So thank you very much. Thanks very much Mark and I'm glad the microphone is now my sound much clearer now than I did before. And I should have recognized Dan Rundy, my colleague in charge of the prosperity program here at CSIS and the Japan chair who are also helping to organize this conference. So we appreciate this ability and this opportunity to collaborate. So if we could now move to the first panel, if I could ask the first panelist, the first four panelists to come up to the stage and I will join you over there. I think we have name tags. Here I am again. So I am again delighted to have such an eclectic and interesting group of panelists up here to join me for this first conversation where we're going to look back at 60 years of development experience, look at what the changes in the world, the changes in the development field, in the approaches to development around the world and in particular Japan and the United States' role both individually and together in addressing some of those challenges and I hope celebrating some of the progress achieved recognizing that there's still a lot of work to be done which will be the subject of the second panel. So you should have biographical information in front of you so I won't give extensive biographies of all of our speakers but let me just go down the line here in the order that people will speak. So first, Keiichi Rounakazawa who is the representative, the chief representative in Washington of JICA, Japan's Development Assistance Agency. He will speak first and talk about some of that history. We are delighted to have the ambassador of the Republic of the Philippines to the United States, Ambassador Jose Cuicia who is a good friend and neighbor of ours. I can literally from where I'm sitting I can see his embassy across the street and so we're delighted to have him join us here and to give his perspective on these issues. To my left and your right is Professor Yoshiyake Abe who is a former, well he's formally as you'll see in your program emeritus and university professor at Waseda University but he actually worked for a long time at the World Bank and is in fact writing a book about Japan's experience in the World Bank. He lives in Chevy Chase I think so he's doing that work and research locally which is wonderful and we're delighted to have Professor Abe with us as well. And then to my far left, your far right, Janet Ballantyne who is a former senior advisor to the administrator at USAID and like Professor Abe is the agency's historian, not only unofficially but I learned today officially has written a book or edited a book about USAID and we're going to have a program on this coming up. When is that, Dan? In March. In March. Okay so stay tuned for that. We're going to have a rollout of that very soon. So Janet's going to talk about these issues from a USAID perspective. So I think it's a very interesting group of people as you can hear with a lot of experience and you've heard enough of me so let me start with Nakazawa-san. Good morning. Thank you for the interaction Matthew and I also thank to CSS for organizing this event. Now it's a good opportunity to look back on Japan's official development assistance over the past 60 years and discuss how we can use this experience and the lessons around to meet today's and future challenges. We have a lot of challenges as you know. According to the Angus Madison's estimate, Japan's per capita GDP was 2,582 US dollars when Japan started providing ODA in 1954. It's 1990s PPP purchasing power quality, 2,582. It was a quarter of Americans per capita GDP back then and was equal to the UK's per capita GDP in 1855, essentially before. So I could say that our ODA started as South-South cooperation and to tell other developing countries about our experiences of catching up to the western countries has always been a unique characteristics of Japanese ODA. It's also important to note at the beginning that over this 60 year period, Japan has provided its development assistance with the conscious awareness of Japan's place in the world. Let me explore what I mean by that by reviewing our ODA history in a little more depth. We often think of ODA in three distinct phases. To tell the truth, this is a copy of what my boss said. The first 20 years until the mid-70s corresponded with Japan's post-war integration into the international community. During this period, the nation settled peace treaties with various countries, paid reparations or quasi-reparations to several Asian countries, and made efforts to be recognized as a responsible partner to the rest of the world. It's within this context that Japan started its ODA to neighboring Asian countries in 1954. It was also true back then that ODA was used to expand export markets for Japan and to secure natural resources for its survival and for its own development. By the middle of the 70s, Japan's ODA moved into the second phases. At this point, Japan has become the second largest economy in the so-called free world next to the US. As an emerging economic power, Japan began to take on an increasingly important role in the maintenance of the international system. Western countries' invitation to Japan to join the first G6 summit in 1975 demonstrated global expectations that Japan should serve as a responsible and prominent member among the advanced economies. Again, ODA was the symbol of Japan's willingness to play that role. Prime Minister Takeo Fukuda announced in 1977 that Japan would enhance its support for Southeast Asia, conducting its efforts in the spirit of heart-to-heart relationship with people in the region. By the late 70s, Japan set the goal of doubling its ODA and achieved it. Again in the early 80s and time and again in the late 80s, Japan pledged to double its ODA and managed to do so. This rapid increase of Japan's ODA, later called as financial or capital recycling program, was Japan's effort to achieve harmonious economic relations with other countries. This was particularly important for the Japan-U.S. relationship as Japan had a huge twice surplus with the U.S. in the late 80s in the early 90s. The National Security Strategy of the United States in 1988, written under the Ronald Reagan administration, appreciated this effort by Japan stating, A recent positive development is Japan's significantly increased expenditures on foreign assistance. Japan continues to target assistance on countries of strategic importance and is giving more of its aid in anti-form down in the first. By 1989, partly helped by the Japanese yen's appreciation against the U.S. dollar after the PRAZ agreement in 1985, Japan had become the biggest bilateral ODA donor in the world. Japan remained the top ODA donor until the time of the century. Finally, the third phase of Japan's ODA from the 1990s onward reflects a period when Japan had achieved the status of responsible mature economic power. It's also disappeared when the Asian economic miracle started attracting a lot of attention in spite of the financial crisis of 1997. Today, many African countries are trying to run from Asia's experience with economic transformation and industrial development. Over this 60th year, Japan has provided its assistance in response to evolving development theories and practice and to the changing development landscape. For example, when meeting basic human needs emerged as a priority in the 1970s, Japan expanded its assistance in the education and health sector. In the 90s, when structural adjustment lending became popular to stabilize economies and promote economic reform in developing countries, Japan was the biggest co-finance share with the world bank next to none. Japan has also worked together with the U.S. to address emerging transnational issues since the 1990s. The Prime Minister Miyazawa and President Bill Clinton launched the Common Agenda for Cooperation in Global Perspective in 1993, and the two countries collaborated in areas as diverse as health and population, environment, narcotic trafficking, technology and economic development. Through our experiences, we have learned a lot. The East Asian miracle taught us the importance of political leadership supported by competent and dedicated technocrats. Without sound private public partnership, either government or the market, or maybe both fails. Human capital is always a foundation of development, et cetera, et cetera. However, that being said, a more striking thing about Japanese ODA is how Japan's philosophy and approach to developing assistance has remained quite consistent throughout these 60 years as a donor. Assistant tools and analytical tools have been developed and improved. Synergies among various tools have been maximized. Partnership and policy dialogue with developing countries among donors have deepened. Yet, I would argue that our longstanding development thoughts, perhaps once considered unusual, have gradually become mainstreamed in the development discourse. Let me point out two distinguishing characteristics of Japanese ODA enshrined in the Japanese ODA charter to explain the fundamentals of our assistance. The first characteristic is our basic policy to support the self-help efforts of developing partner countries. In other words, Japan has always placed a high value on country ownership. We have gradually increased our active involvement in policy dialogue to share views on what action should be prioritized, where the recipient government could be doing better, and what Japan can do to help. Our advice during these dialogues is often based on our own experiences of catching up with western industrialization and what can be practically achieved in each specific context to produce tangible development results. However, we provide ODA to specific development projects and programs only after we receive formal requests from government of developing partner countries based on their own development plan. When we assist development projects, we devote our attention to support from behind, not to lead from behind. For example, we have supported many countries to develop basic roles. Our legal experts provide their counterparts example of roles enacted in several other countries for comparison. They offer commentaries on the different characteristics of each role and discuss with the counterparts about the rationale behind the differences and how they can be adapted in their country. But our experts rarely draft the roles by themselves. Rather, they patiently watch over their counterparts' attempts to draft them. It often takes years, not months, to complete this process by trial and error. We have learned that development can be seen as a process where knowledge technologies and systems, which are often innovated in advanced countries, are introduced and integrated into developing countries. But donors cannot simply impose external solutions. Innovations must be adapted to the local context and the integration process has to be planned, implemented, monitored and adjusted by the recipient governments and their people in order to be sustainable. Based on Japan's own experience, we believe that it is only through such process of adaptation that our counterparts can truly own the development process and can generate development results. We have the utmost respect for this integration and running process and we support these self-help efforts on the ground. The second defining characteristic of Japanese ODA is our continuous priority on supporting sustainable growth through investment in infrastructure and human capital. This includes investment in hard infrastructure such as roads, ports and power stations, but also in governance infrastructure such as legal and justice systems and in human resource development. We don't think development is to find industries where each country has comparative advantage based on its natural endowment or its history. The East Asian experience tells us that development is a dynamic process by which each country has to continuously climb up the industrial ladder by increasing productivity and adding value in order to sustain growth in a very competitive environment. However, we have learned that dynamic market economies do not arise nor to develop just by removing government controls. Given the pressure created by globalization, there is a need of strong state capacity to build infrastructure to invest in human capital and to establish a regulatory environment where private industry can thrive and where populations can reap the rewards. That's why we will continue to emphasize country ownership backed by self-help efforts and infrastructure and human capital development as a foundation for our systems. This is by no means an exhaustive summary of our experience and lessons learned in the last six decades. Several important issues such as human security, peace building and private sector engagement have been attracting our attention for over a decade. I would be happy to share some of our thoughts on these issues if we have more time, but I believe my time is running short and I know Matthew is on the verge of stopping me. So let me stop here. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Nakazawa-san. If you want another minute, you can have it. I just want to show you that I'm a generous moderator. Okay, now seriously, we'll have time to have more discussion after the other panelists have spoken and you can feel free to jump back into the conversation. You may stay there. This is Matt Goodman, Mr. Mark Firstin, Dr. Akehiko Tanaka, my esteemed co-panelist. Ladies and gentlemen, good morning. First, I wish to congratulate Matt and the CSIS for organizing this US-Japan Development Summit. As ambassador of the Philippines to the U.S., I'm pleased to be a part of this forum. I think it is important for this summit to show the experience of ODA recipient countries and I'm glad to talk about our own experience. Development cooperation between the Philippines and Japan started in 1954 when Japan joined the Colombo Plan and even before established official diplomatic relations in 1956. As of 2012, Japan is the top ODA loan source of the Philippines and among the top development partners in terms of ODA brands. The dynamic cooperation between the Philippines and Japan reflects excellent bilateral relations between our two countries. In September 2011, two countries confirmed that the relations had developed into a strategic partnership. Japan is only one of two strategic partners of the Philippines, the other one being the United States. For Japan, the Philippines is an important partner in East Asia as our countries share the same values of democracy and market economy, as well as common strategic interests. The Philippines is also an important country in terms of geographical and regional security because it lies along vital ceilings. Given this, Japan believes that the sustainable growth of the Philippines will redound to the stability and prosperity in East Asia. Our economic relations are also robust with the Philippines providing the necessary economic base for many Japanese companies. We also began implementing the Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement in 2011. The people-to-people connections are as significant with Japan as the top third source of tourists in the Philippines, about 412,474 in 2012 and approximately 200,000 Filipinos living in Japan. Through the decades, Japanese ODA has been contributing to Philippine development efforts in many fields. ODA projects are covered under the four priority areas of Japanese ODA to the Philippines, namely, one strengthening of the economic structure for sustainable growth, mitigation of disparities, both poverty alleviation and mitigation of regional disparities, three environmental conservation and disaster preparedness, and four human resources development and institution building. From 1967 to 2008, the cumulative amount of Japanese ODA to the Philippines reached $20.56 billion, making the Philippines the fourth largest recipient of Japanese ODA next to Indonesia, China, and India. Apart from bilateral ODA, Japan also funnels other assistance to the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank, and UN agencies. As of 2012, Japan was the biggest source of ODA loans to the Philippines, accounting for 37% of the total loan portfolio. This is our own loans portfolio. The total ODA loan from Japan was $3.261 billion, accounting for 21 loans. To illustrate, the second largest source was the World Bank, with 21% and the ADB with a 13% share. Most of the new loans that became part of the 2012 portfolio were sourced from Jaika, and for this I want to thank Dr. Tanaka, amounting to $943 million for seven loans. This included one fully-available program loan, the Development Policy Support Program Investment Climate, worth $96.41 million. In the past 10 years, from 2003 to 2012, Jaika was the third largest source of new loans at $3.09 billion. In terms of grants, Japan was the sixth top development partner of the Philippines, accounting for 3.36% of total ODA grant portfolio, or $95.83 million. Beneficiaries of Japanese ODA to the Philippines. The country's assistance evaluation conducted by Nomura Institute for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan noted that Japan's ODA has mainly targeted the improvement of infrastructure. In particular, the transport sector, which accounts for 35% of total yen loans on a cumulative basis. Examples include the construction of the 2100-kilometer Philippines-Japan Friendship Highway, or the Pan-Philippines Highway in 1968, and Terminal 2 of the Nino-Akino International Airport in 1994. The second Mandaui-Maktan Bridge in Cebu, which connects Cebu City to Maktan Island, where we have two export processing zones, is another very successful project. The study noted that the large sums of assistance provided by Japan targeted mainly into infrastructure was significant to the Philippines' development. And for that, we are again grateful to the Japanese government. In 2012, Japan released its country assistance policy for the Philippines. In the country-specific policy intervention, Japan will help Philippines achieve inclusive growth, as described in the Philippine Development Plan 2011-2016, and strengthen the strategic partnership between our two countries. The country assistance policy recognized a significant growth achieved by the Philippines and described the Philippines, as, and I quote, at the stage of entering into a middle-income country, unquote. Notwithstanding these developments, Japan believes that the Philippines will continue to need assistance in addressing issues that will help the country achieve more vigorous and sustainable growth. The country assistance policy outlined the following priority areas. One, achieving sustainable economic growth through further promotion of investment. Two, overcoming vulnerability and stabilizing basis for human life and production activity. Three, peace and development in Mindanao. I take this opportunity to commend the government of Japan for its support for Mindanao. This has been seen through Japan's active participation in the peace process between the Philippine government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front. Japan is the only country that is a member of both the international contact group and the international monitoring team in Mindanao. Furthermore, Japan's support can be felt on the ground through the Japan Bansamoro Initiative for Reconstruction and Development, or J-Bird, not Jailbird, but J-Bird. Since its launch in 2006, J-Bird has supported 66 grassroots projects in conflicted affected areas in Mindanao in the amount of $5.5 million. J-Bird projects come in through grant aid, technical cooperation, and loans. Notwithstanding the implementation of the ODA projects and programs, no bureaucracy is perfect. Thus, challenges remain. Based on the Philippines' own review, ODA projects in general are hampered by implementation issues such as startup delays, budget and funds flow bottlenecks, prolonged procurement problems in getting right away, particularly for road projects and local government-related issues. Furthermore, our National Economic and Development Authority, or NEDA, conducted an ODA portfolio review in 2012 and noted that the need to improve our disbursement levels and availment rates across ODA projects is very much needed. The review showed that the overall disbursement level was at 68.71%, lowest in the past 10 years, and lower than the 70% benchmark. The 2012 availment rate of 72.45%, while above the 70% benchmark, resulted in an availment backlog of $1.51 billion. The implementing agencies with the highest contribution to the availment backlog were also among the five agencies that have the highest contribution to the disbursement shortfall. The review also observed that the current portfolio, it takes an average of two years for a project to disburse the first 10% of its loan commitment. Data showed that JICA-assisted projects required longer time to disburse the first 10% of loan amounts with an average of 2.23 years. Notwithstanding these challenges, the Philippine government is committed to the efficient and effective implementation of development assistance projects. Right now, it's doing so by strengthening the monitoring and evaluation of ODA projects. In the case of Japanese ODA, the implementing agencies as well as local governments meet with JICA Philippines to monitor and evaluate projects in order to address disbursement and availment issues. Based on the 2011 evaluation by Nomura, JICA's Philippine office is its only overseas office to have set up an online monitoring system working closely with the government implementing agencies. Another area to further develop is working with international stakeholders such as non-government organizations or NGOs. Tapping the grassroots networks and extensive knowledge of the situation on the ground would help in speeding up action and providing assistance well customized to the needs of the people. A model to build on is JICA's project on peace building through education in Mindanao. An incentive for implementing agencies to successfully complete ODA projects is to institutionalize a program of recognizing their good practices. NEDA's current Good Practice Awards is a good basis for this. The Philippines is grateful for the assistance extended by the government of Japan for the past 60 years. From the completion of payment of our war reparations to the Philippines in 1976, development cooperation between the Philippines and Japan has certainly come a long way and continues to this day. It is in this light that we acknowledge the statement of the Prime Minister of Japan, Prime Minister Abe, during the visit of President Benigno Kino III in September 2011 that Japan will continue its assistance to the Philippines as an important ODA target country. We'll continue to work to improve and maximize official development assistance that we receive and we look forward to continued cooperation with our friends in Japan in this regard. I want to thank you for giving me the opportunity to participate in this panel today. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Ambassador. That was a very helpful overview of Japan and the Philippines' partnership really on development, which I think is a very sort of clear example of how Japan operates in the region and more broadly in the world. So we really appreciate that and I have a question for you later. So let me pass it to Professor Abe. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I would like to thank CSIS and Mr. Goodman to let me talk to you this morning on the very important subject. My responsibility, according to Mr. Goodman, where he called me, I have to talk about evaluation of ODA collaboration between U.S. and Japan for 60 years. It's not an easy job, so I'm going to simplify the most important terms of reference in my own way so that I can have a real communication between you and myself. Just additional information. When you look at my biography, I'm currently doing my advertisement, by the way. I work for USGI. Mr. Tanaka used to be the president of that organization. I'm an operating advisor of the United States Japan Research Institute. It's organized by eight Japanese universities, four national universities and four private universities in order to increase the volume of Japanese opinions in terms of relationships between U.S., Japan, and policy issues, et cetera, et cetera. But anyway, I just wanted to mention that I'm related to USGI. And that is quite hoping that it's becoming an important NGO in Washington, D.C. Okay, let's get into the topic, or one more joke I have to say. You say everything is 60 years of commemoration. I wanted to become 60 years old, so I can be younger. And I even know Mr. Tanaka is going to become 60 years old, and JICA is 60 years old organization. So it's an interesting number, 60 years old or 60. Now, what I'm going to explain to you in my mind how his question is maturing or integrating or disintegrating in my mind on the evaluation of all the collaboration between Japan and United States in the field of economic development. Let's look at Japan's experience, whether that is relevant or not, so that I can bring everybody to the main point. Japanese economic development had a unique historical experiences, particularly after World War II. Our Constitution 9 prohibited us to be engaged in international war. And as a result of that Constitution, our budget on military-related business is very, very low. So if you look at annual report of Swedish MGO's military budget report, the position of Japan is very peaceful. And it was, luckily or unluckily, given situation to Japan using that opportunity and other historical experiences such as Korean War and Vietnam War, we had extra public investment to be made in order to assist United Nations forces in various countries. Given that situation in the 50s and 60s, Japan made a good effort to make herself successful economic development. And just remember that historical unique circumstances we have to remember to evaluate what happened in Japan so that it will, of course, bring to the economic development issue on behalf of developing countries. But just I would like to let you remember that. Now, the result of that economic development was, again, in comparison with other Asian countries, the experiences were quite similar. The common results that economic development had in most Asian countries were characterized by small income disparity and small number of the very poor. And these were the result of set of policy implementation having achieved high savings ratio, resulting investments in creating physical assets, improved productivity in the agriculture sector, and the reduction in population growth, improved education in primary junior high school, improved manufacturing productivity through the introduction of new technology, and increased life expectancy. All these experiences in developing countries in East Asia looks like, hey, they were similar to Japanese. What are the relationships, logical relationships between Japanese experiences and experiences in developing countries? I don't think we can generalize the experiences. That is going to be my thesis presenting to you. And what I'm going to say is this. Each country as Japan had unique historical circumstances which led to high growth rate and similarly to other developing countries with their unique, each country's background and unique circumstances, they made their own economic development. What I'm trying to say is I would like to be modest on the evaluation of Japan, United States collaboration in development efforts in developing countries. In other words, each country's experiences are the key to development, suggesting that detailed analysis of country situation, local situations are the must. And I'm going to give you, it's a very simple model, so you can laugh at that model, but think of local community in any of a developing country, local community without having, let's say, clean water. ODA can give you clean water by providing water system, simple, well, system can be provided. But when we say water system, it should continue to live in that village for the life of that asset, say 10 years, 15 years. I went through this, so that's why I, perhaps too specific, but anyway. This model is very important. Water is there, but usually water facet is located in front of village chief's house and he's going to, village chief is going to be the distributor of water. It's not going to work, so we learned how to distribute water democratically at the job of the ladies in the village is going to be more important than before and how to convince this village chief to understand ladies participation is more important. In theoretical mind, anthropological knowledge is important, but anthropological knowledge is important, not in general, for that society is important. Unless lady teacher, women's teacher comes to that village in kindergarten or pre-kindergarten education and the girls will not come to the school in this type of local village. You have to convince central government and state government to beg them to bring in ladies teacher so that girls come to the school in the community. Even that is difficult. Once ladies teacher start coming to the villages and once small schools in little villages have toilet for girls students, the water start to be used properly and the girls students go back to, go back home and she explained to mother how to wash hands and how to wash diapers and then in few months, few months the diarrhea occurrence goes down in few months. Now how many of us knew that kind of gambit, the whole system during 1960s, we didn't know. Even in 70s, it wasn't part of our ODA. Water supply was included of course, but to let ladies teacher go in a particular village, that's the effort and knowledge shared by the villagers and the institutions in the developing countries and the government, including government itself of a developing country. In other words, unique situation of a World Bank used to say country analysis is important. Oh I agree, nobody can disagree. But I'm getting into deeper, deeper localization of knowledge accumulation is the most important thing and we are catching up with that and I would like to, since Mr. Nakazawa is here and USAID keepers are here, I can say it's going but what I'm going to beg and propose is let's go deeper. That's one recommendation. One more recommendation I would like to have or is when I proposed this, when I was active in the World Bank people laughed at me. So I don't know, I'm going to try again here, 20 years later. When I was teaching economics in Waseda, say 15 years ago, Mr. Yunus of Grumman Bank was giving a lecture on how he was effective in helping the poor. I asked him, when your applicants in the village come to your agent does he or does he have to apply in the written form? In other words, full field application forms. He said, of course. In other words, the poor in Bangladesh had to write and read but most of the illiterate can't read and can't write. I hope by now his Grumman Bank's application form to borrow money can be done by looking at pictures and you make a choice whether you are a girl or a boy and how long you'd like to, how much and what to do. I think you can find a convenient format to explain borrowers' choice and applicant choice and application form can be completed in that way. I don't think what I'm saying is important for doing actually developing specific application form for the purposes. But what I'm saying is to understand the issue in that way to get into deeper on the poverty issues is the important matter. Indeed, in Africa, if you check the history book, there are societies exist without having letters. There is a judicial system, government system, et cetera, et cetera. But if we use United States and Japanese collaboration, we use our knowledgeable heavy set of intellectualism, if we push on how to think the development way of illiterate society, we assume that it has to be done in a way having law, written and all that. Perhaps, perhaps, there could be a case to develop a society, better society without having literate documents for managing the country and the society. And I'm not saying it can be, I'm not saying I'm rejecting our own knowledge and intellectualism. Of course, I'm with you, but within that, what I'm begging is to let you understand that is a possibility to look at deeper. These two are my suggestions. And just one more additional point I forgot to mention. One of the collaborating efforts between Japan and the United States in ODA is debt reduction. And a lot of cases, they communicate very well on how to achieve debt reduction. For example, recently there was an incident in Myanmar. Now, how much they are going to, both countries are going to reduce specifically, I'm not permitted to say, but there was a beautiful collaboration in helping Myanmar. So there is an interesting development in that area also. But please think of my simple suggestion or two points. I thank you very much. Thank you very much, Abbas Sensei. And I think that you've touched on an important point about local knowledge but leads to a question that I want to ask about the trade-offs involved because the deeper you go, the harder it is to go broad. And so you have to prioritize. So I wonder how people address that. But let's let Janet Bat clean up and then we'll have a discussion. Great. Well, thank you, Matt. And I'd like to thank CSIS for putting this together. This is the first time I've been in your wonderful new building and it's very impressive. You have attracted a very impressive panel here and a very impressive audience. It's a great honor to be with us to sing which panel can amuse over 60 years of development experience. I'm particularly pleased that we're engaging in this exercise in conjunction with the U.S.-Japan Development Summit. If there's one thing that we've learned over the past 60 years, it's that development is hard. There's no other way to put it, it's hard. And the assistance provider nations can work best when we talk to each other and develop with recipient nations programs that are efficient and effective. But I think the lesson we have all learned over these years is you can't do it alone. You can, but you're not going to get any results. The U.S. and Japan had a long and rich and critically important bilateral engagement during the December 3rd meeting in Tokyo, Vice President Joe Biden and Prime Minister Shinzo Abe highlighted several aspects of our global partnership. Humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, development assistance and global security. All three of these kind of mush together when you get into the actual implementation of international programs. You said and Jaika have long been partners in the field. My first encounter with Jaika was in the 80s, early 80s in Nepal when we worked together in the health sector. And over the succeeding years it's been my pleasure to engage with Jaika on development strategies and programs in Latin America, Asia and the Middle East. Every country that is engaged in development assistance has its own history, its successes and failures and its own learning curve. I was my last job in aid before I went out to pasture was editing a book called The 50 Years of U.S. Development Assistance, U.S. Aids Assistance. And gathered together first person stories from about 140 people going back to 1961 and up through some of the interns that are working in places like Afghanistan and Iraq. For me it was a wonderful experience because I could look back over a very rich history, an evolving history and I divided the book into decades. And I think, you know, with an introduction you can really see the evolution of U.S. foreign assistance over that period. For purposes of explanation I divide U.S. foreign assistance really into four categories. And for the first one I've got to go back 66 years. I hope you will forgive me for that. But modern U.S. development assistance was born following World War II with the Marshall Plan which was designed to assist in the reconstruction of Western Europe. A look at the Marshall Plan, how it was conceived, how it was funded, how it was managed show to me in many ways how development assistance should be. Even now 62 years after the plan was concluded there are very important lessons to learn. First of all funding needs to be adequate. At $15 billion the Marshall Plan constituted 3% of GDP. We are the U.S. 150 account which includes State Department, the economic assistance of the Treasury, all international is about 1% of that. They say it's 1% I think it's actually less. But it's about the Marshall Plan on a yearly basis about four times what we commit to development efforts all around the globe. So if we wonder why the Marshall Plan was a success first of all you just look at the magnitude of it. Every time there's a crisis in the world and I've heard this over years what we need is a Marshall Plan for Haiti. Last week we heard we needed a Marshall Plan for Ukraine. We've needed Marshall Plans all over the world. Really? Are we going to put 3% of GDP into helping Ukraine or Haiti? History is an elusive mistress they say but it would be nice if people banding about the name of the Marshall Plan would have a little more experience. A second thing that a lesson is that each recipient country of the Marshall Plan had its own detailed plan for recovery that was worked out in advance and that was signed off or written off by both the U.S. and the recipient. So there were no surprises that the United States didn't suddenly say you know what you really need is a community health system or a program in political party development that wasn't part of the blueprint and the blueprint was followed and when you came to the end of it that was it. And the third is from beginning to end there was always an exit plan. It was four years over and out. When we look at some of the U.S. government programs that go on now around the globe you can trace their history and their origins back 20 to 30 years. If there's no plan for exit if you don't define success you're going to find that everything is stretched out and probably the original intent is going to be lost. The second phase of U.S. cooperation and this is modern I mean U.S. government and private aid goes back practically to the founding of the country but in modern aid the second phase was the birth of USAID which took place with the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. It was one of the key stones of President John F. Kennedy's short tenure. Several situations would guide the underpinnings for the next 28 years when the third stage starts. First of all one of the major underpinnings and the concerns was countering communism. In 1952 two years before the Foreign Assistance Act we suddenly had a communist entity in the Western Hemisphere. Something that President Monroe with his doctrine would be turning over in his grave about. But communism we saw as a spreading threat and the most likely next pins in the the role would be in Latin America. So through the Alliance for Progress which was under the Foreign Assistance Act we suddenly beefed up U.S. assistance to keep them from turning communist. When I was in Nicaragua as part of that actually I remember President Reagan coming up with the statement that Managua Nicaragua was closer to Harlingen, Texas than Harlingen, Texas was to Washington. That was supposed to scare the bejesus out of us I guess that Harlingen, Texas and Managua were going to be the axes for the new takeover of the communists. The second and this isn't as important as countering communism was the emergence of the new African sovereignty. As the European decolonization led to new sovereign states in Africa it signaled the fact that development was no longer about sovereigns managing their possessions but it's about rich nations helping poor ones catch up. So one of the stated goals in the Foreign Assistance Act was the elimination of extreme poverty. Where have we heard that? The earlier Korean conflict the Vietnam War put Asia in the forefront of development concerns. So these 28 years from 61 really to 1989 development assistance was almost exclusively the territory of USAID. Aid had bilateral missions in 85 countries in Latin America, Asia, the Middle East and Africa and for the most part that period assistance was largely decentralized. There was a strong policy shop in Washington but decisions on programming left largely to the field. The personnel assigned to the field missions were people who had appropriate language skills and experience in the region where they worked. Until the mid 80s to the 90s I'm not sure when the change occurred USAID personnel were the key interlocutors with host country personnel. They had the technical skills appropriate to programs. There were very few personal services contractors and almost no institutional contractors that aid personnel conjunction with State Department of course carried out the business of international development. This is something that has flipped greatly in recent years. There are lessons to be learned from this period under the Foreign Assistance Act. One where programs are a mile wide and an inch deep probably not going to meet all of your goals. The aid looked at the world in terms of the myriad problems and set out to cure all of them. A second lesson was the decentralized approach empowering the field missions who work most closely with the host government is the approach of managing assistance leads to more agility in the field and more agility to probably more success. And the third that the closer the coordination with the host government the more likely the success. These are the precursors to the Accra and Busan Accords which recognize that the host country should be in the driver's seat. The third phase which added a whole new flavor was transition in the post-communist world. Imagine an agency that was set up to fight and deter the spread of communism we wake up one day and the communists are all gone for most of them. So what do you do? You retool. You take a large segment of that the people who've been fighting communism the aid personnel and you turn them into generalists to go and work in the transition world. We opened up in a series of about two years about 30 new USAID overseas missions in every country of the former Soviet Union and the eastern communist bloc. At that time there were three people in the entire agency that spoke Russian. I was not one of them but they sent me to Russia anyhow and I must say that it was very fortunate for me that the Russians have been busy studying English they must have known something was going to happen and so that we could get the things done but it was a very different atmosphere and in a second I think lesson that came out of that is that in terms of reading the desires and the hopes of the recipient nations the US missed a lot. In Russia I can speak there was a great interest in economic restructuring and restructuring of the health system and then we talked about our third pillar which was democratization and human rights and you can imagine the reaction of the Russians to that is that thank you very much that we really are going to handle that ourselves and we want the technical transfer we don't want your ideologies. We had enough of the former going on when I was there that we stayed and as budgets have gone down we sadly left to the USAID being asked to leave Russia last year. The fourth and the last stage which we are in now is post 9-11 the global war on terror and the growing of US foreign assistance to countries in crisis. Iraq, Afghanistan are the ones that immediately come to mind and basically having aid missions established in the middle of nations that were at war having aid people serving on provisional reconstruction teams embedded with the military learning a whole new language and somehow in the midst of these crises creating the conditions for sustainable economic and social development. This period is not over so I will not comment on the lessons learned but I think we can all kind of guess what some of these are going to be. Overall, looking back on these 66 years I think the most important lesson that I'm not sure that we've learned is that I'm a great believer in the wisdom of George Santayana that those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it. We see repetition of past mistakes all the time because we choose not to remember. It's unclear to me whether USAID over these 60, 50 years has really learned from the past. We invent the same wheel time and time again and each time we declare a new initiative. I couldn't have said this a year ago. But I don't think anybody would really disagree. Just as parents we learn early on about the importance of unity of command that mom and dad are the command center and you don't have two messages going out to your children because the children really like it when you get two messages and they have a choice and consistency. So you must have the unity of command I believe and consistency in developing development agencies. Back when AID was first set up and for the first 28 years AID was the development agency of the United States. It is now what it calls itself the premier development agency in the United States and there are 20 other government agencies that also do international development. At times there can be confusion within our own government of to who runs the health program in a specific country. This is something that probably will not be reversed but again we've learned to coordinate with our other donors with our host country nationals we need to learn to coordinate better with ourselves. Thank you. Thank you very much Janet. A lot of rich food for thought and I'm burning to ask everyone several questions but despite that promise because I know others in the audience have questions I'm going to defer all but one question inspired by the combination of what you Janet and Abe sensei said about lessons learned but Abe sensei sort of challenged to that on some level at least that's the way I interpreted that there's a limit to what you can learn generally you have to actually understand locally the specific idiosyncrasies of a particular place and a set of challenges locally so inspired by that I want to ask Nakazawa-san and Ambassador Kuizia about Japan's own experience and whether that as a country that emerged from devastation at the end of World War II whether on the Japan side the extent to which your own experience informed your approach to ODA over these 60 years when you went to the Philippines or places in Africa or other countries to what extent was your own experience in developing applied and relevant to what you were doing in those countries and for Ambassador Kuizia the same question in reverse to what extent do you think Japan's experience has been informative to the Philippines as a country struggling with some of these same issues very two minutes because I want to give the audience a chance to jump in I agree with Abe-sensei saying every development is very context specific and leader's strategy is very different from the forward strategy so I think Japanese experience significance of Japanese experience in terms of our assistance to developing country is we are the one who caught up to the western nations and we know the forward strategy but still I again agree with Abe-sensei's remarks we have to go into deep and have to understand the context very specific context surrounding environment what does globalization means for the like an infant industry which needs to be developed for the purpose of development and so on so context specific type of issues maybe again understood probably only by those developing countries by themselves that's why I insist on the importance of the self-help efforts or to help those self-help self-help efforts thank you, two minutes 90 seconds, that was very good what we have seen is that I guess Japan having emerged also from war from devastation we tend to be very understanding of our situation particularly when they encounter resistance from local communities in certain projects projects that of course will redound to the interests of the country but sometimes the local communities have a more narrow view and we do encounter they bring us to court they bring the government to court to stop a project but we see that the Japanese from JICA and the other agencies of the Japanese tend to be a lot more understanding thank you okay so I'm going to open it up to questions from the floor we have officially ten minutes and I might cheat two or three minutes out of your coffee break to allow for one or two additional questions there are microphones so if you do have a question raise your hand we'll get a microphone to you and if you could identify yourself and genuinely ask a question that would be helpful yes sir just one second we'll wait for the microphone please hi, Don Ritter president of the afghan-american chamber of commerce and former member of congress go way back with afghanistan to when jihad was a good word but I wanted to just ask the panel members the gaping hole one sees in places like afghanistan is with all of the aid monies that have gone in understanding that there's a war on the gaping hole is the private sector in the market economy the sustainable segment of society could you comment on the perhaps inability is developing the market economy somewhat off the table when it comes to development is that development is hard developing the sustainable market economy given that development is coming from government sources very difficult to engage with the private sector or engage the private sector or invest and this is if you look at paul brinkley's from war front to store front it really always there's a lesson learned there with all that money the private sector and the sustainable part when the aid is pulled out is rather negligible anyway I'd like to get your comments starting with you janet I wish I knew more about afghanistan I did not serve in that bureau I know about as much as many people here who read the papers I have read the inspector general report and I have read the book by the washington post reporter yeah I mean I'm not sure how you carry out in a development program in the midst of the kind of civil combat that is going on I'm not sure that it is classified as a war anymore but when you pick up the paper it sure sounds like it I know a number of aid contractors that have tried to set up small businesses that have looked at programs that would develop the natural resources and I think that the jury is up as to whether any of them are going to make it until there is some sort of stability and some sort of peace I wish I knew more about it but that is not a very good answer unfortunately she has taken an early coffee break but Abigail Friedman who will be on the next panel served in afghanistan and I think has is going to speak a little bit about that in her remarks so maybe Don make sure you ask your question of Abigail when she comes back thank you I think you know what an aid agency has to think about is sometimes fragile states post conflict situation is helped by only the human Italian type of aid and human Italian aid agency but that needs to be connected without gap to the development of society development of market as I pointed out in my remarks government residency and government function I believe is very necessary so even though it may take time we have to try to develop one by one how we can make governance structure sound by providing institutional development in capacity building a type of aid but at the same time as you pointed out at the end of the day private sector is the one who will make economy active and sustainable so I'm sorry I can't have the clear answer but as an aid agency we have to take care about both human Italian aid under the post conflict type of situation and development type of assistance together with government and private sector. Thank you my name is Jeanine Wendt with Voice of Vietnamese Americans I thank all the panelists especially Dr. Valentine for your service my question is how do you think the lessons learned for the last six decades between the US and Japan in developing countries would transfer to our new programs for developing countries in South East Asia especially Vietnam. Thank you let me try in two minutes for example when we started our assistance in Vietnam what we studied you know deeply was our experience in Thailand for example you know we assisted to develop the Eastern Seaboard in Thailand which was the outskirt of the Bangkok Maftaput and Lepchevan industrial area and the lessons learned from there was utilized when we provided assistance to Northern Vietnam which connected Hanoi to Haifeng port by National Highway 5 and the industrial state or SEZ type of development in order to promote the export export oriented development in Hanoi and which I believe was quite successful because of the effort by the Vietnam people and Vietnamese government thank you. David said formally with the Defense State Departments my question is about another country that got the Olympics and also continues to receive development aid China Japan has devoted a lot of effort to development assistance in China the United States has basically not given any assistance to China and I wonder whether the panelists have any thoughts on a place where there's been a very different development model used by Japan's efforts in the U.S.'s model whether they have any thoughts on that my name is also for a community of democracies we have gotten from the panel some differences of opinion I think about the role of democracy as being among the objectives of development on the one hand professor Abe gave a brilliant example of how democratic water policy could be implemented by people participating in the process particularly women and girls from professor Ballantyne we got the view that the Russians took great objection when you tried to ram democracy and human rights down their throats my question is are we not really talking about participation not about preaching democracy or human rights but if you will taking the view that people have this desire and demand to participate in their own governance in a way or another how they do it is up to them but it's not clear from the panel and it was certainly clear from Mr. Firestein's remarks that both elimination of extreme poverty and building democratic societies were the two key elements of development so what are we really talking about thank you Jim Gannon with the Japan Center for National Exchange I was glad to hear the common agenda mentioned earlier and under that there were a lot of efforts between the US and Japan to create some deeper partnerships and run a lot of joint projects and that was of course succeeded under the Bush administration by the US-Japan partnership on global health which dug a bit deeper in a specific area and I understand that JICA staff were one was based in USAID there was some attempt to do the opposite my sense is that these types of really deep joint partnerships have diminished in recent years between the US and Japan and I want to get a sense I mean I'm tempted to ask have we given up on this type of partnership but what I really want to know is from the USAID and the JICA perspective of these joint attempts at joint projects what were the costs of those and what were the benefits of those thank you okay so we have a question about China and about US-Japan joint projects maybe we can go down the road if people would like to offer thoughts on any of those three questions or anything else before we close on the question of China USAID has a representative in China as a matter of fact Jennifer Adams was sitting over there spent four years as our representative so what I would suggest the best way to find out the dimensions of the US China program would be to talk to her because I don't have any idea on the other ones I think when we were talking about democratization and you brought up Russia I think you hit upon a key and democratization programs don't have to be elections don't have to be the kinds of governance issues that we often but I think the key and I would agree with you 100% is participation one of the growth industries in Russia during the time I was there was the creation and formation of non-governmental organizations of community organizations where people would get together and for the first time and look at environmental issues and lo and behold find out that the government would listen to them as an organization but not as an individual so I think that you know that is the keystone on which you can start building but I think often we try and go from the top down rather than the bottom up joint projects I think that back when I was in aid I know we had we still have an aid person who was attached to the embassy but I don't believe we've embedded people I think where the collaboration takes place more now is in the field that the aid director in India gets to know the JICA person they look at coordination they share planning and where each party has an interest try to work out joint implementation comment on democratization or participation I don't want to use if you are in the field or if we are actively engaged in ODA I don't want to use intellectual world like democratization I think important thing is somehow you have to develop an institution or institutions in the society where people work and somehow you have to let people participate and that must be the principle for success in any kind of endeavor for economic development that's not there we are fully committed to democracy and despite the difficulties we encounter in pushing projects we recognize the rights of local communities including the indigenous peoples who raise objections for example in the case of mining while we have some very attractive mining properties that can be developed indigenous peoples raise concerns, objections they go to court and in a democratic system within that system under an authoritarian system like during the time of President Marcos projects could move on more quickly but of course we know what happened during the Marcos years so we believe that we would rather work within a democratic system despite all its failings despite all the difficulties we encounter let me answer Jim's question when Vice President Biden visited Japan last December both governments agreed to establish the senior level development dialogue and in fact I noticed that this morning in the Japanese government probably the US government as well announced that next week we will have the first such meeting so even though we have continued our dialogue and discussion with our counterparts of USAID for like a global health like food security and many other issues but probably as someone pointed out based upon the recent development some issues not necessarily new but issues like gender women which Prime Minister Abe announced in the last General Assembly meeting might be one of the issues to be discussed thank you that's a very good transition into the next panel because we will be talking about I hope that both Araki-san and Denise Rollins will address and give us a little bit of a taste of what's going to be in that new dialogue and some of the opportunities for partnership going forward I did steal a couple of your minutes from your coffee break so I'll give you back two of them I'd like everybody back by 11.02 there is coffee up there on the terrace please join me in thanking our panelists for that excellent presentation thank you so much