Contrary to Pres. Arroyo’s statement that the ratification of Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement (JPEPA) will protect the country from the global financial crisis, research group IBON Foundation says it will make the country more vulnerable to economic shocks.

JPEPA and similar free trade deals further opens the local economy to more foreign plunder and drags the country to the global crisis worsened by trade and investment liberalization, said IBON research head Sonny Africa. Bilateral deals like JPEPA enables beleaguered countries like Japan to pass their crisis to other economies in the region through more liberalization.

Even as Japan claims that it is on the way to recovery, its economy has grappled with stagnant growth and high unemployment for nearly two decades and is aiming to further open up other economies to cope with its internal problems. The emerging scenario of a US economic slowdown, financial disorder, soaring energy and food prices only make its situation more urgent.

The experience of the country with similar free trade deals such as the GATT-WTO, which the Senate ratified in 1994, has proven that no amount of safety nets could protect the economy and people’s livelihood from the harmful effects of liberalization.

According to Africa, it is ironic that the Senate ratified the JPEPA even as the WTO talks broke down precisely because of questions on the supposed development gains to be achieved from trade and investment liberalization. “When will this government learn from the harmful effects of liberalization on the economy?” he asked.

The approval of JPEPA surrenders Philippine sovereignty and will reinforce the country’s backwardness. The country will be further prevented from implementing economic policies essential for its development and will be obliged to give similar disadvantageous terms in pending deals with the US, European countries and others.

There is no real gain for the Philippines and especially the poorest and most marginalized sectors with JPEPA. In agriculture it is the big corporate plantations that will gain and not the country’s millions of small farmers, Africa added.

To protect and build the domestic economy, the country needs trade protection against imports such as tariff and non-tariff barriers and investment controls, and not free trade deals like JPEPA that only further expose the country and deepen its links to the failing global economy. (end)

IBON is one of the convenors of No Deal! Movement Against Unequal Economic Agreements.



It is not surprising but still disappointing that the government has clearly not learned its lesson. The current global turmoil and its impact on the Philippines underscore the vulnerability of our economy. The country is extremely vulnerable because of nearly three decades of reckless “free market” policies of globalization.

Progressive groups warned in 1994 about the damage that a World Trade Organization (WTO) deal would cause. Yet the government insisted on ratifying the deal and even implemented policies opening up the economy beyond what the WTO agreement required. The so-called safety nets were ineffectual and local industry and agriculture has been devastated causing unprecedented joblessness.

The economy’s fundamentals are very weak and will be weakened further by JPEPA and other such deals to come. The country’s historic jobs crisis will worsen, more Filipinos will be forced to try and find work abroad, millions more will suffer poverty and deprivation.

We condemn the surrender of the country’s sovereignty and patrimony by the government through JPEPA. The country’s negotiators have absurdly given up nationalist and protectionist policy measures that Malaysia, Indonesia and Thailand for instance held on to in their respective trade deals with Japan.

The only acceptable deal for the Philippines is one based on the principles of solidarity, mutual benefit and development for those who have long suffered poverty and backwardness. The JPEPA however is a treasonous deal that must be completely rejected.


While proponents of the Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement (JPEPA) claim that the pact will create more opportunities for local nurses by allowing them to enter the Japanese market, a study by a Japanese university shows that foreign nurses in Japan face exploitative work conditions and even discrimination. 
A study by the University of Kitakyushu in Japan found out that employment programs involving foreign nurses and caregivers have resulted in trainees being forced to work long hours. The Japanese government has also refused to guarantee minimum wage levels, while exorbitant fees of at least 58,000 yen (PhP 23,200) are deducted from the nurses’ salaries every month. 
Exploitation of foreign workers on training programs has also been prevalent. Indonesian trainees in Japan , for instance, have reportedly experiencedphysical abuse and been forced to render unpaid overtime, while others have been denied such basic rights as freedom of movement. Meanwhile, non-Japanese in the bigger cities are reportedly subject to racial profiling by being asked to produce their foreign registration cards or passports, which must be carried at all times. 
Part of government’s hype is that with the JPEPA, 400 Filipino nurses and 600 caregivers will be allowed to enter Japan for training for over two years. However, the receiving scheme for health workers states that they must work as trainees in designated institutions, undergo six months ofJapanese language training and pass the national certification tests before they can qualify as nurse or caregiver. Although they are already working during this time they will be receiving pay only as a non-licensed worker or trainee or candidate, or as nurse’s aides and caregiver’s assistants. 
According to research group IBON, senators debating on the JPEPA should see that the inclusion of nurses in the JPEPA is a deceptive provision that offers uncertain benefits, made only to sweeten the blatantly one-sided, pro-Japan deal. Using Filipino nurses as a justification for approving JPEPA highlights how the Philippine government is willing to sacrifice the welfare of its citizens as well as to cover up for its severe failure in generating jobs and supporting the country’s health system. (end) 
The No Deal! Movement for Unequal Economic Agreements in cooperation with the La Sallian Justice and Peace Commission and Benedictines for Peace invite you to the forum ‘JPEPA: Deal or No Deal? The People’s Issues’, 9 am -12 pm, Sept. 12 at the Fajardo Gonzales Auditorium, DLSU Manila. The program includes discussion on the Senate hearings and the presentation of a manifesto on JPEPA.


As Sen. Miriam Santiago advises opposition senators to “love or leave” the Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement (JPEPA), research group IBON Foundation urges the Senate to choose the non-ratification of the deal and help reclaim the country’s economic sovereignty.

Even as Santiago warned senators that renegotiating the treaty would mean wasting one year’s worth of Senate time and resources, IBON said that the long-term consequences of lost policy sovereignty are severe and will cement Philippine backwardness.

The group added that the non-ratification of the Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement (JPEPA) will send the signal that the country is after trade and investment cooperation that is of mutual benefit and will reject deals that are unequal and destructive. It is more advantageous for the country to have less investment at better terms rather than more investment but foregoing the most important benefits.

Rejecting JPEPA also challenges the Japanese government to prove that its official development assistance(ODA) is given to support development as Filipinos see it and not to influence domestic economic policy-making to serve Japanese corporate interests.

Even with the exchange of notes between the Japanese and Philippine governments, the JPEPA signed by the Arroyo administration remains unequal and defeatist. The Philippine Senate can be at the forefront of rejecting this destructive deal and take the first step in upholding economic sovereignty and national development, the think-tank said. (end)

IBON is a convenor of No Deal! Movement Against Unequal Economic Agreements.

Donor Governments Continue To Ignore Developing Country Demands For Aid Reform

Donor Governments Continue To Ignore Developing Country Demands For Aid Reform
Better Aid coalition calls for concrete commitments and timelines as negotiations stall

As ministers arrive in Accra for meetings of the reform of aid, donors continue to block Southern governments’ pleas for reform.

Governments have gathered at the High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness in Ghana to agree an agenda for action for improving aid. New evidence from the OECD shows that donors in particular are not meeting their side of the bargain. Negotiations have stalled as some donor governments, particularly Japan and the United States , are refusing to agree real actions to meet the commitments.

“If developing country concerns are not genuinely addressed, then donors are paying little more than lip-service to the promises of partnership,” says Yao Graham of Third World Network Africa, “Once again we see global power relations being reinforced and the demands of civil society and developing country governments sidelined.”

All governments present in Accra accept that developing countries need to determine their own priorities if aid is to work. But the proposals made by developing country governments to reform aid are being ignored in last minute closed-door negotiations.

Developing countries have set out their key priorities where they want to see real action.

  • Removing harmful policy conditionality that undermines democratic processes
  • Ensuring aid doesn’t bypass domestic processes and scrutiny
  • Making aid much more predictable over the medium term so that they can plan effectively
  • Untying all aid from the purchase of rich country goods and services, including food aid and technical assistance. 75% of food aid comes directly from rich countries, undermining local markets and developing countries are often forced to contract expensive consultants from donor countries rather than drawing on their own expertise.

The Better Aid coalition of civil society organisations is calling for Ministers to agree concrete commitments and deadlines for delivering on these commitments. More fine words will not suffice.

Contacts (in Accra )

Henri Valot, Civicus: World Alliance for Citizen Participation, +233 (0) 240230273
Yao Graham, Third World Network Africa , +233 (0) 244577102
Lucy Hayes, European Network on Debt and Development, +233 (0)240230271

Editors notes:

Donors and developing countries agreed the Paris Declaration on aid effectiveness in Paris in 2005. The Accra High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness is the first major review of the progress made in implementing those commitments.

Thursday 4th September is the final day of three day Forum, when Ministers arrive to agree the final Accra Agenda for Action, which will be the political agreement from the Forum. Government officials have been trying to make progress with last minute negotiations over the first two days of the conference (2ndand 3rd September).

Since January 2007, CSOs networks have worked in an International CSOs Steering Group (ISG) to coordinate CSOs’ analysis, proposals and plans for the Third High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness. The ISG maintains a website,, as a portal for CSO initiatives on aid effectiveness, including a Policy Paper signed onto by more than 350 CSOs on aid and development effectiveness reform. The ISG have been meeting with the Working Party on Aid Effectiveness, based at the OECD DAC, setting out CSO concerns and proposals for the Accra HLF.


As proponents of the Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement (JPEPA) continue to warn against the possibility of being left out if the pact is not ratified, the experience of Indonesia shows that its own bilateral deal with Japan has not resulted in increased economic gains. 
The recently-implemented Indonesia-Japan Economic Partnership Agreement (IJEPA) promised increased exports to Japan . But as the IJEPA went into effect in July, Indonesian Industry Minister Fahmi Idris said that Indonesia ’s main exports, such as agricultural products and timber, will continue to face high non-tariff barriers in the form of quality standards, while Japanese high-tech imports will be able to enter the Indonesian market with lower import taxes. The same situation is expected if the JPEPA is ratified, as Philippine pineapples and bananas would face strict phytosanitary standards before being allowed to enter the Japanese market. 
Moreover, major Japanese investors in Indonesia threatened to pull out of the country unless issues such as sufficient power supply were resolved. This discredits claims by JPEPA advocates that the trade pact with Japan would guarantee a flood of Japanese investments as Japanese investors would still have to consider factors other than the JPEPA before they decide to invest in the Philippines , such as labor costs and infrastructure. 
Some Indonesian analysts believe that Japan may be the bigger winner in the IJEPA, as the pact could help ensure for Japan a steady supply of Indonesian liquefied natural gas through increased Japanese investments in Indonesia ’s energy sector. According to an official of the Indonesian Chamber of Commerce and Industry , Indonesia will likely become more dependent on Japan , to the detriment of local industry. 
The IJEPA demonstrates how Japan ’s bilateral trade agreements are not about genuine economic partnership or development but rather a tool it uses to advance Japanese corporate interests. Senators should heed this lesson and reject the JPEPA lest the country be trapped in a bad deal that compromises the Philippines ’ future economic prospects. 


The Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement (JPEPA) will still be against the best interests of Filipinos and the economy even if Japan accepts the Senate’s proposed “side deal” or any similar legal maneuver to make the JPEPA formally constitutional.

The changes to JPEPA proposed by the Senate still do not transform the deal into a genuine economic partnership agreement that recognizes the vast inequalities between the two countries and takes genuine measures to develop the Philippines.

The “side deal” merely aims to align the JPEPA with the nationalist economic provisions of the 1987 Philippine Constitution. It does notsignify a real shift in the country’s economic strategies and merely asserts what is already formally contained in the charter. Unfortunately these potentially important provisions have in practice not been able to hinder the unprecedented implementation of “free market” policies of so-called “globalization” in the country and, indeed, have been observed more in the breach.

The “side deal” falls far short of transforming JPEPA into a truly developmental deal for the Philippines. Such a deal would begin from recognizing the vast inequality between advanced Japan and backward Philippines. It would also acknowledge that Japan has become highly developed in part from decades of taking advantage of cheap Filipino laborand natural resources as well as from access to the domestic market.

On these premises, a genuine partnership deal would have Japan in solidarity with the Philippines and giving real support for its development. Among others this means the Philippines having open access to Japan while still retaining its trade and investment protections, the Philippines maintaining its control over and capacity to regulate the domestic economy, and Japan providing untied financial aid and technical assistance that the Philippines can freely use according to its development priorities.

Introducing reservations/exceptions for future/existing investment measures and introducing the possibility of changing tariff schedule commitments, as the Senate proposed for “conditional concurrence” previously, are only part of this.

The JPEPA signed by the government on the contrary is unequal, defeatist and destructive and will remain so even with the “side deal”. The only acceptable deal for the Philippines is one based on the principles of
solidarity, mutual benefit and development.