Libreville– Despite the Japanese Government’s emphasis that it is an international development forum for Africa, Tokyo International Conference on African Development (TICAD) and its action plan are still pretty much perceived as Japan’s official aid package deal towards Africa.

Firstly, there is notable under-reorientation of key players: other donor governments (for harmonization of aid efforts), other Asian governments (for Asia-Africa partnership), private sector (for economic growth), the civil society organizations (for the downward accountability) and more. One of the African Government expressed the frustration in the plenary of the Ministerial Conference in Gabon that TICAD should stop pretending that it was the Asia-Africa meeting.

The Civil Society Organisations (CSOs), for one, have been fighting to find its way to be involved in the process since the first TICAD held in Tokyo in 1993. To be fair, TICAD has come a long way. Since the third TICAD in 2003 especially, the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs has continued dialogue with the Japanese CSOs, and today the CSOs have gotten the observatory status in the TICAD proper and all the preceding meetings. The participation of the CSOs, however, still depends on the approval of the Japanese and the host country governments, and it is limited to African and Japanese organizations.

Secondly, the draft Yokohama Declaration and Action Plan are weak with respect to CSO engagement vis a vis CSO being recognized as a strategic partner in fostering the TICAD process forward. The documents do not necessarily reflect the positions of the co-organisers (The Japanese Government, The World Bank, the UNDP, and the UNOSAA) on the Civil Society participation in development, either. As the two documents are considered by some as the guideline of Japan’s bilateral commitment, the political game seems to continue to make the bilateral aid process as exclusive as possible. The obvious omission of the CSOs from the documents was lamented by the some Government Delegates in the plenary session.

Finally, the involvement of the co-organisers are no way equally prominent in the meetings. The presence of the World Bank, UNDP, and UNOSAA seems only tokenistic. The African Governments only acknowledge the contribution of GoJ in their diplomatic speeches. The commitments from the TICAD process are almost exclusively from the Japanese Government. Where is the spirit of “harmonization of aid?”

TICAD is standing at the turning point. In mid 1990s, when the developed world was experiencing the aid fatigue, it played an important role to keep Africa on the agenda. Today, African Governments have plentiful commitments from different donors. There are different forums that discuss African Development. Time has changed. The Japanese Government and the Co-organisers should revisit the relevance and mandate of TICAD seriously in May. If the age demands the transformation of TICAD, so should it be.