Pacific business networking

Pacific business networking

We did not expect much from the inaugural meeting of the Asia-
Pacific Business Network (APB Net) which ended in Jakarta
yesterday with six points of policy suggestions for the Asia-
Pacific Economic Cooperation forum. After all, it was the first
of such forums organized by businessmen from among the APEC
members.

In fact, the idea of the APB Net was conceived only last March
during the meeting of the APEC Working Group on Trade Promotion
in Bali. It was not endorsed by senior APEC officials until May.
But the participation of more than 200 businessmen from 16 of
APEC's 17 members in the meeting proved that the forum did serve
some purpose.

The idea of the need for a separate forum for the private
sectors of APEC members was initially confused with the Pacific
Business Forum (PBF) which was recommended by the first APEC
leaders meeting in Seattle last November. The Indonesian and
Australian chambers of commerce had to undertake an intensive
information campaign to explain the different functions of the
two forums.

The business community apparently is afraid that the PBF would
not be able to fully represent its interests in the decision-
making machinery of APEC. Indeed, the PBF smacks more of an
official forum rather than a businessmen's forum because its
membership, which is limited to two from each member economy was
appointed by government. Indonesian representatives in the PBF,
for example, are A.R. Ramly and Bustanil Arifin, who are both
retired officials.

The APB Net thus seems to have a right to exist because it is an
initiative by the business communities of APEC members and it is action
oriented, while the PBF serves more as an advisory committee on business
development policies.

Yesterday's agreement to convene the second APB Net meeting in Japan
next year seems to prove the need for a fully private business forum
within APEC.

Indeed, the business community should have an avenue for conveying
input for the trade and business development policies to be made by the
various APEC working groups and committees, as well as the Pacific
Business Forum. After all, it is the business communities in the APEC
members who are the main players in whatever forms of economic
cooperation are developed under the APEC forum. Any policies made by
APEC will be rendered meaningless if they are not translated by the
businessmen into economic linkages through business joint ventures or
trade ties.

The question, though, is whether setting up another forum, such as
the APB Net, will be the most effective and efficient way to achieve
that objective. The press statement issued at the end of the meeting
yesterday did not mention anything about the structure of the APB Net,
nor about its membership and mechanism of operations.

Instead, some of the working programs the APB Net said it would
implement face the risk of duplicating the work being done by the APEC
Working Groups on Trade and Investment Data and on Trade Promotion.

The programs for exchanging data base and economic information
between members may duplicate the APECNet which carries and conveys the
trade, investment and general economic data of APEC members. And the
plan to hold a seminar on small and medium-scale business development
in Australia early next year may overlap with the work of APEC's Expert
Meeting on the same topic.

It is simply all right if businessmen from APEC members agree to meet
annually under a loose and unstructured forum before APEC's ministerial
meeting. But perhaps, the most effective way to ensure that the business
community will have a say, or influence, in the APEC decision making
process is for APEC leaders to allow for adequate businessman
participation in the work of the various working groups, committee and
expert teams of the forum.