17^th APEC TPT-WG
Singapore

PROGRESS REPORT
OF THE
MARITIME INITIATIVE MEETING

1. The Maritime Initiative group held a meeting on 27^th and 28^th March to advance the scheduled work and consider next steps of the group, with participation from 16 economies: Australia; Canada; Chile; China; Hong Kong, China; Indonesia; Japan; Korea; Malaysia; New Zealand; Papua New Guinea; Peru; Singapore; Chinese Taipei; Thailand and the United States of America.

A Transparency Exercise Questionnaire ( TEQ )

2. The MI welcomed the submission of TEQ response by Chile as the 17^th economy responded to TEQ. Japan, as a coordinator of TEQ work, will revise the assorted responses ( MI/99 I/2.REV.2 ) by including Chilean data.

3. Following the work done at the Hong Kong meeting, the MI continued an analysis work of responses to TEQ. By the inter-sessional consultation, analyst economies were Japan and the United States for the Market Access, Canada and New Zealand for the Support Measures, Australia for the Competition Law, and Thailand for the General Maritime Policy, respectively. All the analyses were tabled to be discussed by MI members this time. As a consequence of examination on the analyses, the MI found some areas need to supplement responses to TEQ by seeking further information, but the MI also considered that the TEQ work should advance to a next step by giving priority on the work for the future meeting of MI.

4. As regards the Competition Law, the MI contended itself with the analysis of Australia ( Annex 1 ) , and found terminal handling charges should be included in future works of MI to extend discussions about them.

5. Based on the analyses on Support Measures made by Canada ( Annex2 ) and New Zealand ( Annex3 ) , we discussed how to identify what barriers for maritime transport services are caused by support measures. We found sufficient details were not given in some responses for this purpose in order to identify precisely barriers to shipping. But as instructed by the Bogor Declaration of achieving the goal of free and open trade and investment in the Asia-Pacific, we felt that further work be done by the MI in order to identify and eliminate impediments in this sector.

6. As for the Market Access analyzed by Japan ( Annex4 ) and the United States (Annex5 ), we found some restrictions apply horizontally in a sense of applicability to a number of other services sectors, and some are required from the reason of other services sectors. Bearing always in mind these characteristics of restrictions, the MI confirmed that the concept of the Maritime Mission Statement instructing encouragement of Liberalization, Efficiency, Facilitation, Harmonization and Transparency gives us a direction to review restrictions for achieving Bogor goal. We also noticed that some regard restrictions in different ways from others. This encourages us to make a list of restrictions on which the MI will make priority in the future discussion to establish common understanding on barriers for market access of shipping. Some member expressed need of achieving something as a result of action taken by the MI before the Transport Minister’s meeting, and other appealed to go into discussion of high priority restrictions immediately by finishing the analysis work. In order to facilitate the MI work at the next TPT-WG, Japan will request MI members after 17^th TPT-WG to show which restrictions are to be identified as priority areas by each economy. Japan will make a draft list of priority restrictions by combining responses from MI members before the next TPT-WG in Japan.

7. The MI appreciated the work of Thailand in analyzing the General Maritime Policy ( Annex 6 ) comprehensively and succeeding in including many subjects into one document. After making clarification and examining the content of the analysis, the MI agreed to progress the work as in the same way as is the future work of Market Access; Japan will request MI members to show which restrictions are to be identified as priority area by each economy after the 17^th TPT-WG, and will make a draft combined list of priority restrictions to be discussed in the next MI meeting.

B Presentation of private sector

8. Mr. Michinori Hiraide, General Manager, the Maritime International Cooperation Center ( MICC ) made a briefing of the result of the research on maritime policy in some APEC economies, which brought MI members constructive information to advance MI works.

9. As were previous three MI meetings, we invited a representative of shipping association of the meeting venue to make a presentation on the maritime transport industry. This time, Mr. Daniel J.S. Tan, Executive Director of the Singapore Shipping Association, kindly presented his briefing on Singapore shipping industry. His presentation extends to the formation and role of the Association, an overview of history and recent activities of Singapore shipping industry as well as challenges ahead.

C TILF special account project "Facilitation of International Shipping"

10. Based on the introduction of the progress report of the project by Australia, the MI thought that circulation of a first draft of reports made by a consultant and arrangement of his participation in the next MI meeting in October will help the MI to examine profoundly deliverables of the project. The MI also considered that the final report should be circulated to the Transport Minister’s meeting of APEC in addition to organs listed in the project implementation time table. Because we decided at the last meeting in Hong Kong to act as liaison persons for the project, we made and updated a list of contact persons.

D Comments and suggestions on the future work of MI based on the Japanese Minister’s report on the work of MI

11. Based on the responses by the Minister of Transport and Regional Services of Australia, the MI firstly sought member’s consideration whether they regarded the Australian response worthy of continued examination by the MI members. Because satisfaction of the Australian proposal and eagerness to have a detailed proposal on the possible scope and programs of work have been unanimously expressed by MI members, Australia with assistance by New Zealand will make a paper for the next MI meeting.

E WTO2000

12. Japan reported recent factual developments of WTO Trade in Services negotiation in Geneva after the WTO Seattle Ministerial Conference. In order to stimulate MI member’s consideration about WTO maritime transport services negotiation, a discussion document of Australia was tabled for seeking view from MI members. Considering the recent appearance of a paper in the TPT-WG web-site, and the need to continue the subject in the future MI meetings, the MI agreed that MI members will provide comments on the various models mentioned in the Australian paper to the MI chair intersessionally and by ranking, if possible, to make a basis of discussion of the next meeting.

F HNS Convention

13. Although a presentation by IMO representatives on the International Convention on Liability and Compensation for Damages in Connection with the Carriage of Hazardous and Noxious Substances, 1996 ( "HNS Convention" ) could not be realized by the conflict of meeting schedules this time, Canada reported that it has received positive response by IMO representatives for attending the next MI meeting in Japan. It was noted that joint arrangement should be made with the Experts Group on Maritime Safety for the IMO presentation.

This page was last updated on 12 March, 2008