1. The third meeting of the Experts Group on Maritime Safety was held on October 19^th - 20^th, 1998.

2. Representatives of Australia, Canada, China, Chinese Taipei, Hong Kong China, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Republic of Korea, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and U.S.A. met to address Maritime Safety concerns in the region in order to identify problems and propose recommendations for improvement.

3. The meeting was chaired by Canada.

4. A Project Steering Committee was established for the Australian Proposal "Safer Shipping in the Asia Pacific Region – an integrated approach to developing appropriate regulatory and economic mechanisms to promote safer shipping in the Asia Pacific Region" (see annexed report).

5. Prior to addressing the various issues, the Group reviewed the report of the second meeting held on April 21^st 1998 in Mexico City and the Terms of Reference.

6. The Group also reviewed the recently concluded work of the third session of the Asia Pacific Heads of Maritime Safety Agencies Forum held in Whistler, B.C. Canada from September 15^th-18^th, 1998. Noting that the report of this session would be submitted to the International Maritime Organization (IMO), the group concluded that reports of its work programme should similarly be submitted to IMO for information as well as the Heads of Maritime Safety Agencies Safety Forum.

7. Recalling that an interim summary of the survey questionnaire to identify safety issues and problems in the region had been reviewed at the group’s second meeting, a finalized summary and an analysis was submitted to this meeting for review.

8. The summary and analysis of the survey showed that twelve economies had responded to the survey; another economy (USA) had submitted its input shortly prior to the meeting and would be included in future versions. It was observed that when reading the survey summary, some questions may have been misunderstood and it was agreed that economies that wished to amend or provide additional information should provide this information to Canada, who undertook to update the survey summary.

9. In order that economies could be aware of the status of each of its members, the group decided that the survey summary would be kept updated as a "living document" and readily accessible on the APEC web site.

10. Following discussion on the results and analysis of the survey, the following recommendations and observations evolved:

• There should be an exchange of technical marine safety experts between member economies in order to harmonize enforcement and provide assistance to implement new conventions.

• The infrastructure of the maritime administrations of member economies and the identification of impediments to developing or amending appropriate laws should be reviewed.

• Reduced resources and lack of technical expertise by the majority of economies identified the need for alternate service delivery in the form of oversight and audit programs.

• Corporate agreements and MOU’s concerning crucial areas of maritime safety and marine environmental protection should be developed.
• There is a need for economies to liaise with each other more often on issues of mutual concern.

• The link to the HRD Sub-Committee should be maintained especially with respect to the training of seafarers.

• Assistance for implementing new maritime initiatives was required by some economies; in order to determine need, use could be made of the recently developed IMO Flag State self assessment form.

11. A proposal was made to change the name of the group in order to better reflect marine environmental protection and safety management issues. Following discussion, the group felt that extending the name of the group would make it too lengthy. To more accurately reflect these functions it was agreed that protection of the environment from ship source pollution would be added to the objectives of the group. This is in accordance with the Ministerial Directive.

12. Links to other forums, e.g. Tokyo MOU on Port State Control and IMO were reviewed and whether there could be improved consultation prior to submission of papers. The group agreed there was merit in joint submissions but that further review was required before this concept could be formalized. Exchange of information with other economies on technical submissions was however encouraged, particularly on regional issues.

13. Canada agreed to finalize the recommendations, develop a High Priority Safety List and proposed initiatives to address safety issues to TPT-WG 15. When finalized these would form the basis of a submission to the Transport Ministers in accordance with the group’s terms of reference.

14. The group also noted that due to the current economic crisis, a number of economies were unable to be represented, that this be brought to the attention of the Steering Committee and that means be found to encourage/assist all members to participate in the work of the group.

15. Noting that the survey questionnaire had shown a need to provide information on the maritime administrative structures in each economy, a preliminary project proposal was presented by the Republic of Korea. Phase I of this project would require each economy to describe how they are structured in this regard, how they implement conventions including the methodology and legal framework and options be given for optimum arrangements for improving maritime administrations. Australia, Canada, China and Philippines agreed to co-sponsor this project and to work intersessionally to prepare a final proposal for review at TPT-WG 15. The group agreed that this project be recommended for consideration for funding.

16. Recalling that the Steering Committee had decided to place "Regional Co-operation on Oil-Spills preparedness and Response Arrangements" in the group’s work plan, the group reviewed the final report on this project prepared by the Philippines.

17. The group agreed that as a number of arrangements exist, there is no need to develop an overall contingency APEC plan but that plans for neighboring economies should be examined with a view to development if required. Comments on the report should be submitted to the Philippines who would update the summary and the contingency plan matrix as appropriate.

18. These documents would also be maintained on the APEC web site as another "living document", together with the titles and details of contacts for oil spills.

19. Members also agreed to place in the web-site details of proposed oil spill seminars, exercises and conferences in order that other members could participate if appropriate.

Recommendations to Steering Committee:

1. Request the APEC Secretariat to submit the details of the work programme of the Experts Group on Maritime Safety to IMO’s MSC and MEPC.

2. Note that "living documents" would be maintained and readily available on the APEC TPT-WG web site.

3. Advise plenary that due to the economic crisis, delegations were scarcely or not represented and that means should be found to assist those economies that had difficulty in attending.

4. Note that finalized recommendations, a high priority safety list and proposed initiatives to address maritime safety issues would be developed at TPT-WG 15.

5. Agree that the Korean project proposal "To identify optimum Maritime Administrative Structures and the Legal Framework for Safer Shipping in the Asia Pacific Region" go forward as a TPT-WG project to the Budget Advisory Committee for consideration for funding.

6. Note that EGMS will examine the use of performance indicators in Maritime Safety Administrations.

This page was last updated on 10 Aug, 2006