APEC Transportation Working 16
SHEPHERDS/HODs/SCCs MEETINGS
November 9 and 10, 1999
HONG KONG, CHINA

Record of Decisions

Tuesday, November 9, 1999

Item 1. Opening Remarks

Opening remarks were given by the Lead Shepherd.

The Lead Shepherd, on behalf of all economies, expressed his most sincere appreciation for the excellent work done by Hong Kong, China in preparing for TPT-WG 16, particularly that of Mr. Adam Lai, of the Economic Services Bureau, Hong Kong, China, Special Administrative Region Government. He then welcomed Mr. Jos?Barojas, Program Director, APEC Secretariat, and thanked him for his assistance throughout the period leading up to TPT-WG 16. He also wished a warm welcome to Mr. Soo-Kon Kim, who had recently taken over as Head of Delegation for Korea and Coordinator of the Steering Committee on More Competitive Transportation Industry (including Infrastructure).

He went on to outline the main issues for discussion during the meeting, namely:

1. The selection of economies to occupy the positions of Lead Shepherd, Deputy Shepherd and Steering Committee Coordinators as of January 1, 2000;

2. the conclusions of the Strategic Direction Brainstorming Session held on Monday, November 8, 1999;

3. consideration of how the Working Group would respond to the recommendations of the APEC Economic Leaders concerning air services;

the role of APEC – including the TPT-WG – in supporting the upcoming WTO Millennium Round of negotiations;

5. the future management of the TPT-WG web site; and

6. consideration of various APEC decisions regarding management reform, reporting and evaluation systems for APEC projects, and the management and budgetary aspects of fora’s self reviews (including the use of the ECOTECH weighting matrix).

Item 2. Approval of Agenda

The Draft Agenda (TPT-WG16/HOD/2/1 and TPT-WG 16/HOD/2/final) was approved without amendments.

Item 3. Report from the Program Director

Mr. Jos?Barojas, Program Director, APEC Secretariat, provided a report (TPT-WG16/HOD/3/1 and TPT-WG16/HOD/3/2) on recent developments within APEC.

Mr. Barojas’ report focused on the outcomes of the July 1999 BMC meeting, and the Eleventh APEC Ministerial Meeting.

With respect to the July 1999 BMC meeting, Mr. Barojas pointed out that the decision had been made to reduce the submission of Progress Reports to once per year, prior to the second annual BMC meeting. He also stated that seven small groups had been created to better study and evaluate fora’s Evaluation Reports, and that a group comprised of Chile, Chinese Taipei and Mexico will evaluate the TPT-WG’s reports. He went on to describe the process by which these small groups will review Evaluation Reports, as well as the process for dealing with any non-compliance with evaluation procedures.

BMC has asked that electronic means of publication be used as much as possible, in order to reduce the number of hard copy publications. APEC fora are asked to closely scrutinize any publications budget for future projects.

The dates of the BMC meetings for 2000 will tentatively be 28-29 March and 1-3 August.

Mr. Barojas provided a listing of TPT-WG projects approved for 2000 by the BMC.

Referring to the 11^th APEC Ministerial Meeting, that took place in Auckland, New Zealand, September 9-10, 1999, Mr. Barojas elaborated on the following decisions:

• Individual Actions Plans (IAPs) will play a central role in delivering liberalization, facilitation and reform under the APEC process.
• Electronic Commerce has the potential to provide a great stimulus to regional growth and trade. The primary role of the public sector in this is to provide a favorable regulatory environment. Ministers accorded high priority to the targets stipulated in the Blueprint for Action on Electronic Commerce for achieving paperless trading by 2005 for developed countries, and by 2010 for developing countries.
• The SOM Chair’s Report on the ongoing review of the APEC management process was endorsed.

Mr. Barojas also mentioned that the Framework for the Integration of Women had been endorsed by the APEC Leaders in Auckland, and should be implemented by all fora. The TPT-WG might embark on this initiative by planning to have an information session on the implementation of the Framework at TPT-WG 17.

4.1 SOM III’s Decisions on Management Reform and Ministerial Decision on Management Review

The Lead Shepherd introduced this item by referring to two documents which were circulated to HODs prior the meeting, entitled "SOM’s Decisions on Management Reform" and "Ministerial Decisions on Management Review"

(TPT-WG16/HOD/4.1/1 and TPT-WG16/HOD/4.1/2).

The Lead Shepherd informed the Working Group that APEC is currently carrying out a Review of the Management Process, which is seeking to confirm that all activities being undertaken as part of the APEC work program are truly adding value and that this work needs to be done within APEC as opposed to other institutional frameworks. The elements of these Ministerial Decisions on Management Review of greatest importance to the TPT-WG are:

• that SOM recommends that further measures be taken to achieve effective coordination between sectoral Ministerial meetings and the broader APEC process.
• that regular consideration needs to be given as to whether APEC fora are continuing to contribute to APEC’s goals.
• that, in 2000, SOM and the ESC will consider mechanisms for ensuring the substantive content and quality of Working Groups’ ECOTECH and TILF project proposals.
• that, also in 2000, SOM will consider whether the relevant APEC fora should report to the ESC on the implementation of the ECOTECH elements of their work programs. This would entail a further reporting burden on the Working Group.
• that all APEC fora are asked to prepare a brief annual operational plan outlining the specific outcomes and benefits and beneficiaries of their work programs. These plans should be prepared in time for them to be endorsed by each forum as soon as possible after the beginning of every year, meaning by mid-February in the case of the TPT-WG. Following discussion, it was agreed that, with slight adjustments to cover project benefits and beneficiaries, the TPT-WG’s existing Action Program could be transformed into an Operational Plan. The Lead Shepherd invited the SCCs to include information on project benefits and beneficiaries when updating the Action Plan at TPT-WG 16, in order to facilitate the development of an Operational Plan, as described above.

A further recommendation arising from the Ministerial Decisions on Management Review was that APEC fora should make maximum use of electronic means of communication in all APEC correspondence. The Lead Shepherd commended the Working Group for its efficiency in implementing this APEC policy, and thanked Australia for maintaining the TPT-WG web site, which is an essential instrument in the Working Group’s electronic communication.

 4.2 BMC Guidelines for Reporting and Evaluation System for APEC Projects

The Lead Shepherd introduced this item by referring to the previously circulated reports from the July 5-7 Budget and Management Committee meeting (TPT-WG16/HOD/4.2/1) and the Guidelines for Evaluation and Reporting System for APEC Projects (TPT-WG16/HOD/4.2/2). He also congratulated those economies that had put forward new projects for funding in 1999, as all were approved, as was funding for the Ports Database Project.

The Lead Shepherd noted that the TPT-WG’s suggestion that Progress Reports be submitted only once a year, before the second BMC meeting, had been adopted. This means that progress reports should be submitted by the project leader to the appropriate Steering Committee Coordinator, at the latest, seven weeks prior to the beginning of that second BMC meeting of every year.

BMC has decided that the small groups within each forum responsible for reviewing project Evaluation Reports should be allowed four weeks for this activity, prior to forwarding these reports to the Lead Shepherd. TPT-WG Evaluation Reports will be reviewed by a small group comprised of the Deputy Lead Shepherd and a representative of each of the three Steering Committees. Evaluation reports must be submitted to the Deputy Lead Shepherd and representatives of the three Steering Committees within two weeks of a project’s termination. After this review, the reports will be passed to the Lead Shepherd for subsequent transmission to the APEC Secretariat. At the same time, copies will be made available to the Heads of Delegation of the three economies comprising the BMC small group responsible for assessing the TPT-WG’s Evaluation Reports (see below).

As of January 1, 2000, the BMC will form seven small groups to study evaluation reports submitted by APEC fora and to consider punitive action to be taken in cases of non-compliance with established procedure for the submission of these reports. The small group examining the TPT-WG’s Evaluation Reports will be made up of Chile, Mexico and Chinese Taipei.

The aforementioned decisions represent a general move by the Secretariat to improve the reporting and evaluation of APEC projects. The Lead Shepherd asked all economies involved in the management of APEC projects to pay close consideration to the Guidelines for Evaluation and Reporting System for APEC Projects, and use it as a guide in the reporting on and evaluation of projects.

BMC’s Recommendations on the Management/Budgetary Aspects of Other Fora’s Self-Review

The Lead Shepherd introduced this item by referring to the BMC Report on the Management/Budgetary Aspects of Other Fora’s Self-Reviews (TPT-WG16/HOD/4.3/1, TPT-WG16/HOD/4.3/2, TPT-WG16/HOD/4.3/3, and TPT-WG16/HOD/4.3/4).

The BMC report underlines the seriousness with which the BMC is considering its rules regarding all stages of the APEC project management process – from the development of proposals to the submission of evaluation reports – as described in the Guidebook on APEC Projects, which is available on the APEC web site. Economies developing and managing projects must familiarize themselves with the recommendations outlined in the report and with the Guidebook, and projects must be immaculately presented and managed in keeping with BMC rules. BMC has stressed, on various occasions, that failure to adhere to the Guidelines could result in the non-approval or cancellation of projects.

The Lead Shepherd pointed out that, in general, the TPT-WG is to be commended for its efficiency in complying with APEC guidelines regarding project management and reporting.

ECOTECH Weighting Matrix:

The Deputy Lead Shepherd reminded the Working Group that the ECOTECH Weighting Matrix had been approved by Ministers at their meeting in Auckland, and that the TPT-WG will have to make use of it as of January 1, 2000.

Following discussion, it was decided that the ECOTECH Weighting Matrix will, in future, be integrated into the TPT-WG’s own new project approval process, with each Steering Committee approving the completed form. The Deputy Lead Shepherd undertook to revise the Matrix for use by the TPT-WG.

5.1 New Management Team

On August 26, the Lead Shepherd wrote to all economies suggesting that, in the name of continuity, the Deputy Lead Shepherd should become the Lead Shepherd as a matter of course following a period of two years (TPT-WG16/HOD/5.1/1). Following this consultation, this principle of Deputy Lead Shepherd progression was accepted, with the result that New Zealand has been named to become the next Lead Shepherd. At the same time, the Lead Shepherd sought all economies’ interest in occupying management positions within the TPT-WG.

Based on responses to that letter, the following economies were nominated for management positions (TPT-WG16/HOD/5.1/3):

The meeting endorsed the candidate economies for these positions.

As stated in the Lead Shepherd’s letter of October 27, no economy volunteered to occupy the position of Deputy Lead Shepherd as of January 1, 2000 (TPT-WG16/HOD/5.1/2). However, the Lead Shepherd urged all economies to give further consideration to undertaking this role prior to the continuation of the Shepherds/HODs/SCCs meeting on the evening of Wednesday, November 10, 1999.

a. Air Services

The Lead Shepherd began discussion on this issue by referring to his letter to all economies of September 22, 1999, with which he advised of the APEC Economic Leaders’ endorsement of the APEC Business Advisory Council’s recommendations regarding air services (TPT-WG16/HOD/5.2a/1, TPT-WG16/HOD/5.2a/2, TPT-WG16/HOD/5.2a/3, TPT-WG16/HOD/5.2a/3, and TPT-WG16/HOD/5.2a/4). He reminded the meeting that ABAC’s recommendations call for the APEC economies to:

• ‘Implement the recommendations of the APEC Transportation Working Group, giving particular urgency to the high priority recommendations identified, namely: "doing business" issues; including multiple carriers in bilateral agreements; facilitating cooperative arrangements or code-sharing between airlines; and removing barriers to air freight services; (and)
• identify and implement further steps to be taken by APEC economies towards the removal of barriers to trade and investment in air services in line with the Bogor Goals.’

In their Declaration from Auckland, the APEC Leaders endorsed these recommendations, and instructed Ministers to take them into account during their work in 2000. The Leaders further stated that: "We support implementation of the eight steps for more competitive air services, and the identification of further steps to liberalize air services in accordance with the Bogor Goals."

The Lead Shepherd indicated that, at TPT-WG 16, the Working Group needed to decide how to respond to the Leaders’ Declaration, as the Working Group responsible for transportation. Decisions taken at the Shepherds/HODs/SCCs meeting would then be passed along to the Steering Committee on More Competitive Transportation Industry (including infrastructure).

The Lead Shepherd reminded the Working Group that, in reconfirming their commitment to the Bogor Goals of free and open trade and investment by 2010/2020, the APEC Leaders had also endorsed the APEC Principles to Enhance Competitive and Regulatory Reform. He noted, in particular, certain aspects of the principles relevant to the TPT-WG’s deliberation with respect to follow up to the Leaders’ Declaration on air services, namely:

• The principles "are non-binding and will be implemented by each member economy voluntarily, consistent with the way APEC operates";
• "the adoption of these principles for policy development needs to take account of, and encompass the diverse circumstances of economies in the region and the different priorities that arise from these circumstances"; and
• "member economies will have the flexibility to take into account their diverse circumstances in implementing this framework".

The Lead Shepherd re-emphasized that the objective was to reach consensus on a process for responding to the Leaders’ Declaration in an orderly and timely manner.

With respect to follow-up by the TPT-WG to the Leaders’ Declaration concerning air services, there was a consensus that:

1. All economies should be urged to submit voluntary reports on how they are implementing the Air Services Group’s eight recommendations. These reports should be submitted by January 2000 in order for them to be considered as part of the process of analysis.
2. Based on a compilation of these voluntary reports, an analysis will be prepared for consideration at TPT-WG 17. To this end, the Steering Committee on More Competitive Transportation Industry (including Infrastructure) will initiate the development of a standard reporting matrix and identify those economies wishing to work with the Steering Committee Coordinator in carrying out the analysis.
3. To complement this work, a "think piece" on possible further areas for future examination will be prepared, on a voluntary basis, by a group of interested economies, for consideration at TPT-WG 17.

b. The TPT-WG’s Relation to the Upcoming Round of WTO Negotiations

Australia provided a presentation on this issue, based on a background paper developed by them (TPT-WG16/HOD/5.2b/1).

It was decided that the TPT-WG will closely monitor the outcomes of future WTO discussions, particularly the upcoming Seattle ministers’ meeting. The Lead Shepherd undertook to ensure that all relevant papers would be circulated to all HODs.

c. Tourism Charter

The Lead Shepherd agreed to contact the Tourism Working Group to inquire about the current state of development of the Tourism Charter, and the possibility that the TPT-WG might contribute to its final drafting.

6.1 Review of the conclusions of the Strategic Direction Paper

The Lead Shepherd introduced the issue by congratulating all members of the Working Group for their participation in the previous day’s Brainstorming Session, especially those who participated as presenters, facilitators and rapporteurs, and particularly Mr. John Bowdler of Australia, who had acted as the Chair for the final session. He also expressed his appreciation for the participation of Sir Gordon Wu, Chairman and Managing Director of Hopewell Holdings; Ambassador Timothy Hannah, Executive Director of the APEC Secretariat; and Professor Chris Kissling, Coordinator of the PECC Task Force on Transportation.

The Lead Shepherd noted, in particular, Ambassador Timothy Hannah’s observation that APEC has gone beyond the "vision" stage, and has entered into the "implementation" stage with respect to its activities. There was general agreement that many very useful and interesting ideas and comments had emerged from the Brainstorming Session, and that it would be desirable to incorporate this valuable material into the draft Strategic Direction Paper circulated prior to the meeting. Canada agreed to coordinate this activity, with the assistance of other economies.

6.2 Hosting Responsibilities for TPT-WG and Ministerial Meetings

6.3 Future Working Group Meetings

6.4 Third Ministerial Meeting

Items 6.2, 6.3 and 6.4 were dealt with as a single agenda item.

New Zealand made a presentation of a discussion paper that he had circulated prior to the meeting (TPT-WG16/HOD/6.2/1). The conclusions of this paper were endorsed by the Working Group, and it was recognized that they should serve as guidance for economies hosting future transportation ministerial and Working Group meetings.

The Lead Shepherd pointed out that Singapore has graciously offered to host TPT-WG 17, on March 27-31, 2000, and thanked Singapore for this offer. He also informed the Working Group that Japan had offered to host TPT-WG 18 in the fall of 2000, and thanked Japan for this offer.

The Lead Shepherd pointed out that more than two years had passed since the last APEC Transportation Ministerial meeting, and asked the Working Group to consider when it would be opportune for their respective ministers to meet again. Peru later clarified that they would be willing to hold a ministerial meeting in Lima in 2001, and that an official letter would be sent out at a later date confirming this.

It was noted that a tourism ministerial meeting will be held in July 2000 in Korea, and the suggestion was made by the United States that it might be possible to hold a concurrent transportation ministerial meeting. Korea agreed to contact its Ministry of Culture and Tourism regarding this possibility, and report back to the Lead Shepherd.

Item 7. Review of Agenda for Plenary

While the agenda was approved without amendment, it was pointed out that there was no need for Agenda Item 1, as this had been covered in the Introductory Plenary; and that there would be no need for Agenda Item 8, as no new project proposals had been put forward for consideration at TPT-WG 16.

8.1 Management of the TPT-WG Web Site

Australia presented this issue on the basis of a background paper circulated prior to the meeting (TPT-WG16/HOD/8/1). The contract that Australia maintains with a service provider to maintain the TPT-WG web site is scheduled to end in September 2000. This would be a convenient moment to pass the responsibility for maintaining the site to some other economy.

All economies were invited to consider taking on the role of web master for a period of either one or two years, and to communicate their interest before or at TPT-WG 17. Australia also undertook to look into the feasibility of rotating management of the web site to economies hosting TPT-WG meetings.

As a further step, the Program Director agreed to inquire about the possibility that the APEC Secretariat could take on this responsibility for maintaining the web site. He later informed the Working Group that the issue of the Secretariat assuming responsibility for individual fora’s web sites would be discussed at the BMC meeting in March 2000.

Item 1. Opening Remarks

The Lead Shepherd provided a brief introduction to the meeting.

He circulated a copy of the draft Record of Decisions for the Shepherds/HODs/SCCs meeting, which was reviewed by the meeting, with suggested changes being noted for integration into the text.

Item 2. Approval of Agenda

The meeting agenda was approved with the following amendments:

• As per discussion at the Shepherds/HODs/SCCs meeting on Tuesday, November 9, further attention would be given to seeking a volunteer economy to undertake the role of Deputy Lead Shepherd, under agenda item 6.
• The Deputy Lead Shepherd requested that the issue of possible seminars to be held at TPT-WG 17 be discussed under agenda item 6.

 Item 3. Summary Presentations by SCCs and Discussions

The three Steering Committee Coordinators provided brief summaries of the outcomes of their respective meetings.

Item 4. New Project Proposals

No new proposals were put forward.

Item 5. Review of TPT-WG Action Program

The Lead Shepherd called for Steering Committee Coordinators and Heads of Delegation to ensure that the Action Program was updated at TPT-WG 16.

The Program Director suggested that the name of the Action Program be changed to "Operational Plan", in keeping with the decision taken under agenda item 4.1 at the Shepherds/HODs/SCCs meeting on Tuesday, November 9.

The Coordinator of the Steering Committee on Human Resources Development (including Training, Research and Education) suggested that, as the Action Program was going to form the basis of the future Operational Plan, the text should be revised and updated. The Lead Shepherd stated that he would examine the document’s text with a view to revising and updating it, and circulate the results to all economies to seek their input and approval.

1. The Deputy Lead Shepherd Position

The Philippines suggested that there be two Deputy Lead Shepherds – one from the Asian economies, Australia, New Zealand or Russia; and the other from the Americas. It was decided that this proposal would be revisited at TPT-WG 17.

In the meantime, the Philippines stated that they would consult with their capital considering the possibility of undertaking the role of Deputy Lead Shepherd, and inform the Lead Shepherd as soon as possible regarding the results of this consultation.

Indonesia also requested that a "job description" be produced describing, in greater detail, the role and responsibilities of the Deputy Lead Shepherd.

2. Seminars at TPT-WG 17

The Coordinator of the Steering Committee on Human Resources Development (including Training, Research and Education) informed the Working Group that it would be useful to hold a seminar on the Framework on the Integration of Women at TPT-WG 17.

The United States mentioned that, at previous TPT-WG meetings, there had been an interest in holding a seminar on aviation safety, following up on the work of the Group of Experts on Aviation Safety. More recently, there had been suggestions that other areas of transportation could also be considered, and that the seminar could deal with transportation safety and security issues in general.

Canada clarified that the seminar on the Framework for the Integration of Women would be a small "workshop", and need not preclude holding another seminar at the same TPT-WG meeting.

This page was last updated on 1 Feb, 2008