1st ASEF

Summary Questionaire

Closed date 2008- 02- 18
Q-Answers total ; 31 (26.2%) / Participants total ; 118
China 1 / 15、India 2 / 2、Indonesia 2 / 2、Japan 14 / 76、Korea 8 / 12、Malaysia 0 / 1、Philippines 1 / 3、Singapore 2 / 3、Thai 1 / 4
Details of Q-Answer 31
Organization (3)、Shipyard &Manufacturing company (16)、Institute (3)、University (2)、Government (2)、Class (4), Shipping company (1)、Others (0)
Q1.Your impression on the first ASEF

Q1.1 Very Useful, absolutely worth a lot--( 15 ), useful--(15 ), not useful--(0 )
Q1.2 Please tell us the reason why you chose above impression
a. Discussion Items -- GBS ( 24 ), -- Ship-Recycling ( 16 ), -- Corrosion Prevention ( 22 )
b. Forum Venue-- Museum of Maritime Science ( 18 )
c. Forum Timing -- Middle, November( 14), Comment-① first week of Nov.
d. Forum Term -- 2days session ( 18 ), ① 3days ( 1 )
e. Forum Management -- Forum Management (18),--Registration/Reservation (14),--Technical Tour(6)
Other Comments
a. Discussion on GBS, Ship-recycling and PSPC were on the concerns of Asian countries(3), especially the corrosion management,combination of anti-fouling and likewise on the increasing use of new corrosion- resistant steel.
b. Forum timing would be better on from the beginning to the middle of October
c. Active participants from Asian shipbuilder sector(2)
Q1.Please tell us freely of your impression for the first ASEF
All topics under discussion are relevant and timely and have important impact on shipbuilding yards.
First step towards to a better tomorrow benefiting the Maritime fraternity.
Very useful but too many topics, Q & A and discussion time was too short to hear from various attendees.
It was indeed very good as the participants were real experts in their respective area of specialization and the discussion was very open but focussed .
Not many participants from major shipyards such as Hyundai, Daewoo or major shipbuilder in Japan (Imabari, Mitsubishi etc.)
Language interpretation if applicable (include translation of the Presentation-similar comments-2)
If possible and wish to publish a Chairman's Summary as well right after the Forum
Q2.Please advise us your idea on possible improvements for the future successful FORUM
(Participation aspect)
To be a more successful meeting, more participant should have opportunity of presentation. It will make the forum more dynamic and famous in the shipbuilding industry and international maritime society.
Invite shipping company or operator for receiving their valuable comment.
To invite the Government care of Shipbuilding Industry of Participating countries .
At first, establish the routine of the participation by the forum concerned people and then it would be better to take into consideration a point for setting the chance on exchange the opinions with other organizations and etc.
(Management aspect of the Forum)
Venue could be in hotel. Explore possibility of 'written' questions and answers. Include more case studies.
The Forum should provide directions of members more than only sharing the information.
Introduction of participants and discussion time for the future Forum.
1. List of specialist in each of the concerned field of specialization may be maintained to enable very close interaction among specialists of same discipline. 
2. Publication of technical magazine(may be yearly once at least) where the participants may put their new ideas and some useful information.
Objectives of the Forum must be clearly communicated to the participants beforehand.
After Session, enough time for conversation deeply.
It would be expected for the future Forum to be able to submit the comments beforehand by paper (like a homework style taken by participants) in order to summarize the discussion as an 'active-Guideline' based on majority or consensus through focusing on specific discussion items (2 items maximum) and then a hot/deeper discussion with full spending time on the item should be done at the Forum. The comments to be submitted to the Forum from participants should not be personal level and should be the level of formal Shipbuilders' organization (this means that the participants should be accustomed to the future ASEF/still more IMO Frame by taking a cooperative action. --this would be done by setting Working Group beforehand in ASEF, not the entire Forum meeting.
It seems to me that there was differences in quantity view point of the contents among the presenters.
Establish WG/AG(Advisory Group) for the future Agenda.
(Discussion Items)
Selecting topic is one of important factor and having excellent presentation material is also very important.
More thrust on ship recycling. To include machinery manufacturers for their presentation in achieving the recycling goal.
Technical sessions can be divided into two or three e.g safety issues, environmental protection issues, etc.
(Relation with other organization)
It would be expected to clear more for cooperation with other organizations and for relation with the Governments.
It would be better to promote the discussion among shipbuilders, ship owners and other organization frankly.
(Support ASEF)
The ASEF is an useful Forum to be able to listen to the Asian voice in response to current trends of Regulation and hope to hold the Forum continuously.
Express my respect to the JSTRA effort for the Forum which has completed successfully this time.
It is expected for ASEF to develop for the future, because it seems to be very useful in terms of getting a chance to be able to arrange the vector for further development of Asian shipbuilding Industries.
It would be important whether being able to continue the From or not. To create an atmosphere enabling reasonability to be continued the Forum would be essential.
At least, actual report on how Japan, Korea and China has been tackling the common theme is needed.
At least, actual report on how Japan, Korea and China has been tackling the common theme is needed
Q3.Please recommend us possible items to be discussed at the Forum
Priority 1.
Same subject of 2007 forum as such GBS (3), Ship-Recycling (4), PSPC (3-including Cargo Tank)
Overall Marine environment protection (GHG、B.W.T、Air Pollution/exhaust emission by diesel engines/ CO2 reduction (10)
IMO Regulations (including CSR-5, latest topic1)
ISO related matter
Technical Assistant from Big to Medium/Small Shipbuilding Nations
ships' lifecycle
Issues in response to IMO/IACS, for its speedy transaction by industry
Technical Assistant from Big to Medium/Small Shipbuilding Nations Possible topics may include Process Engineering in design and construction of vessels especially double-hull oil tanker
New Technology in Shipbuilding and Ship Repair
Ship 0f future
Solutions for Practical difficulties for the Asian Shipbuilders in the implementation of IMO's regulations ( both existing and forthcoming)
Priority 2.
Ships' maintenance
Measures to strengthen relationship between IMO and ISO
Renewable/Sustainable energy as applied to the marine industry
Maybe included are updates on new machinery and equipment that are in the pipeline that will be installed in new constructions
Introduction on outlines of shipbuilding in each countries(scale、technology、facilities and etc.)
Priority 3.
Marine environmental protection (4)
Idling-stop of ships
B.W. treatment system
Standardization of shipbuilding/ship-repair standards
E-Navigation strategy
Hull materials development
Lasting shipbuilding Technology(2)
The labor issues in shipbuilding such as working conditions and compensation level and benefits of workers and the need for continued availability of expert welders as the supply of skilled manpower continue to dwindle
Current items at IMO have already picked up, GBS・Ship recycling・Corrosion Prevention
How to support developing country involved in the international organization
Q4.Please tell us your thoughts on how we could achieve the best way to be able to establish an NGO with IMO-Consultative status, with respect to 'Road Map' to our goal, which will be discussed at the next Forum.
We salute the JSTRA for spearheading the forum with the end in mind of elevating it to an NGO-observer status in IMO in the years to come.
Delegate of Asian countries should try to persuade secretariat. Try to make forum more important, sometimes to invite important persons of IMO.
Case study of other NGO for registration of IMO/NGO including consultation with other NGO e.g. CESA.
The consensus among shipbuilders is required before the establishment of an NGO, and the relationships among ASEF, CESS and Tripartite meeting must be clarified.
It would be one of the solution to have a common Goal jointly within ASEF stakeholders through clarifying the relation between ASEF and the other organizations (ESA, CESS, Tripartite Meeting) and also clarifying the time-table to acquire the IMO Observer Status.
Set-up a kind of permanent organization is necessary. Organizer should be acting organization consistently for assigned period not only for executing Forum.
The subject is how ASEF could build up a persistent system and who would be a main constituent to be able to acquire the NG0 status at IMO.
It would be important to make up a new recognized organization in Asian community
We have to consider funding for management of the NGO including personnel and center office of the NGO.
From the Forum Name and the view point of targeting to acquire the Observer Status in IMO, full membership should be limited to the Shipbuilding Organization only (if there is no organization, the shipbuilding and repair companies would be appropriate) and other individuals・other organizations・other Agencies should be specified clearly as 'Engineering Observer' ( free for submission of the comments, but no right for voting), in a view point to exclude the control from outside such as European-American route/Ship-owners route/Class route, for aiming to avoid causing troubles later.
a. Participation of all governments b. Organization with its objectives c. Sections consisting of (1) Maritime department and Shipyards (2) Industries and manufacturing companies (3) Weather bureaus (4) Port and Harbour department (5) Universities and Institutes (6) Department of Labor and Human Resources (7) Research and Department, Standards and information, IMO section, d. Information of Working committee and its Head - Sources of budgets, Office, secretariat.
To seek any corporation from individual Government of representatives.
NGO should have representation from all members.
At first, to arrange for a presentation by ASEF at IMO forum in order to convince the IMO community as to how important is the role of ASEF in examining/reviewing the feasibility /practicality of implementation of the regulations promulgated by IMO for New Construction of ships. Also the status of CESA can be cited as an example in this context. Understandably, CESA has representation in IMO and it is obvious that ASEF is actually much more important compared to CESA in view of the large difference in the volume of New construction in Asia and in Europe. So, apparently, there is no reason as to why IMO will not grant a NGO status to ASEF with IMO-Consultative (Class).
Get more participation from the major shipbuilders from Japan, Korea and China to make our voice loud.
taking each country government's admittance for establishing the NGO.
We hope JSTRA to write IMO on-behalf of the ASEF Forum members informing them of the proceedings and resolutions that were agreed in the First ASEF meeting in Japan. In said letter is an unsolicited offer to IMO for ASEF to serve as a third party observer/consultant (for free of charge) on issues affecting the industry. In said letter is a statement that the observer/consultancy service offer of ASEF maybe considered considering that ASEF members constitutes more than 70% of the shipbuilding projects worldwide. This is the initial step. Perhaps, much, much later on, when IMO finds the importance and value of this service, an NGO consultative status will easily be forthcoming with the accompanying endorsement by each country's Maritime Industry authority.
Discussion on whether ASEF can have a common Standard for measuring the level of contribution to the IMO jointly would be inevitable from now.
As the first stage of ASEF, it is necessary for Japan-China-Korea as the big shipbuilding countries in the Far East to create a well organized atmosphere, for that purpose, it should be a starting point through positive exchange of opinions between Japan and Korea, then it would be a key point how to enable Chinese involvement to the ASEF as a Government (country) level.
To hold the ASEF regularly and Public Awareness to the Press such as 'Lloyds List' is necessary.
As its' first stage whether the time/atmosphere for ASEF will be increase or not is important, it would be expected to proceed together with the secretariats in each countries through continuing the Forum.
Q5.Other Comments and demands for Organizer (2007- JSTRA)
I think the 1st ASEF was very well executed. JSTRA is to be congratulated for a job well done with successful attendance and expectation to the future development of ASEF (10).
Thanks for enabling to look at the current information on regulation trend.
(Next meeting)
A kind of organizing committee is required for next Forum.
Secretariat of ASEF should be fixed (even if ASEF holds the meeting at outside countries).
To be discussed not only for the items for IMO but also for the items on flame work in direction to the future subjects.
We need to cooperate among other Asian countries especially including China we will back-up your initiatives.
Request a paper other than China, Japan & Korea and invite other NGO such as ICS, INTERTANKO, etc. to receive their comments.