12th ASEAN-ROK Summit 24 October 2009 ,HuaHin Thailand

the Transport Ministers of ASEAN and ROK 11 December 2009, HaNoi Vietnam

Infrastructure

education

technology

Mekong Sub-regionMeeekMMeM

oooothh

11of

Decf A

ecem

he AS

thhhooof

onnonatioioon

teec tet

nfInfInI frnfIII I

dt

ani

lmimmmilandhail

mmn Thummim t

landmmmiitttt

10 September 2010Bangkok, THAILAND

International SeminarASEAN CONNECTIVITY

ASEA

N CO

NN

ECTIVITY

T o cope with growing external challenges and to maintain its level of competitivness, ASEAN aims to establish the ASEAN Community by 2015. In July 2009, Thailand thus proposed the idea of enhancing ASEAN connectivity as a strategic goal of ASEAN which should be a vital component in the building of a more competitive ASEAN Economic Community. The ASEAN Leaders endorsed this initiative and thus mandated the creation of a High Level Task Force (HLTF) on ASEAN Connectivity to devise a Master Plan on ASEAN Connectivity by the 17th ASEAN Summit this year.

Furthermore, to enhance ASEAN Connectivity, the important step is to ensure connectivity not only between ASEAN and other regions but also more in the East Asian region since the ASEAN region is more connected with East Asia and the rest of the world. This connection is thus the key to developing a more competitive ASEAN Community.

Thus, The Embassy of the Republic of Korea in collaboration with The Ministry of Foreign Affairs,Thailand and Chula Global Network, Chulalongkorn University, organized an International Seminar “ASEAN Connectivity” on 10th September, 2010 in order to discuss the issues of enhanced ASEAN Connectivity.

International Seminar

“ASEAN Connectivity”

10 September 2010

Bangkok, Thailand

Organized by

International Seminar

“ASEAN Connectivity”

10 September 2010

Bangkok, Thailand�

ASEAN Connectivity

© All right reserved.

No part of this publication may be reproduced. Or distributed in any form or by any means, or stored in database. Or retrieval system, without the prior written consent of The Embassy of the Republic of Korea (ROK), Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA), and Chula Global Network (CGN) Including, but not limited to, in any network or other electronic storage or transmission, or broadcast for distance learning, some ancillaries, including electronic and print components may not be available to customers outside the Republic of Korea and the Kingdoms of Thailand. Report Writer: Teewin Suputtikun Editors: Suthiphand Chirathivat,

Jenn Weidman Cover & Interior designer: Warawudh Sangaram

Preface

As an example of the successful regional organization, ASEAN has made remarkable progress in all sectors since its establishment in 1967. However, to cope with growing external challenges and to maintain its level of competitiveness, ASEAN aims to establish the ASEAN Community by 2015. In July 2009, Thailand proposed the idea of enhancing ASEAN connectivity as a strategic goal of ASEAN which should be a vital component in the building of a more competitive ASEAN Economic Community. This initiative was endorsed with the adoption of the ASEAN Leaders’ Statement on ASEAN Connectivity at the 15th ASEAN Summit held in Hua Hin on October 2009. ASEAN Leaders mandated the creation of a High Level Task Force (HLTF) on ASEAN Connectivity to devise a Master Plan on ASEAN Connectivity by the 17th ASEAN Summit this year, which has already met several times to realize this Master Plan. ASEAN has long recognized that enhanced ASEAN connectivity can be achieved only through effective engagement with all stakeholders outside the region, in particular, ASEAN Dialogue Partners and international financial institutions. Furthermore, enhanced ASEAN connectivity is only the first step—the more important step is to ensure enhanced connectivity in the East Asian region as well as between ASEAN and other regions. In other words, an ASEAN region that is more connected with East Asia and the rest of the world is a key to developing a more competitive ASEAN Community. A holistic multi-stakeholder and multi-sectorial approach will be required for this process to attain its goals. To this end, the Embassy of the Republic of Korea (ROK), in collaboration with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) of the Kingdom of Thailand and the Chula Global Network (CGN), Chulalongkorn University, co-hosted an International Seminar on “ASEAN Connectivity” in 10 September 2010, Bangkok. The purposeof seminar is as follows:

I. Explore the future direction of enhanced ASEAN connectivity within the context of growing regional connectivity as an important component of the emerging regional architecture that is ASEAN-centered.

II. Identify key niches where Dialogue Partners can play an important value-added role in surmounting obstacles to enhanced ASEAN connectivity and ultimately East Asian connectivity and beyond.

III. Explore key areas which could have a multiplier effects on enhanced ASEAN connectivity such as the development of IT connectivity within ASEAN and between ASEAN and other regions, as part of the enhanced ASEAN connectivity strategy. In this connection, having been a close Dialogue Partner of ASEAN since 1989, the Republic of Korea (ROK) would be able to play a constructive role in enhancing ASEAN Connectivity. Following the outcomes of the 12th ASEAN-ROK Summit in HuaHin on 24th October 2009, the first meeting of the Transport Ministers of ASEAN and ROK on 11th December 2009 in Hanoi, Vietnam, adopted the framework of Transport Cooperation between ASEAN and ROK. To implement this framework, ROK is drafting ASEAN-ROK Transport Cooperation Roadmap which will be reported to ASEAN-ROK Summit at Hanoi in October this year. During the Seminar, the ROK will share its initial thought on HRD and education; institutional and technical assistance; as well as infrastructure feasibility studies. It is also expected that participants and experts will be able to provide their views and constructive input regarding the issue of enhanced ASEAN connectivity. Finally, this seminar has listed a number of issues that will be discussed in different sessions, starting with the issue of enhanced ASEAN Connectivity by focusing on both the hardware and software side of connectivity, then on the potentials of enhancing connectivity in the ASEAN region including the Mekong region and the development of effective and feasible partnerships on connectivity between ASEAN and Dialogue Partners such as the Republic of Korea. It is expected that the seminar could come with not only a common perception about the best possible ways to enhance cooperation between ASEAN and the ROK but also to list a number of practical policy options for ROK’s contributions to ASEAN Connectivity focusing on the Mekong sub-region.

The Embassy of the Republic of Korea Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Chula Global Network, Chulalongkorn University

Table of Contents

Introduction 1 Welcoming Remarks 3 Opening Remarks 6 Introductory Remarks 9 Report of the International Seminar on “ASEAN Connectivity” 15 Overview 17 Session I: An Overview of ASEAN Connectivity and Its Infrastructure 20 Session II: Hard Infrastructure in the Mekong Region 27 Session III: Soft Infrastructure in the Mekong Region 35 Discussion 45 Conclusion 47 Annex 49 Seminar Program 51 Photo Gallery 53 Biography 61

1

�

�

�

� �

\ ntroduction�

2

�

�

� �

3

�

j��

elcoming Remarks�

�

�

�

�

Your Excellencies, Distinguished Speakers, Guest Participants, Ladies and Gentlemen It is a great honor to welcome all of you here for today’s seminar on ASEAN Connectivity. The Embassy of the Republic of Korea would first like to thank our co-hosts, the Thai Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Chula Global Network of Chulalongkorn University. Without their efforts, this seminar would have never taken place. I also take this time to praise the Thai Prime Minister, H.E. Abhisit ( ) Vejjajiva, and the Thai Minister of Foreign Affairs, H.E. Kasit ( ) Piromya, for their initiatives in dealing with critical issues surrounding ASEAN Connectivity. As you all are well aware of, H.E. Abhisit was the first to propose ASEAN Connectivity at Phuket ASEAN Ministerial Meeting on July, last year. As the Chairman of ASEAN, H.E. also pushed forward to adopt the “ASEAN Leaders’ Statement on ASEAN Connectivity” during Hua Hin ASEAN Summit Meeting held last year April. But this is not the end. A “Master Plan on ASEAN Connectivity” is well under way and is one step closer to a more competitive ASEAN. Distinguished Speakers,

H.E Chung Hae Moon, Ambassador of the Republic of Korea to the Kingdom of Thailand,

4

�

Special thanks also go to all you specialists in hard and soft infrastructure. Your presence here is much appreciated. Without your knowledge this seminar would not go very far. This seminar is being held with a specific goal in mind. To discuss how the Republic of Korea, as a long friend and trusted dialogue partner, can contribute to enhancement of ASEAN Connectivity in a constructive and concrete manner. But why Korea? Ladies and Gentlemen, ASEAN is a vital region to us. ASEAN is our third important trading partner and third most popular tourist attraction. It is also placed second for overseas investment and market for overseas-construction. For such an important region as ASEAN, we are pleased to see solid progress towards ASEAN Community and will offer our expertise and technology to assist ASEAN members in reaching this goal by 2015. Our records with ASEAN in the past will show you our level of commitment. Since the establishment of ASEAN Dialogue Partnership in 1989, we have implemented two hundred projects through the ROK- ASEAN Special Cooperation Fund. In 2004, ROK-ASEAN “Comprehensive Cooperation Partnership” was formed while this will be promoted to a Strategic Partnership at Hanoi Summit Meeting next month. Last year, we celebrated the 20th anniversary of ASEAN Dialogue Partnership. The number twenty has a symbolic meaning. As a boy becomes a true man after his twentieth birthday, the partnership between the ROK and ASEAN too has reached a level of maturity. Our President has promised to substantially expand ODA; further contribute to IAI (Initiative for ASEAN Integration) fund. Taking into account the importance of human development for building ASEAN Community, he also announced his plan to invite more numbers of ASEAN trainee to Korea and to dispatch considerable Korean volunteers to ASEAN member countries by 2015. These are being implemented as we speak. Distinguished Speakers and Participants,

5

�

This seminar has high expectations for your valuable insight and feedback to make ASEAN Connectivity a living reality. Back in 1997, when the Southeast Asian Financial Crisis broke out and spread out to North East Asia, we were quick to realize that no region, let alone a single country, was an island in this era of globalization. It is only after the outbreak of the recent Global Economic Crisis that we now feel the serious need to discuss the issue of connectivity between Southeast Asia and Northeast Asia. Indeed, the rapid drop of demand in America has brought us to recognize the limits in “production in Asia, consumption in America.” This pattern is now shifting towards a system of both production and consumption in Asia. To make this possible, infrastructure within Asia is being developed. We believe that ASEAN connectivity is closely linked to this trend towards a more inter-connected Asia. There is a saying that “each crisis we encounter is an opportunity in disguise.” If the 1997 Southeast Asian Financial Crisis brought forth greater financial connectivity between Southeast Asia and Northeast Asia, the 2008 Global Economic Crisis has accelerated the development of hard/soft infrastructure. The Global Economic Crisis can be seen in this case as a catalyst to greater physical connectivity within Asia. We believe that there will be a day when ASEAN connectivity will allow greater and easier passage of people, products, services, and capital. We also hope for a more EU- like ASEAN to emerge from the 2015 ASEAN Community. But this is merely the beginning. We share a vision; a vision to see someday ASEAN connected by land to China, North Korea, and South Korea. Thank you very much,

6

�

b��

pening Remarks�

�

�

�

�

Excellency Mr. Chung Hae Moon, Excellency Mr. Pradap Pibulsonggram, Distinguished Guests, Ladies and Gentlemen, On behalf of Chulalongkorn University, it is my great pleasure to welcome you all to the international seminar entitled, “ASEAN Connectivity”. This seminar is a part of the collaborative project between the Embassy of the Republic of Korea, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Thailand and the Chula Global Network, Chulalongkorn University. The whole Southeast Asian region has adopted for sometimes now the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA) and ASEAN vision 2020 for integrating economies into a single production base, creating a regional market, and changing ASEAN into a stable, prosperous and highly competitive region. More recently, all countries aimed to establish the ASEAN Economic Community, by 2015, with a single market production base and characterized by equitable economic development. In order to achieve such a goal, infrastructure development is essential and indispensable to ASEAN’s future success. In view of the country’s needs, still underdeveloped for most parts and the ongoing financial crisis, now more than ever, the development of infrastructure needs to be accelerated to enhance physical connectivity and to encourage resource-sharing for rebalancing ASEAN growth towards increased intraregional trade and regional demand. To

Asst. Prof. MR. Dr. Kalaya Tingsabadh, Vice President, Chulalongkorn University

7

�

promote cross-border trade and investment, improve countries’ productivity and competitiveness, and raise domestic output, it is important for ASEAN to be connected through improved and integrated roads, railways, airways, ports, energy and telecommunication networks. In July 2009, the Thai Prime Minister, Mr. Abhisit Vejjajiva, proposed the idea of “Connectivity” in ASEAN with the purpose of enhancing ASEAN community building, increasing the competitiveness of ASEAN and considering the benefits of all ASEAN state members. As a result, at the 15th ASEAN summit in Hua Hin on October, 2009, ASEAN leaders endorsed our Prime Minister’s proposal and also mandated the creation of a High- Level Task Force to devise a ‘Master Plan’ on ASEAN Connectivity. From Thailand’s position to Thailand’s role on ASEAN Connectivity, the view is clear that we, all need, to be more comprehensive by entailing more than transportation and encompassing both hardware along with cross-border facilitation and people-to-people connectivity. I believe today‘s seminar will address all these new arising issues. The strategic importance of today’s seminar which has its objectives as follows:

� To explore the future direction of enhanced ASEAN Connectivity within the context of growing regional connectivity

� To identify key niches where Dialogue Partners can play an important value-added role in surmounting obstacles to enhanced ASEAN and East Asian Connectivity and beyond. AND To explore key areas which could have multiplier effects on enhanced ASEAN connectivity such as the development of IT connectivity

As a university, Chulalongkorn has taken an active role on policy research in this area. We have competent research institutes and faculty members who are involved with different projects at the national and regional level. Our Institute of Logistics, for example, has completed our country’s master plan on connectivity with its neighbors. I would also like to congratulate all of you here today for making this seminar a possibility. I believe that this seminar will provide a good opportunity to bring more policy insight into existing and on-going process on the issue and a positive step of joint collaboration to tackle the challenges ahead and provide a direct and tacit knowledge that would lead to a more sharing prosperity and equitable development in our region and the world. Lastly, I would like to express my gratitude to all the organizers; the officers from the Embassy, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Chula Global Network, for their joint

8

�

efforts. I could see from the program, the speakers and panelists are drawn from a wide range of institutions. This signifies the wide recognition of the issues to be discussed at the seminar. On behalf of Chulalongkorn University, I would like to express my appreciation for your contribution and cooperation and wish you all the success of today’s seminar. Thank You

9

�

\��

ntroductory Remarks�

�

�

�

�

Excellencies, Distinguished Participants, Ladies and Gentlemen, Thank you for the kind introduction. It is an honor and a pleasure to be invited here to speak at this international seminar on “ASEAN Connectivity”, organized by the Embassy of the Republic of Korean and Chulalongkorn University, with cooperation of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Thailand. Connectivity has long been recognized by the international business community as one of the keys to success in this increasingly competitive and globalized world. Look at the slogans of successful multinational companies: For AT&T in the United States, to motto is “Reach out and touch someone”. For Nokia, a telecommunications giant, their mission is “Connecting People” Academics have also embraced the idea of connectivity in one form or another.

His Excellency Ambassador Pradab Pibulsonggram Thai Representative to the High Level Task Force on ASEAN Connectivity

10

�

Recall the concepts of global interdependence of Keohance and Nye in the 1970s to the various forms of political and economic integration of Haas and Lindbergh in the 1980s to the globalized economy of the present. As to governments, we have gradually come around to embrace the concept of connectivity in different aspects and ways. Some have given priority to the development of physical connectivity such as the Trans-Siberian Railway, the Autobahn system in Europe and the Asian Highway Network. Others have focused on software connectivity, involving the development of rules and regulations and the necessary support systems, such as the EU single transport policy and the ASEAN Single Window. Yet others attach importance to enhanced people-to-people connectivity, bridging ideas and promoting cultural understanding. From Thailand’s ASEAN Television Chanel to the Asia-Pacific Song Contest, programmes and activities of these types are designed to enhance connectivity amongst peoples and nations. So connectivity has been with us and around us for quite some time. Bringing it all together in a coherent and holistic manner for a particular region is the main challenge. That was why it was so critically important when His Excellency the Prime Minister of Thailand, as Chair of ASEAN last year, announced at the 42nd ASEAN Ministerial Meeting (AMM) in Phuket, the launching of ASEAN as a “Community of Connectivity” to complement the proposed “Community of Action” and “Community of Peoples”. The rest, as they say, is history. The establishment of the High Level Task Force on ASEAN Connectivity was mandated at the 15th ASEAN Summit in 2009 and the HLTF was created in early 2010 to draft a Master Plan that would “bring it all together” for ASEAN, in the area of connectivity. Thus began my work as the Thai representative to the HLTF, finding myself back again in the familiar hallways of the Thai Foreign Ministry and the meeting rooms of the ASEAN Secretariat, so soon after my retirement! After four meetings and countless communications through phone and email amongst ASEAN colleagues as well as many more consultations and discussions amongst Thai

11

�

agencies and various sectors of society, I am pleased to say that we are well on our way towards completing our work on the Master Plan on schedule, one month before the 17th ASEAN Summit in October in Hanoi. Due credit must be given to H.E Nguyen The Phuong, our Vietnamese Chair of the HLTF, for having guided us well for the past seven months or so. Indeed, the unique compositions of the HLTF, comprising senior government officials, private sector representatives and even a former ASEAN Secretary-General, is a key factor in the success of the group, with each of us bringing something different but useful to the process. Ladies and Gentlemen, Now this is probably not the time and place to talk about a document that is still in draft form and awaiting consideration by the relevant Ministers, prior to submission to the ASEAN Leader. Nevertheless, as part of our outreach to the international community beyond ASEAN as well as to people here in this region, it would be important for me to outline a few key ideas and principles that provide the basic underpinnings for the Master Plan. First, the Master Plan on ASEAN Connectivity seeks to put in place a comprehensive policy framework that would guide the development of enhanced ASEAN connectivity in all aspects. This includes physical connectivity (the railways and roads that you see), software connectivity (rules and regulations facilitating cross-border movements of people and goods) and cultural connectivity. Connectivity seeks to make ASEAN more competitive and more people-oriented as well as help ASEAN become a Community by 2015. Ultimately, enhanced connectivity will make ASEAN an even more central player in the emerging regional architecture. Second, the Master Plan should bring all of ASEAN closer together and make all of us active stakeholders in this initiative.

12

�

In other words, it will not benefit just some countries or sub-regions, but every corner of the ASEAN Community. The added value of ASEAN connectivity is that it goes beyond the Mekong sub-region focus of many sub regional economic arrangements. Thus, whether you are located in the hills of Chiang Mai, the delta of the Ayeyawady or the islands off Sulawesi, you must be able to benefit from the new ASEAN connectivity; it is part and parcel of the ASEAN strategy to bring the ASEAN Community to all parts of Southeast Asia. Third, connectivity must be accompanied by economic activity; leading to economic empowerment of communities. Road and railways, air links and sea lanes, comprise transport corridors. But transport corridors by themselves do not create wealth. They must be developed into self-sustaining economic corridors, where economic activity sprouts throughout the transportation links. Furthermore, economic development along the transportation routes should also be accompanied by the involvement of local communities. Villages along the North-South economic corridors should be able to engage in and benefit from the new flurry of economic activities along these corridors. This means of empowering local communities will help ensure that more and more people can benefit from enhanced ASEAN connectivity. Fourth, the Master Plan must lay the ground work for developing the necessary safeguards to protect people and countries from the inherent risks of enhanced connectivity. For every opportunity created by enhanced connectivity, there is a potential negative side effect. With increased traveling of people and transportation of goods, there are possible dangers in transnational crimes and trans boundary challenges. ASEAN must develop the necessary systems to deal with such challenges: from region-wide on-line watch lists to a system to promote burden sharing in road and rail repair to standardized emission control systems.

13

�

Fifth, the Master Plan should see enhanced ASEAN connectivity as only the first step to a broader regional and global connectivity. The value of a more interconnected ASEAN lies in its ability to connect more with the markets and resources of East Asia, South Asian, the Pacific and beyond. That is why it is vitally important that we begin a dialogue with ASEAN Dialogue Partners and other external parties as soon as possible. That is why it is vitally important that we organized seminars such as this: to explore ideas of how enhanced ASEAN connectivity will contribute to and benefit from the wider regional and global context. Both China and Japan have already made policy statements announcing financial support and contributions to the development of this enhanced ASEAN connectivity. It is time to ask the question: can other Dialogue Partners do likewise. And sixth, all of the above would be for naught if there is no funding available for enhanced ASEAN connectivity. The Asian Development Bank (ADB) has estimated that some 600 billion US dollars would be required to meet ASEAN infrastructure development needs during 2006-2015 or about 60 billion US dollar per year. It is therefore particularly important to have not only the appropriate financing modalities but also the funds themselves to help launch the various flagship projects envisaged in the Master Plan. In sum, at the end of the day, a more connected ASEAN within a more interconnected Asia-Pacific region is a force for stability and progress. And this is in the mutual interest of all, whether in Southeast Asia or beyond. Ladies and Gentlemen, I leave you with one final thought. In Europe where, after many years of integration and connectivity, you now have airports where you can get off a plane and depending on which exit you take at the airport, you can end up in a different country.

14

�

You have restaurants where you can have enjoy your meal in one country and then cross the street to have coffee in another. In other words, advanced inter-connectivity has made borders within the European Union less significant among the Member States than before. What will be the effect in the long-run of enhanced ASEAN connectivity within a single, integrated ASEAN Community, on the practical impact of borders between members? Can the increased level of mutually beneficial economic activities and mutual trust among Member States change people perceptions on the internal borders of the ASEAN Community? Only time will tell. And since this looks to be a long term project, I doubt that I would be invited to join another High Level Task Force for this purpose! For today, we focus on the reachable goal of enhanced ASEAN connectivity. I wish all of you an enjoyable and fruitful seminar, and a pleasant stay in Bangkok. Thank you.

15

�

�

�

e eport of the

International

Seminar on “ASEAN

Connectivity”

16

�

17

�

Overview

International Seminar “ASEAN Connectivity” was organized by the Embassy of the Republic of Korea (ROK) in cooperation with Thai Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) and Chula Global Network (CGN). The seminar, which was held on 10 September 2010, was attended by a number of knowledgeable figures from both relevant academic fields and policy practitioners from various countries and international agencies. The seminar lasted one day (9.00-18.00) and was divided into three main sessions, each featuring speakers who had expertise in specific areas related to ASEAN Connectivity and cross-border transport infrastructure and system. The first session provided the overview of the idea and initiative of ASEAN Connectivity including the existing infrastructures that have potential to realize the goal, as well as the prospect for their future enhancement. The second session focused on various issues concerning “hard infrastructures in the Mekong Region.” And the final session was devoted to the discussion about “soft infrastructures in the Mekong Region.” The experts who served as speakers in each session were as follows:

Session I: 1.1 Dr. Jean-Pierre Verbiest, Country Director, Thailand Resident Mission,

ADB 1.2 Dr. Nagesh Kumar, Director of Macro Economic Policy and Development

Division, ESCAP 1.3 Dr. Somsak Pipoppinyo, Director of ASEAN Infrastructure, ASEAN

Secretariat Session II:

2.2 Mr. Arkhom Termpittayapaisith, Deputy Secretary-General, National Economic and Social Development Board (NESDB)

2.3 Mr. Pierre Chartier, Economic Affairs officer, Transport Division, ESCAP 2.4 Mr. Rattanatay Luanglatbandith, ADB Expert 2.5 Dr. Na Hee Seung, Director General, Korea Railroad Research Institute

(KRRI) Session III:

3.1 Dr. Ishida Masami, Senior Researcher, Bangkok Research Center, IDE-JETRO

3.2 Dr. Taihyeong Lee, Research Fellow, the Korea Transport Institute

18

�

3.3 Asst. Prof. Dr. Charit Tingsabadh, Director of Centre for European Studies, Chulalongkorn University

3.4 Mr. Zhang Shujie, Technical Attaché, WCO Asia-Pacific regional office of Capacity Building (ROCB)

3.5 Assoc. Prof. Dr. Ruth Banomyong, Director, Centre for Logistic Research, Thammasat University

3.6 Ms. Kate Mun, Director, Oversea Business Division, KL-Net Before going into the details of the contents presented by the aforementioned speakers, this section will give a broad picture of the agendas discussed in the seminar in general. For the most part the seminar was used as a medium for brainstorming and exchanging views on how to translate the ASEAN Connectivity initiative – as a policy concept broached in the 15th ASEAN Summit� (2009) at Hua Hin, Thailand – into an effective policy implementation. The concept of regional connectivity was viewed by ASEAN leaders as the key toward community-building efforts among its members in terms of regional cooperation and integration as well as people-oriented connection. It was also viewed as the way to turn the grouping into the hub of the East Asian region and acquire benefit from the infrastructure development engendered by the implementation of the initiative. Although a Master Plan had been created as the guideline to realize such a concept, specific details on how to translate the plan into operational strategies and practices remained in the process of discussion and crystallization. For those involved in policy-making and implementation, one of the crucial issues that were expected to be addressed and answered by the seminar was how to push forward the actual projects; or, in other words, to determine what should constitute a Flagship Project that could pave the way toward ASEAN Connectivity in terms of actions. The Embassy of the Republic of Korea, the seminar organizer, was especially interested in learning how it could play some useful roles or contribute, in terms of materials, ideas and examples or models, in the ongoing process of realizing the goal of ASEAN Connectivity. According to the Master Plan summarized by H.E. Mr. Pradap Pibulsonggram, the Thai Representative to the ASEAN High Level Task Force on Connectivity, who gave introductory remarks opening the seminar, a ‘comprehensive framework’ was considered essential, among other things, to achieve the Connectivity goal. This framework consists of three key aspects: physical connectivity, which refers to hard or tangible infrastructure development such as road and railroad connections; software or institutional connectivity, which refers to systems, institutional bodies, rules and regulations that will be introduced to facilitate the cross-border movements; and people-to-people or cultural connectivity. The International Seminar “ASEAN Connectivity” paid especial attention to physical and institutional connectivity as reflected in the title

19

�

of each session. The third aspect, or people-to-people dimension, contained in the Master Plan’s comprehensive framework, however, was not touched upon much although some talks concerning policy challenges in implementing hardware and software had implication to this last component of the Master Plan. Understandably, this might be because the initiative to organize the seminar rested on the assumption that tangible development was easier to discuss and make visible progress. It was also based on the view that the development of cross-border transport infrastructures could lead eventually to community-building efforts as the infrastructures helped facilitate human contacts, increase cross-border movements and provide easy access to other cultures and societies and, thus, lead to more mutual understanding among members of the region. Emphasized also by Pradap’s remark were other aspects and aspirations contained in the Master Plan. They include ways to ensure that the outcome of the initiated projects will benefit all ASEAN members beyond any sub-regions; that the economic development brought about by the advent of transport routes or the so-called “corridors” benefits and empowers local communities and people; and that countries and people will be protected from any negative effects and fallouts of the enhanced connectivity. The possible risks referred to in this last aspect include the transnational problems and challenges that inherently accompany the openness and easy flow of products and people across national boundaries of ASEAN members. Moreover, the objective of the Master Plan was not only to promote integration among ASEAN members and its sub-regions, but also to reach out and connect more with other regions, be it East Asia, South Asia, the Pacific and beyond. Lastly, Pradap emphasized the need for fund mobilization to achieve such plans. Citing the Asian Development Bank (ADB)’s estimation, he expected to be able to acquire approximately US $ 600 billion needed for ASEAN infrastructure development during 2006-2015.

20

�

Session I:

An Overview of ASEAN Connectivity and Its Infrastructure The first session provided the audience with general descriptions of the existing infrastructures in the ASEAN region, especially the sub-regional connections. This included an overview of route connections that constitute various “economic corridors” which in turn constitute the basic physical infrastructure for regional connectivity mentioned in the Master Plan. Dr. Jean-Pierre Verbiest, Country Director, Thailand Resident Mission, ADB � Topic: “Potential and Problems of ASEAN Connectivity for Regional

Development” Dr. Verbiest gave a comprehensive picture of how the ASEAN region is physically

connected by transportation routes. His presentation showed that there are various economic corridors that link countries of ASEAN’s sub-regions together and to other countries outside ASEAN; they include the Greater Mekong Sub-Region (GMS), Indonesia-Malaysia-Thailand Growth Triangle (IMT-GT), and the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC). His presentation also included the institutional aspect of the connectivity by discussing at length the Cross-Border Transport Agreement (CBTA).

Regarding the physical connectivity among the GMS, Verbiest pointed out various economic corridors that have potential for further development and enhancement of regional connectivity. In general, the GMS members are connected by 9 routes or corridors (see map below):

� Northern Corridor (from Fangcheng in southern China to Tamu in Myanmar); � North-South Corridor (from Kunming in southern China to Bangkok, Thailand); � Northeastern Corridor (from Thanh Hoa in Vietnam to Sattahip in Thailand); � Eastern Corridor (from Kunming in China via Hanoi to Haiphong in Vietnam, and

from Nanning in southern China via Hanoi to Ca mau in southern Vietnam); � Western Corridor (from Tamu to Kawkareik in Myanmar); � East-West Corridor (from Kawkareik in Myanmar to Da Nang in Vietnam); � Central Corridor (from Boten in Lao via Vientiane to Sattahip in Thailand and Sre

Ambel in Cambodia); � Southern Corridor (from Dawei in Myanmar to Quy Nhon and Vung Tau in

Vietnam);

21

�

� Southern Coastal Corridor (from Bangkok, Thailand to Nam Can in Cambodia) IMT-GT connectivity consisted of 5 corridors:

� Extended Songkhlar Penang-Medan Corridor � Strait of Melaka Corridor � Banda Aceh-Medan Pekanbaru-Palembang (North-South Sumatra) Corridor � Melaka-Dumai Corridor � Ranong-Phuket-Aceh Corridor

Dr. Verbiest pointed out three economic corridors of the IMT-GT as the most

potential routes for further enhancement. The first is the extended Songkhla-Penang-Medan Economic Corridor which is a multi-modal corridor that has established international gateways with well-equipped seaports for bulk shipment of goods. However, this economic corridor still faces some challenges including the need for competitive ro-ro services or the services of vehicle carrier and transport, the need for efficient inter-modal connection, and the need to relocate the congested Polonia Airport. Another potential corridor emphasized by Verbiest’s presentation is the Straits of Melaka Economic Corridor. It is the most advanced corridor of the IMT-GT in terms of transport connectivity with relatively well-developed cross-border trade. This corridor has the potential to be upgraded into a food hub or a global ‘Halal Highway’ and as a coastal belt development zone. The last potential transport route in the IMT-GT sub-region is the Banda Aceh-Medan-Palembang Economic Corridor. This corridor is parallel to the transport route of the ASEAN Highway Network. It has a two lane highway which is currently insufficient to efficiently accommodate the level of traffic while the traffic volumes in this corridor continue to increase. This section of connectivity, thus, needs the expansion of the road into a 4-lane highway. Also, the poor road condition is another challenge that needs to be addressed in the improvement of this economic corridor.

BIMSTEC, whose members consist of Bangladesh, India, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Bhutan and Nepal, is equipped with various kinds of physical connectivity. Its transport infrastructure includes 14 road corridors, 4 railway corridors and 2 inland waterway corridors. This sub-region also has 11 maritime gateways and 15 aviation gateways. Despite the abundance of route connecting countries in this sub-region, Dr. Verbiest pointed out the poor condition of this infrastructure, especially the roads in various parts of this region, as one of the major constraints and challenges facing the further enhancement of connectivity in this area.

22

�

23

�

Apart from the physical infrastructures in the ASEAN sub-regions mentioned above, Verbiest also reported on the status of CBTA implementation. The Cross-Border Transport Agreement (CBTA) is the attempt to complement the physical infrastructure with necessary establishment in terms of institutions, regimes or “software” dimension to facilitate cross-border movements of people and goods. The plan is to put into operation such systems as Single Window and Single Stop customs inspection; multi-entry visa, recognition of driver license for people movement; and regional transit regime, phytosanitary and veterinary inspection for the movement of goods. The CBTA has been ratified by all six GMS countries with the goal to eliminate non-physical barriers to cross-border transport in the sub-region.

As of September 2010, all 20 Annexes and Protocols of CBTA had been signed by

all GMS countries, four of which (PRC, Cambodia, Lao and Vietnam) had ratified all the annexes and protocols. Thailand had ratified 11 annexes and protocols while Myanmar had promised to ratify them when ready to implement CBTA. In terms of implementation of the introduced system, Single Window Inspection (SWI) has been introduced in some border checkpoints in the region: Savannakhet (Lao) - Mukdahan (Thailand) and Hekou (PRC) – Laokai (Vietnam) checkpoint. Single-Stop Inspection (SSI) has also been implemented at Dansavanh (Lao) - Lao Bao (Vietnam) border checkpoint. Despite this progress, the CBTA still faces some challenges. Certain issues need to be addressed in order to move forward with further regional connectivity. They include, as emphasized by Verbiest, the ratification of all annexes and protocols by all GMS members; capacity building at national and border levels; establishment of necessary border infrastructures; development of ICT/ MIS for efficient border management; and the strengthening of goodwill and trust, or confidence building, among the GMS countries. Dr. Nagesh Kumar, Director of Macro Economic Policy and Development Division, ESCAP � Topic: “The Strategic Implication of ASEAN Connectivity for the Wide Asia-

Pacific” Dr. Kumar’s presentation provided the overview of an Asian regional economic

cooperation and development in the ASEAN region and beyond Asian regionalism was viewed by the speaker as the response to three developments both inside and outside the region: Western regional integration, the 1997 East Asian crisis, the 2008 global financial crisis and the slow progress of multilateral trade negotiations. Coupling with these driving forces, is the changing economic geography in recent years whereby Asia has emerged as a new growth pole (the average growth of emerging Asian economies has been at 7.8% compared to that of the industrialized countries at 2.7%). Asia also serves

24

�

as the largest market for a growing number of products and services with the rise of Asian middle class. It is now, thus, emerging as the center of gravity of the world economy. As a result, this region is gradually replacing the United States as the growth locomotive for world economy especially in the post-crisis period. Therefore,Kumar viewed the Asian regional integration as critical to sustain the dynamism of the Asia-Pacific region.

Regional economic cooperation in Asia is conducted through many agreements and groupings both in the forms of broad region-wide arrangements (e.g. APEC, ASEAN plus Three, and the East Asia Summit); sub-regional agreements (e.g. AFTA in ASEAN, SAPTA and SAFTA in South Asia and BIMSTEC FTA); FTAs between ASEAN and its dialogue partners (e.g. China-ASEAN, ROK-ASEAN, India-ASEAN, Japan-ASEAN, and ASEAN-A-NZ CER); and bilateral trade agreements (e.g. the ones between individual ASEAN members and other countries). Despite all the robustness and variety of economic cooperation, Kumar pointed out some major constraints of the existing regional arrangements. In the sub-regional cooperation, similar factor endowments and economic structures in the sub-regional members limit the complementarities. Multiplicity of such arrangements does not provide “a seamless market” to businesses to facilitate region-wide industrial restructuring. There exist many tariffs and non-tariff barriers while the region faces the lack of good physical connectivity and facilities. There is a compelling case for an over-arching comprehensive pan-Asian framework to facilitate the exploitation of considerable synergies for mutual benefit.

Kumar observed that the ASEAN Summit at Hua Hin (October 2009) provided promising initiatives for broader regional economic cooperation. At this summit, studies were adopted on the East Asia Free Trade Agreement (EAFTA) covering ASEAN plus Three countries and the Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement for East Asia (CEPEA) covering ASEAN plus China, Japan, South Korea, India, Australia and New Zealand. Besides accelerating the implementation of these initiatives, he emphasized on the need to rebalance Asian economies toward domestic and regional consumption by generating new aggregate demand through greater consumption and investments, funding the development of cross-border infrastructure to strengthen connectivity and extracting the full potential of regional economic integration. The gaps of physical infrastructure (air transport facilities, roads and railways) and software infrastructure (ICT and banking system) in Asia-Pacific were viewed as major challenges that need to be addressed to overcome poor regional connectivity.

In addition to generating aggregate demand in the region, Kumar noted that the development of regional connectivity infrastructure will enable countries in the region to tap the full potential of regional economic integration. This can be done through connecting the lagging regions with the regional growth poles in order to spread the gains of dynamism. However, to deal with the problem of infrastructure gaps mentioned

25

�

above, Kumar cited the ADB’s estimation that US $ 8 trillion investment will be needed over the next 10 years for infrastructure development in Asia-Pacific region. The complexity in raising investments for infrastructure development poses as a challenge to the enhancement of regional connectivity. Therefore, he made a case for developing the regional financial architecture that could facilitate efficient intermediation between region’s excess foreign exchange reserves (that are presently of the order of US$ 5 trillion) and its unmet needs. The elements of such as a regional financial architecture could include crisis prevention and management beyond Chiang-Mai initiative, reserve pooling for development financing including funding of infrastructure gaps, development of capital markets and bond markets and their integration, exchange rate cooperation and cooperation between trade finance agencies and cooperation and coordination of positions in discussions on the reform of international financial architecture. UN-ESCAP at its 66th Session held in Incheon in May 2010 has been asked by its member states to assist in elaboration of elements of such a regional financial architecture and would begin a process of consultations in that direction.

Dr. Somsak Pipoppinyo, Director of ASEAN Infrastructure, ASEAN Secretariat � Topic: “ASEAN Connectivity and the Practical Engagement of ASEAN

Dialogue Partners” Overview and background knowledge about ASEAN Connectivity’s Master Plan

was the central focus of Dr. Somsak’s presentation. Echoing what Pradap summarized to the audiences in his introductory remark,

Somsak reiterated the main objective of the Master Plan: to enhance intra-regional and sub-regional connectivity; to make this connectivity benefit all ASEAN members through trade, investment, tourism and development; and to address transnational problems such as illegal immigration, environmental degradation and pollution, transnational crime and other cross-border challenges. The plan has three chief focus areas which are physical connectivity, institutional connectivity and people-to-people connectivity. Physical connectivity refers to tangible infrastructure development in the field of transportation, information communication technology (ICT) and energy. Institutional connectivity means the establishment of system or regime of rules and regulations to facilitate the flow of goods and people through the enhanced physical infrastructure. They include, for instance, regional transport agreements, liberalization in trade, services and investment, mutual recognition agreements, simplified cross-border procedures and capacity building programs. People-to-people connectivity encompasses educational and cultural exchanges among regional states and the promotion of tourism.

26

�

To achieve such goals, key strategies have been laid down for each focus areas. The strategies for making progress in physical connectivity consist of the completion of the ASEAN Highway Network and the Singapore-Kunming Rail Link (SKRL) project; the establishment of an integrated inland waterways network, Maritime Transport System and Multimodal Transport Systems; and the development of ICT Infrastructure and Services in each ASEAN member. The key strategies for institutional connectivity encompass the full operation of 3 framework agreements on transport facilitation; the implementation of initiatives to facilitate interstate passenger transportation; the development of ASEAN Single Aviation Market (ASAM) and ASEAN Single Shipping Market; the minimization of trade barriers; and the development of the logistics sector for transport, telecommunications and other connectivity. Improvement of trade facilitation, enhancement of border management capabilities, creation of fair investment rules, strengthening institutional capacity in lagging areas and improving regional-sub-regional coordination in policies and projects are also parts of the strategies to enhance connectivity in the institutional aspect. Lastly, the tentative strategies for people-to-people connectivity include the promotion of deeper intra-ASEAN social and cultural understanding and of greater intra-ASEAN people mobility.

To effectively implement such strategies, ASEAN needs institutional establishment; this will include ASEAN Connectivity Coordinating Committee and Coordinators at the national level. In addition, a communication strategy must be created as well as a monitoring, evaluating and reviewing system; for example, the scorecard mechanism. Another important issue is how to mobilize resources to accomplish the plan. Here, Somsak gave examples of potential entities that could provide necessary resource and funding. They include multilateral development banks (ADB, World Bank, etc.), bilateral development partners (RCIF, CCF, ICFF, etc.), and national governments.

27

�

Session II:

Hard Infrastructure in the Mekong Region

The discussion became more specific in the second session of the seminar. The content for this part revolved around the hardware aspect mentioned in the Master Plan. Despite repetitions in many parts, this session gave insight into the potentials and challenges in the implementation of the concept of “ASEAN Connectivity” and the aspiration and strategies laid down in the Master Plan, particularly in the area of infrastructure development for physical connectivity in the region. Mr. Arkhom Termpittayapaisith, Deputy Secretary-General, National Economic and Social Development Board (NESDB) � Topic: “Thailand Strategy on ASEAN Connectivity in Hard Infrastructure”

How Thailand intends to take part in the physical development aspect of ASEAN Connectivity and what the country plans to do in the near future concerning this issue are two critical questions Arkhom tried to give audiences the answers.

According to the policy statement of the Council of Minister Delivered by the Thai prime minister in 2008, the Thai government expressed their favorable attitude and good intention toward the ASEAN regional arrangement. This can be demonstrated for example by the announcement to “expand regional financial cooperation under the ASEAN Summit framework to provide mutual assistance and solutions in the event of economic and financial crisis in the region”; and the commitment to “promote cooperation to strengthen ASEAN . . . and to realize the goal of creating an ASEAN Community as stipulated in the ASEAN Charter . . .” Moreover, in the 11th National Economic and Social Development Plan intended for the year 2011-15, the Thai government has included in its “national development strategy” the goal of “creating regional economic cooperation and connectivity.”

Two basic global developments seem responsible for Thailand’s increased attention to the enhancement of cooperation under economic integrations in sub-regions and regions. They are, first, the trend toward economic integration in sub-regions and regions to strengthen bargaining power and competitiveness, and, second, the emergence of new economic powers e.g. Brazil, Russia, India and China (BRIC) that has made Asia’s role more visible in world economy. The attention of the Thai government can be divided into 4 areas: promoting economic integration in Asia while making progress toward ASEAN Community; promoting sub-regional cooperation such

28

�

as GMS, ACMECS, BIMSTEC and IMT-GT; developing border towns along economic corridors; and meeting transnational threats and challenges.

In the first area, the country intends to enhance economic integration, develop regional value and supply chain with the goal of increasing competitiveness and economic bargaining power as well as market expansion. Thailand sees itself as a potential strategic hub of transportation in GMS and ASEAN. It also wants to expand trade and investment in the region and focus on people connectivity to empower people to be able to resist all kind of threats. For the second aspect, the Thai government plans to promote the construction of physical infrastructure connectivity (in sub-regions and neighboring countries) that makes “transport corridors” in GMS, which in turn increases economic opportunity from market expansion induced from closer economic integration in this region. Third, to develop border towns along economic corridors, Thailand has planned to set up One Stop Services at border checkpoints in Chiang Rai, Tak, Nongkai, Mukdaharn, Sakaiw and Songkha.

It has also approved a Cabinet Resolution to establish special administrative body in Mae Sot city and the Resolution that authorizes the Thai Ministry of Foreign Affairs to coordinate with Myanmar on providing support for the development of Dawei port and its hinterland. This Resolution also authorizes the Ministry of Trade to conduct detailed studies for the development of roads from Karnjanaburi to Dawei port. Finally, Thailand also pays attention on key problems that will likely accompany the closer level of economic integration. These transnational problems include the issues of human security, terrorism and cross-border crimes. All these needs strong joint cooperation among countries in sub-regions, regions and across the world.

Six development targets were emphasized by Arkhom as the strategic means to enhance Thailand’s competitiveness and increase its role in international forums while mitigating negative impacts in the face of regional economic integration. First, the country must make itself accepted by the ASEAN community and neighboring countries as a regional hub of trade and investment. Second, it must make use of bilateral and multilateral free trade agreement (FTAs). Third, it must strive to decrease business costs in both the domestic business environment and international environment in the region. It must build an economic base by utilizing its strategic location, efficiency of infrastructures and cross-border and transit trade facilitations. Thailand should support entrepreneurs by developing their potentials and skills in doing business and investing abroad. Lastly, it must decrease problems from terrorism, crimes, narcotic drugs and natural disasters through close collaboration with allied countries.

Thailand has invested in several projects in the region as noted by Arkhom. However, there are still many parts of existing infrastructures that need improvement as identified by business surveys (see figures below)

29

�

30

�

Mr. Pierre Chartier, Economic Affairs officer, Transport Division, ESCAP � Topic: “ASEAN Connectivity in Hard Infrastructure”

Mr. Chartier from ESCAP provided the attendants with illustrative information about the trans-Asian Railway, first, by giving the big picture of railway links in Eurasia before specifically focusing on the railway network in the ASEAN region. Chartier showed that there are 4 railway routes or sub-regional corridors that connect different parts of the Eurasian continent (see map below): trans-Asian railway (TAR) Northern Corridor running through China, DPRK, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, ROK and Russian Federation; TAR North-South Corridor connecting Armenia, Azerbaijan, Finland, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Russian Federation, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan; TAR Southern Corridor linking Bangladesh, India, Iran, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Turkey; and TAR in Indochina and ASEAN linking Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Lao, Malaysia, Myanmar, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam.

TAR routes linking the ASEAN region are 14,026 kilometers long in totality. Currently, most of them are inter-country railways connecting Singapore-Malaysia, Malaysia-Thailand, Thailand-Lao and Vietnam-China. The region has only one international ‘multi-lateral’ corridor which is the route between Singapore-Thanaleng (in Lao) via Malaysia and Thailand (see map below). Most of these routes are gauged in meter. Other technical characteristics of ASEAN’s TAR include mostly having single tracks along main line, mostly using diesel operation, having light axle-load (11-15 t. axle-load) and using slow-speed train (70 km/h maximum limit).

31

�

Mr. Chartier also pointed out that there are still missing links among the railway

routes connecting countries in ASEAN and neighboring regions ; for example, the missing link between China-ASEAN and some points between Thailand and Lao, Lao-Vietnam, Cambodia-Thailand, Vietnam-Cambodia, Myanmar-Thailand and Myanmar-India (see map below). In some of these points, attempts have been made, and projects have been launched (some have just completed feasibility studies) to close the missing links; for example, the project to link Chinese railways with those of ASEAN members. Certainly, in accomplishing all the projects to link regional railway routes together, there are the needs for railway investment and resource mobilization. Chartier exerted that this could be done through using tourism receipts, creating partnership among railways and partnership with private sector.

32

�

Dr. Rattanatay Luanglatbandith, ADB Expert � Topic: “The Current Status and Next Steps of GMS Flagship Projects (North-

South/ East-West/ South-South Economic Corridors) The first part of Rattanatay’s presentation contained the information about the

physical infrastructure or economic corridors similar to that of the preceding speakers. The important part that deserves attention is the discussion about the next steps of the GMS Flagship Project. Here he focused on the Vientiane Plan of Action (VPOA) for GMS Development, 2008-2012. VPOA has been endorsed and adopted by the 3rd GMS Summit held in March 2008 in Vientiane, Lao. It has the objective to enhance economic competitiveness and accelerate the regional economic and social development process through the greater use of improved and expanded connectivity. In terms of the physical aspect in the transport sector, VPOA aims to accelerate the completion of GMS transport corridors; develop other transport modes, particularly railways; develop a road system that supports sub-regional tourism; and extend sub-regional transport connectivity to the poor and remote areas.

VPOA envisages 31 transport projects to construct and develop roads and railways for the improvement of GMS connectivity. Some of these projects are under

33

�

construction; some are in the process of just completing feasibility studies; while others are under the process of fund mobilization. To give a few example, the GMS Cambodia Northwest Provincial Road Improvement Project in the Southern Corridor; Nakhon Phanom-Khammouane Mekong Bride in the Central Corridor; North-South Economic Corridor International Mekong River Bridge; the GMS Ha Noi-Lang Son Expressway Project in the Eastern Corridor; Western Yunnan Roads Development Project II in the Northern Corridor; the GMS Highway Expansion Project in the East-West Corridor and Southern Corridor; and Nanning-Kunming Railway Capacity Expansion in the Northern Corridor. Dr. Na Hee Seung, Director General, Korea Railroad Research Institute (KRRI) � Topic: “Current Status of Trans Korean Railway Transportation and Its

Application to ROK-ASEAN Railway Cooperation” Dr. Na Hee Seung basically reported on the current state of Trans Korean Railway

Transportation as well as the major R&D projects and facilities achieved by the ROK. Inter-Korean transportation cooperation is aimed to reconnect Gyeongui-line

with Donghae-line. The target of this infrastructure cooperation is not only the Korean Peninsula but also Northeast Asia as a whole in terms of trans-continental railway systems. However, the dream of linking the trans-continental railway is hinged upon progress in inter-Korean relations. Thus, to achieve this, the attempt must be made to accelerate the building of inter-Korean consensus and to create mutual trust and peace in the Korean Peninsula. Under the above condition, the two railway lines can serve as trunk corridors for Korea, China, Russia, Central Asia and Europe which would amount to a revolution in global logistics. So far inter-Korean transportation cooperation has culminated in the establishment of regular freight train service across the DMZ in 2007. Under this project, South Korea has completed most of the works. North Korea has completed everything except part of the station buildings, signal and communication facilities. In doing so, the South supplied materials and equipment for the North. It has also adopted the inter-Korean train operation agreement, and is making preparations for logistics after the operation.

With this railway connection, transportation time and costs will be reduced. It in turn contributes greatly to economic cooperation between the two Koreas. It also serves as a symbol of progress toward the unification of two Koreas. It can be considered an important policy project for raising the inter-Korean relationship a notch higher and opening a new age of Northeast Asian cooperation.

34

�

Dr. Na Hee Seung also introduced to the audiences the ROK’s state of the art railway transport systems. The latest development includes the construction of high-speed rail of Korea Train Express (KTX) between Seoul and Busan. The R&D achievement also encompasses the development of new vehicles. Apart from the high-speed rail (HSR), the ROK has come up with Light Rail Transit (LRT) system, Tilting Train Express (TTX) and bimodal transportation like fuel cell-powered vehicles. In addition to these latest achievements, ongoing R&D projects include the development of Next-Generation HSR and the development of wireless low-floor tram systems.

35

�

Session III:

Soft Infrastructure in the Mekong Region

The final session of the seminar turned to focus on another important aspect enshrined in the comprehensive framework of ASEAN Connectivity’s Master Plan; that is the “software” or institutional dimension of regional connectivity. This denotes the organizational bodies, regimes and mechanisms that will be introduced to facilitate the movement of people and products in the region. This dimension is deemed essential to making the physical infrastructure side mainly discussed in the morning session efficiently and effectively operable. Without the institutional basis to serve and complement the existence of the hardware, the regional connectivity would hardly functional and the challenges accompanying the readiness of cross-border access and transnational movement would not be sufficiently addressed. Reflecting this concern, the seminar devoted the afternoon discussion to the software aspect of connectivity. Speakers of various nationalities who were representatives of relevant bodies and academies had brainstormed to come up with useful policy recommendations. Appropriate models to facilitate cross-border movements in the region, as well as ways to arrange and establish a more simplified regulation system were asserted as an input into the process to put the plan into effect. Dr. Ishida Masami, Senior Researcher, Bangkok Research Center, IDE-JETRO, Institute of Developing Economies � Topic: “Cross Border Transport Agreement (CBTA) and Trade Facilitation”

Dr. Ishida further discussed the CBTA which had been outlined in general in the first session by Dr. Jean-Pierre Verbiest. The objective of this agreement already signed by all six GMS members (although not yet been ratified by all) is to simplify the procedure for vehicles crossing the member states’ national borders. The simplified procedures are aimed at the liberalizing and facilitating people and goods movement across borders. This is done by simplifying the border checkpoint procedure of buses, passenger cars and trucks loaded with goods.

The CBTA has come into existence as a way to abolish existing obstacles in cross-border transportation. These obstacles include the prohibition of motor vehicles from other countries to enter a border; the complicated customs procedures, inspections, clearance and assessment of duties and other formalities that create delay; unnecessary cost inflicted by the existing procedures; and visa restrictions or high visa costs. The gist of CBTA covers four main agendas: the movement of people, the carriage of goods,

36

�

Single Window and Single Stop and temporary import and transit of vehicles. The CBTA envisages the simplified procedures for people movement including the provision of visas for drivers or crews of commercial vehicles with one year minimum validity and multiple entries and exits; mutual recognition of driver licenses; and health quarantine exemptions for those carrying prescribed WHO documents, coming from areas that are not risky or infected, and showing no sign of infectious disease. It also prescribes the introduction of duty free allowances for temporary import of personal effects as a way to facilitate the flow of people empowered by physical connectivity.

For facilitation of carriage of goods, the agreement stipulates some regulations on goods movement by restricting dangerous goods (e.g. explosives, gases, flammable substances, toxic and infectious substances, radioactive materials, etc.), and prioritizing the simplification of procedures for perishable goods (e.g. live animals, foodstuff, live and ornamental flowers and cut flowers, etc.) Dr. Ishida gave emphasis to the third aspect of the CBTA which was the introduction of “Single Window Inspection” and “Single Stop Inspection” (the agenda which was also discussed by other experts later in this session, and was considered a potential item to be an appropriate Flagship Project in translating the connectivity concept into actual projects)

Single Window Inspection (SWI) refers to the system by which a vehicle entering a border is subject to a one time procedure that encompasses all necessary inspections: customs, immigration and quarantine (CIQ). This system allows fast passage at border checkpoints by integrating elements that previously were theresponsibility of different domestic agencies – Ministry of Finance for customs, Ministry of Internal Affairs for immigration, and Ministry of Health and Ministry of Agriculture for quarantine of goods, for example – into one single procedure or “single window.” In addition to this system, Single Stop Inspection is another promising system that has been planned to be introduced to shorten the cross-border procedure. Instead of being subject to inspection twice – at the borders of exporting countries and at the borders of importing countries – the Single Stop Inspection works cuts the procedure short by making a vehicle crossing border subject to CIQ inspection only one time at the border of the importing country. Temporary importation is another way prescribed by the CBTA for facilitating goods movement. Under this scheme, motor vehicles as carriages of goods are exempt of duty when crossing one country’s border. The system also includes duty free for engines, and spare parts in receiving countries; and duty free for fuel consumption and wear & tear. Duty is also free for containers crossing a border under the system of temporary import of containers.

Under the Initial Implementation of CBTA (IICBTA), five borders have been designated for the implementation of the scheme: Denesavan-Laobao, Savannakhet-Mukdahan, Aranyaprathet-Poipet, Mocbai-Bavet and Hekou-Laocai. Despite the partial realization and implementation of the scheme Mr. Ishida identified the challenges of

37

�

CBTA to include the delays of ratification by the GMS member states; the difficulty in expanding the IICBTA further; and the complexity in adjusting domestic laws of member countries to CBTA. Moreover, building the capacity of officers at border posts, the utilization of ICT and establishing crisis management regimes constitute all the list of challenges that still stand in the way toward the accomplishment of the program.

Dr. Taihyeong Lee, Representative from the Korea Transport Institute � Topic: “Korean Perspective on Korean-ASEAN Transport Cooperation”

Dr. Lee’s presentation added the dimension of ASEAN-ROK cooperation into the ASEAN connectivity agenda. The speaker explored the existing cooperation in terms of transportation between the two sides, put the expectations of potential projects from ASEAN into focus and examined the prospect for long-term cooperation between South Korea and ASEAN.

The ASEAN-ROK Transport Cooperation dates back to the 24th STOM held in Singapore (2007) and the matter has been one of the STOM’s agendas since then. The cooperation has been developed to the point that both sides have planned to adopt a roadmap for ASEAN-ROK Transport Cooperation at the upcoming meeting (2nd ASEAN-ROK STOM and ATM) that will be held in Brunei in November this year (2010). This roadmap, the final draft of which is now being compiled by Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime of the ROK and the Korea Transport Institute, is the culmination of consultations between both sides. The ROK has received the list of cooperative projects from the ASEAN Secretariat in 2009 and proposals in 2010. The list contains more than 20 potential projects in logistics, aviation, roadways, railways, sea/port and inland waterways.

In the logistics sector, ASEAN expects cooperation in standardization and human resources development as it is crucial for ASEAN in the attempt to create a more competitive environment in logistics. It also wants technical exchanges contributing to integrating the region and revitalizing the economic situations of its members. In the aviation sector, ASEAN aspires to enhance technical standards, particularly in safety, to share ROK’s technological experiences and to promote the liberalization of air transport services between ASEAN and ROK. In the roadways sector, ASEAN wants to disseminate the technologies of ITS and road safety to its members, maintain the consistency of ASEAN Highways and integrate the region through road networks. In the railway sector, it expects cooperation in building up a consistent human network among its member states, building capacities of R&D in the railway sector and integrating the region through railway connectivity. ASEAN also needs ROK’s cooperation in the sea/port sector. It includes cooperation to construct a long-term network among the members for developing human resources in this field; participation in port

38

�

development projects in the region especially through the introduction of technologies; and the cooperation to lay the foundation of exchanging human and material resources with ASEAN. In the inland waterways sector, ASEAN needs cooperation for facilitating the inland transport system and conventional transport modes in its member states, and for effectively utilizing water resources and expanding a transport network in the region.

Among these proposed projects for cooperation from ASEAN, three categories of cooperation have been prioritized based on the urgency (level of demand) of projects, level of knowledge and experience possessed by the ROK and cost-effectiveness. They are, respectively in order of priority given, human resources development (HRD) and education; institutional and technical assistance; and infrastructure feasibility studies. According to the implementation directions, in the first aspect (HRD), the ROK has planned to conduct HRD projects in each sector (except the aviation sector) with the involvement of all demanding ASEAN countries. For the aviation sector, the ROK has planned to conduct projects with an international cooperation team at MLTM or Korea International Cooperation Agency (KOICA). The second prioritized projects – institutional and technical assistance – consist of logistics standardization, ASEAN-ROK Air Transport Agreement, technical assistance for ITS standards and integration, technical assistance for highway disaster prevention and environment projects on environmental change and sea level increase.

The long-term directions for transport cooperation emphasized by Dr. Lee are, first, the cooperation in developing soft and hard infrastructure for urban transportation. This is deemed to be important since urbanization is rapidly in progress in most developing ASEAN nations. Second, planning and development of multi-modal transport for green transport (i.e. low CO2) is necessary for the long-term especially when considering the relatively weak strategic plan for climate change in many ASEAN countries. Furthermore, Dr. Lee Pointed out that, if necessary, some projects can be jointly conducted by Institutional cooperation since transport- and logistics-related research institutes in Korea (e.g. the Korea Transport Institute, Korea Maritime Institute, Korea Railroad Research Institute) have their own specialties to conduct the corresponding sectors. Asst. Prof. Dr. Charit Tingsabadh, Director of Centre for European Studies, Chulalongkorn University � Topic: “ASEAN Connectivity : EU Experience and issues for ASEAN”

Dr. Charit offered another interesting perspective for realizing the Connectivity goal by examining how the European Union (EU) has been dealing with similar issues to those now facing ASEAN. Charit paid most attention in his presentation to the stagnation and problems in turning all the recognized plans into actual practice. In other

39

�

words, he asked why there is little action and progress in establishing cross-border transport systems and regimes, despite the long recognized necessities.

In comparison with ASEAN, the EU’s physical infrastructure has already been highly developed with many modes of functions and continual improvements. There is a mutual recognition agreement (MRA) among EU member states as well as a cross-border transport agreement. In contrast, ASEAN encounters a myriad of problems that undermine its progress toward the establishment of common systems and practices to facilitate connectivity. Charit observed that although there have so far been many studies of potential and feasibility as well as several policy recommendations, what still lacks in this region is proper implementation. “Now is the time for action!” was the key message stressed by his presentation.

He also pointed out the challenges facing the implementation of CBTA among the Greater Mekong Sub-Region’s nations, by citing a remark made by Bhoj Raj Khanal, Research Manager of Mekong Institute:

The implementation of CBTA still faces multitude challenges, ranging from on-going infrastructure deficiencies, traffic regulation inconsistencies, and complex and time-consuming cross-border formalities, to overlapping and contradictory domestic, multilateral and bilateral agreements and regulations. These challenges support the argument for further discussions and capacity building activities for relevant stakeholders in the GMS countries. There is also a lack of clear policies for the implementation, monitoring and evaluating trade facilitation. Other difficulties include inadequate infrastructure, which prevents the implementation of the Single-Window/ Single-Stop inspections. The coordination and cooperation of the relevant authorities is also weak.

Charit asserted that logistics development should be initiated in the GMS countries

with three strategies. The first concerns infrastructure development by creating the collective sense of mission among the regional members. Second, cross-border trade should be better facilitated by supporting the role of the private sector and promoting collaboration with the private sector. Finally, collaboration with business should be encouraged, together with the building of social and economic partnership in which benefits are shared together. From the private sector’s point of view, as noted by Charit, the agreement between governments – or GtoG – is only an agreement on paper with no practical effect; what is needed is local level joint agreement.

40

�

Four additional actions were asserted by the speaker as cross-border collaborative strategies. First, for trade facilitation, each country must amend its domestic rules and regulations concerning cross-border movement. The agreement at the GMS level and wider regional level cannot readily result in practical effect. Therefore, the attempt must be made also at each member’s domestic level; one way to begin with is to accelerate the process of giving truck and driver visas. Second, to establish Single Stop Inspection (SSI), the government of each nation must ratify the CBTA quickly so as to abolish the redundant inspection system and unnecessary delay in cross-border procedures. Third, governments and private sectors must develop an electronic system or e-logistics to facilitate cross-border transactions, cross-border transport and international transport. Lastly, to encourage cross-border transport, each country must support a base of production moving to connecting points in each country. This will help increase value of resources and benefits Mr. Zhang Shujie, Technical Attaché, WCO Asia-Pacific Regional Office of Capacity Building (ROCB) � Topic: “Harmonization Development of Customs Procedure and Best

Practices” The central focus of Mr. Zhang’s presentation was the important role of customs

in regional connectivity. He asserted that the role of customs is significant to each dimension of connectivity, whether it be the physical dimension, institutional, or people-to-people dimension. This is because it is the process that can facilitate and simultaneously monitor tangible cross-border movement. Thus, customs should be considered as the leading agency in connectivity initiatives (e.g. Single Window system).

In establishing the institutional or software aspect of connectivity, the World Customs Organization (WCO) which is the sole intergovernmental organization competent in customs matters with 176 members, can provide useful guidelines to move forward. WCO standards lay the basis for uniform, simplified and harmonized procedures and are also useful in other areas well beyond the matter of customs. The Revised Kyoto Convention (RKC), which is one of customs instruments used by WCO and entered in to force in 2006, provides practical tools for implementation in consistency, and in complementary, with the principles laid down by GATT and WTO. RKC prescribes effective rules for transit procedures such as simplified procedures and limited data requirements for border crossing and standards of fee collection limited to the cost of services rendered. In the adoption and implementation of the standards provided by WCO, some challenges must be overcome, as stressed by the speaker. One of them is the unbalanced policy priority between member states. What should be the most important issue to be addressed: collection, facilitation, or protection? The lack of political will and commitment is another issue that undermines the realization of the

41

�

system. Other challenges include noncompliance with international customs standards; inadequacy of resources, personnel capacity; outdated operational procedures; fragmented application of ICT; the inadequacy of partnership with the private sector and the problem of integrity.

Mr. Zhang concluded that ASEAN customs modernization and cooperation should be maintained as the first priority. Also, coordinated border management should be promoted. Since capacity building is a key issue in customs integration, it needs to be prioritized and addressed. And ROCB is keen to coordinate and cooperate with relevant partners. Assoc. Prof. Dr. Ruth Banomyong, Director, Centre for Logistic Research, Thammasat University � Topic: “ASEAN Logistics”

Dr. Ruth’s presentation gave special attention to the logistics dimension of ASEAN connectivity that some preceding speakers had already touched upon. With the key assumption that logistics plays a key role in enabling regional connectivity, Ruth explored various agendas pertinent to this important element of software infrastructure.

He asserted that the connectivity between countries may be assessed by 4 basic criteria including the existing physical integration, the harmonization of existing rules and regulations, the capability of facilitators to operate efficiently, and the types of logistics services available to traders. This last aspect puts the emphasis on logistics, one of the essential components of regional integration, and especially on the logistics system’s function as the connector or coordinator between other elements of connectivity. It coordinates the physical infrastructure dimension with institutional frameworks and other dimensions, including service provider, shippers and consigners.

The major policy areas for a logistics roadmap that deserve attention consists of six major areas. The first is the integration of the ASEAN national logistics systems. This can be achieved by increasing communications at the regional level to identify actions in the logistics sector to support and facilitate trade flows between ASEAN countries. The second area concerns the encouragement of progressive liberalization in logistics services. The aim of this policy is to make the logistics services better able to respond to the opportunities available for ASEAN integration and increasing competitiveness. The third is increasing trade, logistics and investment facilitation. This policy item can be done by identifying the means needed to improve transport logistics facilities and the priorities for investment. Fourthly, building ASEAN logistics capacity is another key strategy which can be made possible by encouraging human resource development in the sector and securing an environment conducive to developing the sector. Also, promotion of ASEAN logistics service providers can be another important component to the logistics roadmap. This can be achieved through the provision of channels for the

42

�

service providers so that they can participate more in the sector. Finally, the roadmap should include ways to promote multi-modal transport capacity, especially containerized transport.

Dr. Ruth also took into consideration the issue of how to secure quality logistics service. He noted that the service quality usually depends on, first, the structure of the logistic industry and, second, the contractual arrangements for providing logistics services. Moreover, the size of the logistics service providers usually depends on the barriers to entry, the extent of regulation and the level and type of demand. ASEAN has so far possessed some connectivity software. They include the ASEAN Framework Agreement on Goods in Transit (Hanoi, 1998), the ASEAN Framework Agreement on Multimodal Transport (Vientiane, 2005), and the ASEAN Framework Agreement on the Facilitation of Interstate Transport (Hanoi, 2009). However, some bottlenecks of the existing software can be identified as follow. First, there still are several regional agreements that have yet to be ratified and put into implementation. Second, there remains the complexity and uncoordinated practices concerning institutional aspects. Also, there is the lack of software, especially the coordinating and implementing mechanism. The last is a problem of human resources.

Dr. Ruth concluded his part by stressing the following items. He noted that the enhancement of connectivity remains a challenge in ASEAN. ‘Hardware’ or physical infrastructure networks still remain a major barrier but it should be solved by 2015. The ‘software’ dimension or regional framework agreements to enable connectivity along corridors do exist but they are not totally in place. He, thus, called for a strong coordinating and implementing mechanism. To do so, ASEAN member countries may have to surrender part of their sovereignty to the ASEAN Secretariat.

Dr. Ruth also proposed some items in which the ROK can play its roles or contribute to create regional connectivity. In the hardware dimension, the ROK may be expected to partake in SKRL related projects and port facility development as well as in setting up a network of ASEAN industrial parks and shipbuilding technology transfer. In the software side, ASEAN may expect the ROK to contribute to the creation of a single shipping market, maritime education, the establishment of a search & rescue framework and seafarers’ standards. Ms. Kate Mun, Director, Oversea Business Division, KL-Net � “Single Window for Integrated Electronic Vessel and Cargo Clearance System”

The last speaker of the session, Kate Mun, put into focus once again the promising cross-border procedures of Single Window System. This time the presentation went into detail, especially concerning the South Korean experience in its seaports logistics infrastructure,which can serve as a model for enhancing software connectivity for ASEAN.

43

�

Ms. Mun began with the global trend concerning logistics infrastructure in cross-border facilitation. There has been an environment change in global logistics toward a “fast, convenient, safe logistics infrastructure” which is the result of global transformation in three major areas. The first is the change in global economy; the increase in trade volume or globalization of trade, the fast expansion of e-commerce and the risk of terrorism for maritime trade and increased needs of vessel security and safety have all contributed to the need for a fast, but safe logistics. Second, there has also been a change in the global logistics industry from the rapid growth of this industry in northeast Asia, the increase of throughput related to the China trade and the competition for advanced system technology among ports. Finally, there has been a change of needs for port users; that is the need for real-time cargo/truck/ vessel location tracking, the need for efficient container operation and for automated port operation.

From this presentation, Mun briefed on Single Window concept in terms of maritime logistics followed by Korea’s Single Window development model. Single Window means to support civil affairs declaration as submitting related document or data only one time submission through designated single entry. The service allows parties involved in trade and transport to declare standardized information and documents with a single entry point to fulfill all import, export, and transit-related regulatory requirements.

Port-MIS (Port Management Information System) is Korea’s National Single Window model which has been recommended the best practices development model by IMO (International Maritime Organization). Port-MIS is a computerized management system designed to, among others, (a) handle vessel and cargo clearance by providing a reliable system that aims to achieve affirmative results of paperless port administration through computerization of all public activities involved in port operations, (b) provide the user a convenient and efficient “one-stop service” with real-time information and (c) improve the efficiency of port operations and management by systematic and scientific decision making support to arrive at a comprehensive port control.

The Republic of Korea has been implemented the single window system for improving logistics business of export/import in the maritime industry. It enables not only for facilitate exchange information of depart/arrival of vessels between countries having the same system, but also the concerned maritime authority will take advantages such as facilitation, simplification, reusability of information and automation.

She noted that traffic congestion is a major problem around the world. To prevent unnecessary delays in vessel and cargo clearance, each nation has to develop a standard working process with standard electric documentation in order to exchange and share of data not only government authorities but also private sectors. It will enable to quick turn-around and cost savings due to a standardized system for clearing vessel and cargo

44

�

including a simple and fast completion of clearance documents based on electronic information transmitted prior to the arrival of the ship and cargo.

Finally, the implementation of maritime logistic system is an important contribution to the overall effort of streamlining and harmonizing trade-related regulations and practices.

In the study about the feasibility to introduce the Korean model to other shipping & port operations in many areas around the world, including ASEAN member countries, some critical challenges have been identified. The first is the lack of standard working process in ASEAN region; that is all cargo in/out processes from vessel arrival to departure are handled by handwork, causing congestion in the port. The second is the problem of having no standard forms and formats. The study shows that there are over 50 kinds of document formats being used for processing port operation among ASEAN members due to duplicated formats. In addition, the unstable infrastructure is another problem identified by the study; there is no system for information sharing or linkage between major ports due to lack of port information infrastructure.

In conclusion, Mun put forth a recommendation for ASEAN to move forward with Single Window System. The speaker came up with the following model:

45

�

Discussion

Each session of the seminar was followed by a discussion section that gave the opportunity for the speakers in the session and the audiences to share and exchange their views. These sections were conducted respectively by Prof. Dr. Suthiphand Chirathivat, Chairman of Chula Global Network, Mr. John Moon, Chief of Transport Policy and Development Section, ESCAP, and Assoc. Prof. Dr. Ruth Banomyong, Director of the Centre for Logistics Research, Thammasat University.

In the first session, the focus of the discussion was on the fact that there exist a lot of potentials in terms of infrastructures – hard and soft – for the enhancement of regional connectivity. Still, the challenges in utilizing these potentials were identified by the participants to be the setting up and funding of projects to address the poor condition of transport infrastructures in the region. Fund seemed to be one of the major issues emphasized during the discussion. Acquisition of enough resource was generally viewed as the important issue both in terms of the attempt to maintain the existing road and railway infrastructures and the development of new projects to further connect the physical infrastructures in the region. The ROK representatives expressed strong interest in the field of implementation to overcome the identified challenges faced by the ASEAN.

The discussion following the presentations in Session II was moderated by Mr. John Moon. Here, the discussion continued focusing on the hardware dimension of the regional connectivity. Questions concerning the role of Myanmar in making progress toward the goal of connectivity was raised among the participants and seemed to be the chief concern in this section. “How can we meet the Myanmar challenge for the connectivity?” The challenge posed by Myanmar is not restricted to the problem concerning physical infrastructure but also the political problem such as the form of its domestic politics and the willingness to open up its border. In response to the question, the meeting reconfirmed the country’s importance in realizing the regional goal. Myanmar’s importance comes from the fact that it is geographically located in the middle of the region and its transport infrastructures are parts of many transport corridors. Thus, the country is needed in the effort to link the physical infrastructures in the region. Although the clear answer in terms of political solution to the Myanmar challenge was not readily come up with in this discussion, the consensus was arrived at; it was that the Myanmar challenge cannot be left unaddressed in achieving the goal of ASEAN connectivity.

The discussion of the last session shifted the focus to the software elements of connectivity. Dr. Ruth, the moderator of the discussion, who also served as the speaker in this session, directed the overall attention to the issue of logistics and the challenge

46

�

facing the region in turning the visions and models offered by the presentations into practices. The challenge in identifying what should be the Flagship Project in the Master Plan was discussed. And a rough consensus was reached. It was that customs issue should be considered a prioritized program in the initial phase, especially the Single Window Inspection. This program was viewed by some participants as an appropriate moderate goal to start with. However, they agreed that the challenge in consensus building among the ASEAN members will have to be handled. Specifically speaking, the challenges standing in the way of realizing the Single Window Inspection include the involvement of many domestic agencies and the need to set up principles among them. The question was raised regarding the Korean model of Single Window Inspection for seaports presented by Kate Mun; whether the model used in the Korean seaports can be applicable for inland case. Further study regarding this question was needed in adopting the Korean model into the ASEAN implementation. However, the participants seemed to agree from the sessions that the ROK gave a clear message that it is very strong in some areas of expertise in terms of technology and logistics; and its resource contribution will be very useful for the enhancement of ASEAN connectivity.

47

�

Conclusion

In general, the international seminar “ASEAN Connectivity” has provided the attendants with useful, comprehensive information and insight into the potentials of existing regional infrastructures and institutional establishments in translating the policy initiative announced in the ASEAN Summit into implementation. It gave a broad guideline for pushing ahead with the Master Plan for ASEAN Connectivity not only for ASEAN member states, but also other related agencies and countries outside the region, especially the Republic of Korea. Among those policy items envisioned in the Master Plan – physical connectivity, institutional connectivity and people-to-people connectivity – the seminar put emphasis on the first two elements of regional integration. Hardware and software dimensions were raised as the significant first step to achieve the higher prioritized goal of political and people-to-people integration or the so-called “community-building effort.” Also they were emphasized as the dimensions in which the ROK can engage to exercise its roles and contribute to create progress toward the goal of further regional integration. According to the experts who participated in the seminar, ASEAN has already expressed its expectation for the ROK’s cooperation in the form of a formal proposal. The key demands, as stressed by Dr. Taihyeong Lee’s presentation, include cooperation and contributions in various sectors including logistics, aviation, roadways, railway, sea/port and inland waterways. In all sectors, the development of human resources (HRD) seemed to be one of the much needed points of cooperation expressed so far (for the full detailed list of projects for each sector, see the summary of Thaihyeong Lee’s presentation, pages 20-21) This is consistent with other experts’ opinions both from ASEAN and other relevant agencies that creating human resources and stengthening personnel or officer capacity in facilitating cross-border transport are some of the major challenges facing the implementation of the connectivity concept.

In addition to this consensus, the cooperation with the ROK in terms of sharing experiences, especially technological experiences and institutional models, in various fields of cross-border transport services was another item requested by both the proposal of ASEAN-ROK Transport Cooperation and the participants of this seminar. This aspect of cooperation can encompass the transfer of technologies in such areas as physical infrastructures, ICT and assistance in R&D. One of the most troubling problems standing in the way of connectivity that was most stressed by the speakers is the lack or inadequacy of appropriate transport infrastructures in the region. Existing infrastructures are largely in poor condition and need restoration and enhancement in many parts. The solution to this problem is to set up projects for infrastructure development. The ROK can engage in these projects in terms of technological provision, infrastructure investment and the provision of much needed resources and fund. The mobilization of funds was also raised in the seminar as one of the difficulties faced by ASEAN; as Pradap made clear at the end of his openning remarks, ADB had estimated that ASEAN would need some US $ 600 billion

48

�

during 2006-2015 in order to develop its regional infrastructures. Other speakers, especially from ASEAN related organizations, did not fail to stress the problem of funding.

In terms of the institutional components of connectivity, a consensus seemed to emerge from the discussion that the logistics aspect may serve the leading role in realizing ASEAN Connectivity. The appropriate Flagship Project for the Master Plan has been identified. Here, the attention seemed to focus on the Single Window System, which was mentioned by many experts, as having the potential to be the leading project. The ROK may be expected to engage in the attempt to achieve this goal.It seems that the ROK is equipped with some leading models in logistics system (as shown by Kate Mun’s presentation); sharing the experience in this area and providing a successful model for the management and service provision can be another role Korea can play in achieving ASEAN Connectivity.

Another interesting aspect that sporadically came up in the presentations and discussions but was largely marginalized from the main content was the political dimension as well as the people-to-people aspect of connectivity mentioned in the Master Plan. How to cope with the Myanmar issue; why, despite the existence of many agreements and formulations, there has been little progress in implementation; why, although Single Window (C.I.Q.) seems to be a promising and easily implemented, only few checkpoints currently use it; why there is little motivation, willingness and commitment to act toward the well-publicized goal. These constituted some of the major puzzles blocking the way toward tangible development in terms of the aforementioned physical and institutional infrastructure. Without coming to terms with poltical issues or the politics of international relations in the region, it is difficult to achieve progress in tangible infrastructure or the establishment of common mechanisms.

Especially when considering that politics among ASEAN members and their peoples’ attitudes govern the intention, commitment and willingness to cooperate in development projects and in providing efficient services for goods and people movement, the hardware and software aspect will not be put into full use without the building of mutual trust, mutual understanding and a region-oriented attitude among people. If the attitudes of practitioners and people in many countries of the region prioritize primarily the relative gains their nation can glean from regional integration – or worry about who will gain more – rather than the absolute or mutual gains, the competitive environment and mutual distrust will only undermine further integration in infrastructure, let alone the aspiration for community-building. This difficult issue, despite sporadic mention in the seminar discussions, will pose another challenge for the ROK to show its stance. In addition to the tangible contribution in materials it can readily provide, how it will engage in the third people-to-people and political dimension required to achieve ASEAN Connectivity will be critical.

49

�

T nnex

�

50

�

51

�

Seminar Program

08.30-09.00 Registration 09.00-09.10 Welcome remarks by H.E. Mr. Chung Hae Moon, Ambassador, The Embassy of the Republic of Korea inBangkok 09.10-09.15 Welcome remarks by Asst.Prof.Dr.M.R. Kalaya Tingsabadh,

Vice President, Chulalongkorn University 09.15-09.30 Introductory Remarks by Ambassador Pradap Pibulsonggram,

Thai Representative to ASEAN HighLevel Task Force on Connectivity, Ministry of Foreign Affairs

09.30-10.30 Session I: An Overview of ASEAN Connectivity and Its Infrastructure

09.30-09.50 Dr. Jean-Pierre Verbiest, Country Director, Thailand Resident Mission, ADB

- Topic: “the potential and problem of ASAEN Connectivity for regional development”

09.50-10.10 Dr. Nagesh Kumar, Director of Macro Economic Policy and Development Division, ESCAP

- Topic: “the strategic implication of ASEAN Connectivity for the wide Asia-Pacific”

10.10-10.30 Dr. Somsak Pipoppinyo, Director of ASEAN Infrastructure, ASEAN Secretariat - Topic: “ASEAN Connectivity and the practical engagement of ASEAN Dialogue partners”

Moderator: Assoc. Prof. Dr. Suthiphand Chirathivat, Chairman, Chula Global Network

10.30-10.50 Tea/Coffee break 10.50-12.30 Session 2: Hard infrastructure In the Mekong Region 10.50-11.10 Mr. Pierre Chartier, Economic Affairs Officer, Transport Division,

UN-ESCAP - Topic: “ASEAN connectivity in hard infrastructure”

11.10-11.30 Dr. Rattannatay Luanglatbandith, ADB Expert - Topic: “the current status and next steps of GMS flagship projects (North-South/East-West / South-South Economic Corridors)”

11.30-11.50 Dr. Na Hee Seung, Director General, Korea Railroad Research Institute (KRRI)

- Topic: “Current Status of Trans Korean Railway Transportation and its application toROK-ASEAN Railway Cooperation”

52

�

11.50-12.10 Mr. Arkom Termpittayapaisith, Deputy Secretary-General, National Economic and SocialDevelopment Board (NESDB)

-Topic: “Thailand Strategy on ASEAN Connectivity in hard infrastructure”

12.10-13.00 Discussion Moderator: Mr. John Moon,

Chief of Transport Policy and Development Section, UN-ESCAP 13.00-14.00 Lunch 14.00-18.00 Session 3: Soft infrastructure In the Mekong Region 14.00-14.20 Dr. Ishida Masami, Senior Researcher, Bangkok Research Center, Institute of DevelopmentEconomics(IDE) JETRO

- Topic: “Cross Border Transport Agreement (CBTA) and Trade Facilitation”

14.20-14.40 Dr. Taihyeong Lee, the Korea Transport Institute - Topic: “Korean Perspective on Korea-ASEAN transport cooperation”

14.40-15.00 Asst.Prof. Dr. Charit Tingsabadh, Director of Centre for European Studies, Chulalongkorn University

- Topic: “ASEAN connectivity: EU Experience” 15.00-15.20 Mr. Zhang Shujie, Technical Attaché, WCO Asia-Pacific regional office of Capacity Building (ROCB)

-Topic: “Harmonization development of Customs procedureand best practices”

15.20-15.40 Assoc. Prof. Dr. Ruth Banomyong, Director, Centre for Logistic Research, Thammasat University

- Topic: “ASEAN logistics” 15.40-16.00 Tea/Coffee break 16.00-18.00 Discussion Moderator: Assoc. Prof. Dr. Ruth Banomyong,

Department of International Business, Logistics& Transport 19.00-21.00 Dinner hosted by H.E. Mr. Chung Hae Moon, Ambassador, the Embassy of the Republic of Korea inBangkok

53

�

Photo Gallery

H.E. Mr. Chung Hae Moon, Korean Ambassador, Prof. MR. Kalaya Tingsabadh,CU Vice-President and H.E. Mr. Pradap Pibulsonggram, Thai Representative to ASEAN High Level

Task Force on Connectivity, honored moderators and participants

Scene in the seminar

2

54

�

Prof. Suthiphand Chirathivat, Chairman, Chula Global Network, and Dr. Itti Ditbanjong Director-General, Department of ASEAN Affairs

A Group photo of Korean Representatives to the Seminar

55

�

(From left to right) Dr. Itti Ditbanjong, Prof. Suthiphand Chirathivat,Prof. MR. Kalaya Tingsabadhand Dr. Jean-Pierre Verbiest

Prof. Charit Tingsabadh, Director, Centre for European Studies, Chulalongkorn University and participants

56

�

During Coffee break

H.E. Mr. Chung Hae Moon discussing with H.E. .Pradap Pibulsonggram

57

�

Dr. Nagesh Kumar, Director of Macro Economic Policy and Development Division, ESCAP having coffee break with Mr. Suchart Liangsaengthong, Director of the ASEAN. Division 3

H.E. Mr. Chung Hae Moon talking with Mr. Kavi Chongkittavorn, Executive Editor, The Nation

58

�

H.E. Mr. Chung Hae Moon discussing with participants from the Embassy of Korea

Ms. Siriphan Jitprasithsiri (left), Director of International Highways Development Division, Bureau of International Highways Cooperation and Mr. Voravuth Mala (right), Director,

Marketing Dept., State Railway of Thailand

59

�

H.E. Mr. Chung Hae Moon discussing with two speakers, Dr. Nagesh Kumar(left) and

Dr. Jean-Pierre Verbiest(right)

(Second from the left) Dr. Somsak Pipoppinyo, Director of ASEAN Infrastructure, ASEAN Secretariat, invited as a speaker for the Seminar

60

�

Prof. Charit Tingsabadh and lecturers from Chulalongkorn University

Dr. Jean-Pierre Verbiest (left) and Dr. Nagesh Kumar (right)

61

�

Biography

Arkhom Termpittayapaisith

He is currently Chief Information Officer (CIO), Chief Parliamentary and Liaison Officer and Deputy Secretary- General1 at Office of the National Economic and Social Development Board (NESDB), Thailand. His present works also include Board of Directors, CAT Telecommunications Public Company Limited, Board of Directors, Airports of Thailand Public Company Limited, Board of Directors, The Electricity Generation Authority of Thailand, Board of

Directors, Thailand Assets Management Corporation, Executive Board of Directors, National Electronics and Computer Technology Center, Council Member of the Royal Police Cadet Academy, Advisor to the Economic Committee, Thai Chamber of Commerce, Advisor to the Academic Committee, The Federation of Thai Industries. Previously Mr. Termpittayapaisith was Senior Adviser in Policy and Plan, Assistant Secretary-General at NESDB, Policy and Plan Analyst 9 (Expert in Policy and Plan), Director at Economic Analysis and Projection Division, Chief of Technical Planning Section at Economic Analysis and Projection Division, of Input-Output Section at National Accounts Division at NESDB and of Industrial Planning Section, Economic Projects Division at NESDB. He received his B.A. in Economics at Thammasat University, Thailand and his M.A. in Development Economics at Williams College, USA.

������������������������������������������������������������1 Effective from 1 October 2010, He has been nominated as Secretary-General at Office of the National Economic and Social Development Board (NESDB)

62

�

Charit Tingsabadh (Ph.D.)

He is currently Director of Centre for European Studies, Chulalongkorn University. He was former Economist of Regional Division, National Economic and Social Development Board, Bangkok Thailand, Lecturer of Faculty of Economics at Chulalongkorn University where he also served as the Assistant Director of Social Research Institute, Assistant Professor of Faculty of Economics, Deputy Director of Social Research Institute, and Deputy Director of Environmental Research Institute.

Asst. Prof. Dr. Tingsabadh has written and published widely on several issues, including “An Evaluation of Econometric Models for Thailand and an Optimal Control Experiment” (1974), “The Location of Manufacturing Industry in Thailand,1972-1976” (1981), “Industrial Development in Southern Thailand” (1981), “Study of Economic and Industrial Potential in Northern Thailand” (1981), “Research Needs Concerning Decentralized Urbanization in Thailand” (1982), “The Mobility of Bangkok Manufacturing Enterprises with respect to the Eastern Seaboard” (1983). “ A Macroeconomic Model of Bangkok” (1983), “Social Forestry Research Issues: Preliminary Problem Identification in Sisaket Province, Northeast Thailand”(1986), “Food-Energy Interrelationship: A Case Study of Thailand” (1986). He received his B.A. in Economic Tripos at Magdlene College, Cambridge University, U.K., his M.Soc.Sci.(National Economic Planning) at Birmingham University, U.K. and Ph.D. in Development Planning at University College London, London University, U.K.

63

�

Hee-Seung Na (Ph.D.)

He is currently Head of Transcontinental Railway Research Department, Korea Railroad Research Institute and Adjunct Professor at Graduate School of Railroad, Seoul National University of Technology. More than a decade of experience working, he has also served several positions, after obtaining M.S. and Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering, KAIST, Korea and D.E.P.S.U.P. in Physics, University of Poitiers, France, such as Director, Korea Logistic Forum,

Advisory Committee Member of Korea Rail Network Authority, Expert of Russia & Northeast Asia of Korea Institute for International Economic Policy and Advisor to Presidential Committee on Northeast Asian Cooperation Initiative, respectively. Furthermore, Dr. Na has studied and authored numerous research papers, including ‘A study on the master plan of Trans-Korean and Trans-Continental railway for multilateral cooperation in Northeast Asia’(2008) and ‘A study on Policy and Technology for Advancing the Korean High-Speed Railroad System into Foreign Market’ (2007).

64

�

John R. Moon (Ph.D.)

He is native English currently working at United Nations ESCAP as Chief, Transport Policy and Development Section, Transport Division including a new position Officer-in-Charge, a.i., Transport Infrastructure Section Transport and Tourism Division. Professional working experience more than two decades at UN-ESCAP, he is a keen economist in term of Transport and Tourism field. Formerly, he was Director at RPT Economic Studies Group in London and Senior Project Manager at Maritime Economic Research Centre (MARIN) in Rotterdam. Mr. Moon obtained a Master Degree (Economics), University of Cambridge in 1976 and completed his Ph.D. at John Moores University at Liverpool, England in 1983.

65

�

Ishida Masami (Ph.D.) He is currently Senior Researcher at Bangkok Research Center, IDE-JETRO. Previously he worked at Fuyo Data Processing & Systems Developing, Ltd. (Research& Developing Institute) in 1985-89, at the Fuji Research Institute Corporation (Research and Development Division and Research and Engineering Technology Division) in 1989-90 after the merger, as a Special Assistant of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs at the Embassy of Japan in Malaysia in 1990-92, joined the IDE (Economic Forecast Statistics Division in the Statistics Research

Department) in 1993, as an Overseas Research Fellow in Jakarta, Indonesia, at Department of Economic Development Analysis, Inter-Disciplinary Studies Center, Development Studies Center and International Exchange and Training Department, then he has been assigned at Bangkok Research Center, IDE-JETRO since 2009. Dr. Ishida has authored and contributed to a number of reports on issues of development, including “Comparing Investment Climates among Major Cities in CLMV countries”(2010), “GMS economic Cooperation and Its Impact on CLMV Development” (2008), Evaluating the Effectiveness of GMS Economic Corridors: Why is There More Focus on the Bangkok-Hanoi Road than the East-West Corridors?”(2007), “Effectiveness and Challenges of Three Economic Corridors of the Greater Mekong Sub-region”(2005). He received his B.A. in arts from Faculty of Law, Political Science Development Department, Seikei University, his M.A. from the Graduate School of Management Science and Public Policy Studies, the University of Tsukuba and his Ph.D., the Doctor of Economics from University of Indonesia.

66

�

Jean-Pierre Verbiest (Ph.D.)

He is the first Country Director of Asian Development Bank’s Thailand Resident Mission. After completing his B.A. in Economics from the University of Mons, M.A. in Economics and Econometrics from the Free Univesity of Brussels and Ph.D. from Oxford Universty, Mr. Verbiest began his career as an Academic, Teaching and Researching at the universities of Mons (Belgium), Lille (France), Oxford (United Kingdom), and Teheran (Iran). He also worked as Consultant for the Central Bank of Belgium and Iran. In addition, Mr. Verbiest

was former Assistant Chief Economist (Macroeconomic and Finance research), Economics and Research Department of ADB, Economist/Econometrician in the Economics and Department Resource Center, Senior Economist for Pakistan and Head of ADB in Viet Nam. Prior to ADB, Mr. Verbiest worked at the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) in Bangkok. Currently, he leads the Resident Mission in further enhancing ADB’s presence in Thailand and helps strengthen its operational activities in the region.

67

�

Kate Mun

She is currently Director at Overseas Business Division, Korea Logistics Network Corp.and Special Consultant to IMO, Republic of Korea. She was former Overseas Marketing and Sales manager at NEOMTEL Co., Ltd., Republic of Korea, Marketing and Sales Manager at LG CYON, Republic of Korea and Market Researcher at EDIK International Inc., Canada.

Ms. Mun has numerous professional experiences including “Regional Seminar/Workshop on the Electronic Means of the Clearance of Ships and the Use of Single Window Concept” in Republic of Korea, “National Single Window for Vessel and Cargo Clearance System” in Egypt/South Africa, “International Cooperation Program for Port Management Information System” in Republic of Korea, “Proposal of Tanzania Port Community System for Trade Logistics Project” in Tanzania, “The Development of a Database of Maritime Trade Movements To and From Within ASEAN”, Philippines/Indonesia/Vietnam, “Regional Seminar/Workshop on the Electronic Means for the Clearance of Ships and the Use of Single Window Concept”, Vietnam, “Electronic Means for Clearance of Ships based on Single Window and UNeDocs”, United Kingdom, “Modernization of Port Management Information System Project”, Guatemala, “Modernization of Port Management Information System Project”, Philippines.

68

�

Nagesh Kumar(Ph.D.)

He is Chief Economist and Director, Macroeconomic Policy and Development Division, UN-ESCAP, Bangkok. During 2002-May 2009, Dr Kumar was Director-General of Research and Information System for Developing Countries (RIS), a New Delhi-based public-funded, development policy think-tank. He has also served on the faculty of the United Nations University-Institute for New Technologies, Maastricht, the Netherlands (1993-98). Dr Kumar has served on the boards of the Export-Import Bank of India, the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD), Geneva; the South Asia Centre for Policy Studies (SACEPS),

Kathmandu; and the Institute of Studies in Industrial Development, New Delhi, He has served as a consultant to the World Bank, Asian Development Bank, UNCTAD, UNIDO, UN-DESA, among others and chaired regional study groups on liberalization of trade in services in South Asia and on infrastructure development in the East Asia Summit member countries. A PhD in Economics from the Delhi School of Economics (1988), Dr Kumar is recipient of the Exim Bank of India’s first International Trade Research Award in 1989 and a Global Development Network’s Research Medal in 2000. Dr Kumar has researched extensively on economic and development policy related issues especially theirinternational dimensions, resulting into 15 books and over 90 research papers in international and national peer reviewed publications. His recent books include: Asia’s New Regionalism and Global Role (ISEAS, Singapore, 2008); International Competitiveness and Knowledge-based Industries in India (Oxford University Press, 2007); Towards an Asian Economic Community (ISEAS, Singapore and New Delhi: 2005); Globalization and the Quality of Foreign Direct Investment (Oxford University Press, 2002).

69

�

Pierre Chartier

He started his career in transport in the French National Railways where he held a number of management positions at the operational as well as planning levels. He later became a consultant working on various projects financed by major international institutions (Asian Development Bank, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, World Bank) dealing with railway restructuring and the definition of operating plans aimed at developing container transportation through block trains. He joined the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific in 1999 as Economic

Affairs Officer. In his UN position he deals primarily with issues relating to the development and operationalization of international rail corridors. His recent work focused on the development of an “Intergovernmental Agreement on the Trans-Asian Railway Network” as a blue print for a collaborative approach to railway development by member countries as well as international financial institutions. The current focus of his work is to promote the role of rail transport as a main component of an international integrated intermodal transport system covering the Asian continent.

70

�

Rattanatay Luanglatbandith (Ph.D.)

He is currently Regional Cooperation Economics at Asian Development Bank (ADB), Thailand Resident Mission. Prior to working as a Regional Economist in ADB Thailand Resident Mission in the capacity of a team member of the Greater Mekong Subregion (GMS) trade and transport facilitation program with focus on strengthening GMS Business Forum,value chain study and business support,

Dr. Luanglatbandith used to work in ADB Lao Resident Mission as a Senior Economics Officer, having extensive experience in preparing country strategy and program preparing country performance assessment, thematic works in economics, finance, governance and trade, regional cooperation and poverty. After graduated in his first honor degree, he worked for the State Planning Committee, Ministry of Economy Planning and Finance of the Government of Lao PDR for more than ten years before joining ADB. Based on his broad and profound experience as consultant and socio-economist, he attended many missions and international conferences and published many papers on population, impact evaluation of rural development, impact of economic corridors mostly in GMS region. Dr. Luanglatbandith received his Ph.D. and MA. in Demography (socio-economist) from the Australian National University and his B.A. in Economics and Statistics from Patna University, India.

71

�

Ruth Banomyong(Ph.D.)

Ruth is currently an associate professor in the Department of International Business, Logistics and Transport Management at the Faculty of Commerce & Accountancy, Thammasat University in Thailand. He received his PhD in 2001, in the field of International Logistics within the Logistics & Operations Management Section (LOMS) at Cardiff Business School (UK). He was the winner of the James Cooper Cup in 2001 for the best PhD dissertation in logistics from the Chartered Institute of

Logistics & Transport (CILT) in the United Kingdom. Ruth’s main research interests are in the field of multimodal transport, international logistics and supply chain performance measurements. He has published over 70 papers and reports in such journals as International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, International Journal of Logistics Research and Application, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Journal of Applied Sciences, Maritime Policy and Management, among others, and he has co-authored 10 books. Since 1995, Ruth has been a consultant for international agencies such as the United Nations Conference on Trade & Development (UNCTAD), the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UN-ESCAP), The World Bank, The Asian Development Bank (ADB), The Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN), etc.

72

�

Somsak Pipoppinyo (Ph.D.)

He is native Thai currently working at the ASEAN Secretariat as the Director for Finance, Industry and Infrastructure under the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) Department. He assists and coordinates the efforts in realizing the AEC by 2015. Mr. Pipoppinyo is now leading a special team for the ASEAN Secretariat to assist the High Level Task Force on ASEAN Connectivity (HLTF-AC) for the conceptualization and development of the Master Plan on ASEAN Connectivity. Formerly he was Head of the Department of Fisheries Technology at Maejo

University, Chiang Mai, Thailand and also served as appointed/invited members in various Maejo University’s management and strategic Planning Boards/Committees. Mr. Pipoppinyo was awarded with the Royal Thai Government Scholarship from 1985 to 1991 for postgraduate study in the USA, where he completed his Ph.D. (Fisheries and Allied Aquaculture) at Auburn University 9Alabama) in 1991 and a Master Degree (Fisheries and Wildlife) at Oregon State University (Oregon) in 1987. He received his first degree in Fisheries Biology from Kasetsart University (Bangkok) in 1981. �

73

�

Suthiphand Chirathivat(Ph.D.)

He is an Associate Professor and Chairman, Chula Global Network and Associate Professor of Economics. He has also served as Former Dean of the Faculty of Economics at Chulalongkorn University, Chairman of Economics Research Centre and Centre for International Economics and editor of Chulalongkorn Journal of Economics. Concurrently, he held various professional positions including: Advisor to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Minister of Commerce, Minister of Finance, Deputy Minister of Transport and Communications and Economic Affairs Committee and also

Foreign Affairs Committee of the Thai Parliament. He was also Member of the APEC Panel of Independent Experts, Founding Member of the EU-LDC networks of the Netherlands Economic Institute and Member of the Triple-T Task Forces of the Pacific Economic Cooperation Council (PECC). He also served as President of the Association of Former Students in France, Thailand and Executive Member of the Economic Society of Thailand. Dr. Suthiphand held License en Sciences Economiques and Maitrise en Sciences Economiques, from Université d’ Aix-Marseille in France. Later on, Dr. Suthiphand received D.E.A. en Sciences Economiques from Université de Paris I-Pantheon-Sorbonne. Finally, he held Doctorate de 3 cycle es Sciences Economiques from the Université de Paris I-Pantheon-Sorbonne. In addition, he has recently been a member of Thailand’s Committee on International Economic Policy, and Corresponding Editor of Journal of Asian Economics, His more recent publications include East Asia’s Growth Practices (co-eds with Ng, Chee Yuan) (2009), EU-ASEAN Facing Economic Globalization, Integration in Asia and Europe (co-eds with Welfens, Knipping, Cilian, Springer) (2009) and (2006), respectively, Monetary Future: Integration in the Global Economy (co-eds) (2004), and “ASEAN-China FTA: Background, Implications and Future Development”, Journal of Asian Economics (2002).

74

�

Taihyeong Lee (Ph.D.)

He is currently Committee Member of Telecommunications and Travel Behavior (ADB20), Transportation Research Board (TRB) Washington D.C. He is a Research Fellow at Dept. of Logistics Research, the Korea Transport Institute, Korea. Before he got a Ph.D., he was anAssociate Research Fellow at Dept. of Logistics Research and Dept. of Logistics and Aviation Research, The Korea Transport Institute, Korea. When he was in the Ph.D. program, he was a Research Assistant at Institute of Transportation Research, University of California at Davis, U.S.A., and a Teaching Assistant at the

same University. Further, he had an experience working as a Student Intern at Transportation System Information (TSI), Headquarter of Caltrans (California Department of Transportation), State of California, U.S.A. In addition, Dr. Lee has authored numerous research papers, including ‘Correlations between industrial demands (direct and total) for communications and transportation in the U.S. economy’, 1947-1997(2008), ‘Relationship between U.S. consumer expenditures on communications and transportation using Almost Ideal Demand System modeling: 1984-2002’ (2007), ‘Industry-specific correlations between the demand for transportation and communications in the U.S. economy, 1974-1997’ (2007), ‘Do transportation and communications tend to be substitutes, complements, or neither? ‘(2007), ‘Relationship between total industrial demands for communications and transportation: An I-O analysis for the U.S., 1947-1997’ (2006), ‘Relationship between U.S. consumer expenditures on communications and transportation using almost ideal demand system modeling: 1984-2002’ (2006), ‘Correlations between communications and transportation inputs to U.S. Industry, 1947-1997’ (2005), ‘Freight Terminal Site Selection Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process: A Case Study on the Chungbu Freight Terminal (2001). He graduated from Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California at Davis (UC Davis) where he received his Ph.D. in Transportation Planning.

75

�

Zhang Shujie

He joined the World Customs Organization (WCO) Asia Pacific Regional Office for Capacity Building (ROCB) in 2007 as technical attaché seconded by China Customs. As a regional arm of the WCO, ROCB helps 33 Customs administrations in the region to enhance their effectiveness and efficiency. As an experienced member of ROCB, Mr. Zhang has been actively involved in a wide range of capacity building activities like conducting Customs modernization diagnosis missions, organizing regional and national workshop, developing best

practice report and etc. He boasts solid knowledge, expertise in Customs administration, trade regulation and trade facilitation, border management both at policy and operational level. He has represented ROCB and/or WCO in various international and regional fora to present on prevalent Customs topics like trade security and facilitation, time release study, WCO trade facilitation tools and etc. Academically, Mr. Zhang is studying the Ph.D. program on public policy and administration in Thailand National Institution of Development Administration. He has published several research papers on UN publication and World Customs Journal. Before joining ROCB, Mr. Zhang served in China Customs. His main responsibility was in charge of international Customs cooperation, research and training programs.