I:\MEPC\46\23.DOC

For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not to request additional copies.

INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION

IMO

E

MARINE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION COMMITTEE 46th session Agenda item 23

MEPC 46/23 16 May 2001 Original: ENGLISH

REPORT OF THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION COMMITTEE ON ITS FORTY-SIXTH SESSION

Section Paragraph Nos. Page No. 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 – 1.45 4 2 CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO MANDATORY INSTRUMENTS 2.1 – 2.70 13 3 HARMFUL AQUATIC ORGANISMS IN BALLAST WATER 3.1 – 3.25 23 4 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE OPRC CONVENTION AND THE OPRC-HNS PROTOCOL AND RELEVANT CONFERENCE RESOLUTIONS 4.1 – 4.13 29 5 HARMFUL EFFECTS OF THE USE OF ANTI-FOULING PAINTS FOR SHIPS 5.1 – 5.69 32 6 IDENTIFICATION AND PROTECTION OF SPECIAL AREAS AND PARTICULARLY SENSITIVE SEA AREAS 6.1 – 6.22 42 7 RECYCLING OF SHIPS 7.1 – 7.19 45 8 INTERPRETATION AND AMENDMENTS OF MARPOL 73/78 AND RELATED CODES 8.1 – 8.11 49 9 INADEQUACY OF RECEPTION FACILITIES 9.1 – 9.7 51 10 PREVENTION OF AIR POLLUTION FROM SHIPS 10.1 – 10.20 51

MEPC 46/23 - 2 -

I:\MEPC\46\23.DOC

Section Paragraph Nos. Page No. 11 REPORTS OF SUB-COMMITTEES 11.1 – 11.6 54 12 WORK OF OTHER BODIES 12.1 – 12.21 56 13 PROMOTION OF IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF MARPOL 73/78 AND RELATED CODES 13.1 – 13.9 60 14 PREPARATION OF RIO + 10 14.1 – 14.9 61 15 INF CODE RELATED MATTERS 15.1 – 15.4 63 16 THE ROLE OF HUMAN ELEMENT WITH REGARD TO POLLUTION PREVENTION 16.1 – 16.4 63 17 MATTERS RELATED TO THE 1973 INTERVENTION PROTOCOL 17.1 – 17.4 64 18 STATUS OF CONVENTIONS 18.1 – 18.2 64 19 APPLICATION OF THE COMMITTEES’ GUIDELINES 19.1 – 19.4 65 20 WORK PROGRAMME OF THE COMMITTEE AND SUBSIDIARY BODIES 20.1 – 20.28 65 21 ELECTION OF THE CHAIRMAN AND THE VICE CHAIRMAN FOR 2002 21.1 70 22 ANY OTHER BUSINESS 22.1 – 22.5 70

ANNEXES

ANNEX 1 AGENDA FOR THE FORTY-SIXTH SESSION INCLUDING LIST OF

DOCUMENTS ANNEX 2 RESOLUTION MEPC.94(46) – CONDITION ASSESSMENT SCHEME ANNEX 3 RESOLUTION MEPC.95(46) – AMENDMENTS TO THE ANNEX OF THE

PROTOCOL OF 1978 RELATING TO THE INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE PREVENTION OF POLLUTION FROM SHIPS, 1973

- 3 - MEPC 46/23

I:\MEPC\46\23.DOC

ANNEX 4 PROVISION OF SHELTERED WATERS FOR SHIPS IN DISTRESS FROM

THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION PERSPECTIVE ANNEX 5 DRAFT TEXT OF THE INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION ON THE

CONTROL OF HARMFUL ANTI-FOULING SYSTEMS (AS MODIFIED BY MEPC 46)

ANNEX 6 DRAFT ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION – GUIDELINES FOR THE

DESIGNATION OF SPECIAL AREAS UNDER MARPOL 73/78 AND GUIDELINES FOR THE IDENTIFICATION AND DESIGNATION OF PARTICULARLY SENSITIVE SEA AREAS

ANNEX 7 AMENDMENTS TO THE DRAFT REPORT OF THE INTERNATIONAL

MARITIME ORGANIZATION TO THE COMMISSION ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IN CONNECTION WITH RIO+10 (MEPC 46/14)

ANNEX 8 LONG-TERM WORK PLAN OF THE MEPC (UP TO 2008) ANNEX 9 WORK PROGRAMMES OF THE BLG AND FSI SUB-COMMITTEES AND

PROVISIONAL AGENDAS FOR THEIR FORTHCOMING SESSIONS ANNEX 10 ITEMS OF THE WORK PROGRAMMES OF THE DSC, DE AND SLF

SUB-COMMITTEES RELEVANT TO THE MEPC ANNEX 11 SUBSTANTIVE ITEMS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE AGENDAS FOR

MEPC 47, MEPC 48 AND MEPC 49 ANNEX 12 TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE CORRESPONDENCE GROUPS ANNEX 13 STATEMENTS BY DELEGATIONS

MEPC 46/23 - 4 -

I:\MEPC\46\23.DOC

1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 The forty-sixth session of the Marine Environment Protection Committee was held at IMO Headquarters from 23 to 27 April 2001 under the chairmanship of Mr. Michael Julian (Australia). 1.2 The session was attended by delegations from:

ALGERIA ANGOLA ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA ARGENTINA AUSTRALIA BAHAMAS BANGLADESH BARBADOS BELGIUM BRAZIL BULGARIA CANADA CHILE CHINA COLOMBIA CONGO CUBA CYPRUS DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF KOREA DENMARK DOMINICA ECUADOR EGYPT ESTONIA FINLAND FRANCE GABON GERMANY GHANA GREECE HONDURAS ICELAND INDIA INDONESIA IRAN (ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF) IRELAND ISRAEL ITALY JAMAICA JAPAN LATVIA

LIBERIA LITHUANIA LUXEMBURG MALAYSIA MALTA MARSHALL ISLANDS MAURITANIA MEXICO MONACO NETHERLANDS NEW ZEALAND NIGERIA NORWAY OMAN PAKISTAN PANAMA PERU PHILIPPINES POLAND PORTUGAL REPUBLIC OF KOREA ROMANIA RUSSIAN FEDERATION SAINT VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES SAUDI ARABIA SINGAPORE SOUTH AFRICA SPAIN SWEDEN SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC THAILAND TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO TUNISIA TURKEY UKRAINE UNITED KINGDOM UNITED STATES URUGUAY VANUATU VENEZUELA

- 5 - MEPC 46/23

I:\MEPC\46\23.DOC

by representatives from the following Associate Member of IMO: HONG KONG, CHINA MACAU, CHINA by representatives from the following United Nations and Specialized Agencies:

UNITED NATIONS (UN) UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE (UNFCCC) UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME (UNEP) INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANIZATION (ILO)

by observers from the following intergovernmental organizations: EUROPEAN COMMISSION (EC)

BALTIC MARINE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION COMMISSION (HELSINKI COMMISSION) LEAGUE OF ARAB STATES REGIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT (ROPME) SOUTH PACIFIC REGIONAL ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME (SPREP) INTERNATIONAL MOBILE SATELLITE ORGANIZATION (IMSO)

and by observers from the following non-governmental organizations:

INTERNATIONAL CHAMBER OF SHIPPING (ICS) INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR STANDARDIZATION (ISO) INTERNATIONAL UNION OF MARINE INSURANCE (IUMI) INTERNATIONAL CONFEDERATION OF FREE TRADE UNIONS (ICFTU) INTERNATIONAL NAVIGATION ASSOCIATION (PIANC) INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF PORTS AND HARBORS (IAPH) BALTIC AND INTERNATIONAL MARITIME COUNCIL (BIMCO) INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CLASSIFICATION SOCIETIES (IACS) INTERNATIONAL CARGO HANDLING CO-ORDINATION ASSOCIATION (ICHCA)

EUROPEAN CHEMICAL INDUSTRY COUNCIL (CEFIC) OIL COMPANIES INTERNATIONAL MARINE FORUM (OCIMF) INTERNATIONAL MARITIME PILOTS’ ASSOCIATION (IMPA) FRIENDS OF THE EARTH INTERNATIONAL (FOEI) INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF THE INSTITUTES OF NAVIGATION (IAIN) INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF SHIPMASTERS' ASSOCIATIONS (IFSMA) INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF OIL AND GAS PRODUCERS (OGP) ASSOCIATION OF EUROPEAN SHIPBUILDERS AND SHIPREPAIRERS (AWES) INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF INDEPENDENT TANKER OWNERS (INTERTANKO) INTERNATIONAL TANKER OWNERS POLLUTION FEDERATION LIMITED (ITOPF) INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR CONSERVATION OF NATURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES (IUCN)

MEPC 46/23 - 6 -

I:\MEPC\46\23.DOC

SOCIETY OF INTERNATIONAL GAS TANKER AND TERMINAL OPERATORS LTD (SIGTTO) GREENPEACE INTERNATIONAL INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL OF CRUISE LINES (ICCL) INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF DRY CARGO SHIPOWNERS (INTERCARGO) WORLD WIDE FUND FOR NATURE (WWF) ASSOCIATION OF EUROPEAN MANUFACTURERS OF INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES (EUROMOT) INTERNATIONAL PETROLEUM INDUSTRY ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION (IPIECA) THE INSTITUTE OF MARINE ENGINEERS (IME) INTERNATIONAL SHIP MANAGERS' ASSOCIATION (ISMA) INTERNATIONAL PARCEL TANKERS ASSOCIATION (IPTA) INTERNATIONAL SAILING FEDERATION (ISAF) THE INTERNATIONAL MARINE CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION (IMCA) INTERNATIONAL OCEAN INSTITUTE (IOI) WORLD NUCLEAR TRANSPORT INSTITUTE (WNTI) INTERNATIONAL HARBOUR MASTERS’ ASSOCIATION (IHMA)

The Chairman of the Maritime Safety Committee (MSC), Mr. T. Allan (United Kingdom), the Chairman of the Technical Co-operation Committee (TCC), Captain M.U. Ahmed (Bangladesh), the Chairman of the Facilitation Committee (FAL), Mr. L. Barchue, Sr. (Liberia), the Chairman of the Sub-Committee of the Ship Design and Equipment (DE), Mr. A. Chrysostomou (Cyprus) and the Chairman of the Sub-Committee on Bulk Liquids and Gases (BLG), Mr. Z. Alam (Singapore). 1.3 The Chairman noted that this was the first opportunity since the sudden and tragic loss last month of Giuliano Pattofatto, the previous Chairman of MSC, to formally send the Committee’s sincere sympathy to Giuliano Pattofatto’s family. The Committee spent a few moments in silence, reflecting on Giuliano Pattofatto, his personal characteristics and his valuable contribution to IMO. 1.4 The Secretary-General welcomed participants and stated that this session of the Committee had to deal with a number of very important issues: The proposed amendments to regulation 13G of MARPOL Annex I together with the associated Condition Assessment Scheme would be considered with a view to adoption, the draft International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-fouling Systems would be reviewed in order to ensure a successful diplomatic conference in October this year, and substantive headway should be made towards developing the new instrument on ballast water management. 1.5 The Secretary-General stated that public awareness of the marine environment and the damage caused by oil carried by tankers had never been so acute as it is today. During the past 16 months after the sinking of the Erika, the entire membership of IMO and the world maritime community had been repeatedly troubled by a series of maritime accidents involving tankers, including the Ievoli Sun, the Castor, the Kristal, and only a few weeks ago, the collision of the Baltic Carrier with the Tern, spilling thousands of tons of heavy fuel oil into the Baltic Sea. 1.6 The Secretary-General stated that while the statistics may show that accident rates and the number of both total losses and oil spills had been declining over the years, public perception is to the contrary. Generally speaking, the safety measures established under the SOLAS

- 7 - MEPC 46/23

I:\MEPC\46\23.DOC

Convention and the operational practices under the MARPOL Convention were having a positive effect and IMO should be satisfied with this general trend that was taking place. But the catastrophic damage resulting from an oil spill accident, whatever the cause, continued to be a focus of concern of the general public and politicians. The serious accidents that had taken place since the Erika disaster and the wide coverage of those accidents in both the maritime and non-maritime media confirmed that the shipping industry had a long way to go to be convincing in its claim that an improvement in safety and a reduction in pollution had been achieved. Therefore IMO must face the problems in the current system of surveys and maintenance. The quality of ageing tanker fleets, surveys and repair works, the role of classification societies and the responsibilities of flag State administrations were clearly on the agenda of the MEPC and the MSC. 1.7 The Secretary-General referred to the preliminary findings of the investigations into the Erika incident carried out by the French Government and the Maltese maritime authority which concluded that age, corrosion, insufficient maintenance and inadequate surveys were all strong contributing factors to the structural failure of the ship. There was a wide consensus among Member Governments that the Erika and other recent accidents involving oil tankers require additional international measures to eradicate substandard vessels, particularly substandard oil tankers given the catastrophic impact such ships may have on the marine environment in the case of an accident. 1.8 The Secretary-General noted that statements and developments in Europe following the sinking of the Erika had indicated the real possibility of regional or unilateral action being taken. He therefore considered that it was necessary to reiterate the firm position which he had stated on various occasions in the past that IMO should, always and without exception, be regarded as the only forum where safety and pollution prevention standards affecting international shipping should be considered and adopted. Regional or unilateral action would be detrimental to international shipping, to the international regulatory regime and to the functioning of IMO itself and, therefore, must be avoided. 1.9 The Secretary-General stated that IMO had demonstrated quite clearly in the past that it can respond to the needs of Member Governments and the world shipping community. To deal with the fallout from the Erika he had therefore worked out a schedule, following consultations with the Chairmen of the MEPC and MSC, which advanced the date of this session of the MEPC so that any amendments adopted now could be put into force in September next year, which is the earliest possible time permitted under the MARPOL Convention. The adoption of the proposed amendments to MARPOL regulation 13G would reaffirm IMO’s position as the proper forum for dealing with complex technical, economic and political issues concerning international shipping, where significant differences in viewpoints can be resolved and a solution found that is acceptable to all. 1.10 The Secretary-General recalled that MEPC 45 had noted the outcome of the impact study of the proposed phasing-out scheme of single hull oil tankers, which was carried out by experts at no cost to the Organization. Based on the results of that study and taking into account the world shipbuilding and ship scrapping capabilities, MEPC 45 had approved a revised text of amendments to regulation 13G, with a view to its adoption at this session. The MEPC Intersessional Working Group which had met last January had made significant progress in the preparation of the Condition Assessment Scheme for consideration with a view to adoption at this session, as part of the proposed amendments to MARPOL.

MEPC 46/23 - 8 -

I:\MEPC\46\23.DOC

1.11 The Secretary-General mentioned that a framework of the MARPOL amendments had been well prepared but there were still some issues which must be resolved and the MEPC was now invited to strike the right balance between the various technical, environmental, commercial and political considerations involved and to come to an agreement on the amendments to MARPOL. 1.12 The Secretary-General stated that the task ahead would require the usual spirit of co-operation, and that he trusted that the Committee would succeed in reaching a compromise solution by consensus so that the final product would advance the cause of safety and the protection of the marine environment and that the credibility and authority of IMO would be maintained in the best interests of all parties involved. 1.13 The Secretary-General went on to state that the harmful effects of the use of anti-fouling paints for ships has been a priority issue on the agenda of the Committee for a number of years and MEPC 45 had decided that a conference to adopt a new convention should be convened this year. This was therefore the last meeting of the Committee before the International Conference on the Control of Harmful Anti-fouling Systems for Ships in October this year. The Committee must address a number of outstanding issues in the draft Convention and refine certain articles which were approved at MEPC 45 in order to pave the way for a successful conference. 1.14 The Secretary-General stated that another very important item was ballast water management. The introduction of non-indigenous organisms and their harmful effects on the marine environment had been reported from many regions of the world and this issue had been identified as one of the four greatest threats to the world's oceans. It was now estimated that every nine weeks a foreign marine species was introduced to a new environment somewhere in the world, which can have severe ecological, economic, and even human health implications. It was not an isolated problem unique to some regions of the world but a matter that the shipping industry must face and resolve satisfactorily, without compromising the safety of ships. 1.15 The Secretary-General noted that, since 1993, the Committee had been actively working towards the development of a convention that would deal with this problem. This work was now reaching the point where planning for a diplomatic conference in 2003 to adopt an instrument should be considered. Only by establishing an effective global ballast water management regime could IMO fulfill its role of protecting the environment and at the same time discourage unilateral action being taken. As only three sessions of the Committee were scheduled before the proposed the diplomatic conference, the development during this session of a very clear work plan with realistic and tangible deadlines would be essential. 1.16 The Secretary-General stated that ballast water exchange was currently the only practicable method available but it was recognized as being only an interim solution, since new technologies are emerging based on recent research and findings. The Ballast Water Working Group had identified the need for alternative methods and to help address this situation, the First International Symposium on Ballast Water Treatment had been held at IMO a month ago under the Globallast Programme, and this was immediately followed by an expert workshop on ballast water treatment standards. The Secretary-General hoped that the outcome of the Symposium and the workshop would be helpful to the Committee when the issue of standards was addressed. 1.17 With regard to the issue of ship recycling, the Secretary-General stated that ships must be recycled in an environmentally friendly manner and under appropriate safety standards and guidelines. The Committee would consider this complicated matter based on the report of the correspondence group which was established two sessions ago. The Basel Convention and the

- 9 - MEPC 46/23

I:\MEPC\46\23.DOC

International Labour Organization must be involved in establishing international guidelines for ships recycling and the MEPC should focus its effort on the role of international shipping while at the same time acting as a co-ordinator for the different parties, including the Consultative Meeting of the London Convention. 1.18 Turning to the OPRC Convention, the Secretary-General noted that, in accordance with the decision made at MEPC 45, the Third R&D Forum on High-density Oil Spill Response was planned for March next year in Brest, France. The Erika and the Baltic Carrier accidents had highlighted the inadequacy of present techniques to combat heavy oil spills and that there was a clear need for the research and development of new technology to deal with these products. The Secretary-General noted further that a steering committee would be organized during this session of the Committee to prepare for this Forum, including considering arrangements for financial assistance. 1.19 The Secretary-General stated that, in recent years, the Committee had expanded its scope to include issues of air pollution from ships, ballast water management, anti-fouling paints, particularly sensitive sea areas and, most recently, recycling of ships. The Committee had achieved significant improvements in the protection of the marine environment, while providing a stable international framework for the shipping industry. 1.20 The Secretary-General stated further that, while the Committee had its own agenda and work programme, it was important that the efforts should be seen and considered in the wider context of the global environment and sustainable development which would be discussed at the World Summit planned for next year. The Committee, therefore, would be invited to consider several important items under the agenda item “Rio + 10” including a report on IMO’s achievements in marine environment protection and maritime safety to CSD 10 for inclusion in the documentation for the World Summit. 1.21 The Secretary-General also advised the Committee of an innovative GEF/World Bank/IMO Project, referred to as the “Marine Electronic Highway Project”. The Project, which had just been launched, would include the Straits of Malacca and Singapore as the first demonstration site and would study the feasibility of using new marine information technology to improve the safe navigation of ships and protection of the marine environment through the area. It was expected that this phase of the Project would be concluded by the beginning of next year and therefore further information on it would be provided to the next session. 1.22 The Secretary-General noted that the Committee should apply the principle of the precautionary approach when considering new items but it was important that the priorities should be clearly defined in the long-term work plan. With regard to the draft terms of reference for the review of the structure of the Sub-Committees prepared by the Chairmen of the MEPC and MSC, the Secretary-General emphasized the importance of this exercise in order to enable the two Chairmen to submit appropriate proposals to the twenty-second session of the Assembly. 1.23 The delegation of Denmark fully endorsed the remarks made by the Secretary-General regarding the recent tanker accidents in Europe, including the recent collision in the Baltic. The collaboration on the response operation between the Swedish, German, and Danish vessels and authorities had functioned in the best way possible, and all oil at sea has now been picked up although some cleaning of beaches still remain. Denmark thanked those States for their assistance.

MEPC 46/23 - 10 -

I:\MEPC\46\23.DOC

1.24 The delegation of Denmark went on to state that following preliminary investigations, it appears that the accident was caused by a failure in the steering mechanism of the new oil tanker Baltic Carrier. To Denmark, this accident underlines that no matter how sophisticated the regulation of international shipping becomes, from time to time, accidents will inevitably happen. Nevertheless, Denmark thought that it is important to examine if anything can be done to ensure that ships carrying dangerous cargoes navigate safely in the Baltic region. The Danish Minister for Trade and Industry has therefore requested an extraordinary meeting of the Baltic States – within the framework of the Helsinki Commission – to be held in Copenhagen in September this year, during which a wide scope of possible measures will be considered. 1.25 The delegation of Denmark assured the Committee that no matter what measures may be considered as a consequence of this accident, IMO will be kept properly informed and attention will be duly paid to rules and regulations laid down by this Organization. 1.26 The delegation of Greece thanked the Secretary-General for his substantial and guiding remarks for the work of the Committee. The delegation went on to point out that, following thorough consideration of the proposed amendments to MARPOL regulation 13G, it was confident that the correct decisions, which the industry and the environment needs and the world maritime community expects, on this important issue can be reached by the Committee. 1.27 The delegation of Greece stated further that such decision would underline the utmost importance attached to this issue by the Organization, which would be adopted and brought into force in the shortest timeframe possible in order to bring forward the phase-out dates of single-hull tankers, thus avoiding any prospective that any other action is necessary to be taken, regionally or unilaterally. 1.28 The delegation of Greece also noted that an effective new regime regulating anti-fouling systems applying on ships is expected to be approved by the Diplomatic Conference in October this year and the obvious progress achieved towards developing of relevant Ballast Water Management Regulations with a view to adoption at a Diplomatic Conference to be held during the biennium 2002-2003. 1.29 The delegation of Italy stated that the Erika disaster has represented a wake-up call for the international community. The increased awareness of the dangers that the transport by sea of polluting materials poses to the marine environment has prompted IMO to act. The delegation noted that measures have been taken in this forum to deal with the aftermath of such events, and others are under discussion, however, it believed that more should be done on this side of preventing the occurrence of such events. This week, the Marine Environment Protection Committee would make important decisions on the proposed amendments to regulation 13G of MARPOL Annex I. 1.30 The delegation of Italy stated that concerns on the environment have now taken deep roots in Italy. In the past, when weighing the defence of the environment against the costs to the economy and the industry, the outcome was generally in favour of the latter. Now, these sentiments of public opinion, be it Italian or international, have changed. 1.31 Italy had been deeply shocked by the Erika incident and it believed that if such an accident had taken place in the Mediterranean or the Adriatic, the harmful consequences would be much more serious. The Italian public opinion expects the Italian Government to take appropriate actions. There will be costs involved for the shipyard industries and for the economy as a whole, but today they have to be weighed against the growing awareness that the

- 11 - MEPC 46/23

I:\MEPC\46\23.DOC

preservation of the environment is something that has to be pursued with greater determination. The public opinion is ready to pay more than in the past to achieve this objective. The delegation of Italy hoped that the MEPC would be able to meet these expectations. 1.32 Italy is in the front line of those countries that ask for more stringent rules in order to make tankers safer – therefore Italy staunchly supports amendments to regulation 13G of MARPOL Annex I with the objective to phase out single-hull tankers as soon as possible. The delegation of Italy stated that the conditions are not the same worldwide, therefore, a regime that is perfectly reasonable in the Mediterranean would have no sense in the Atlantic or Pacific Oceans. Different situations require different regimes. Denying the fact that the Mediterranean Sea is at particular risk of environmental disasters would be perceived by the Italian public opinion as a sign that IMO is not able to address this matter as expected. Therefore the MEPC should address this issue seriously and should demonstrate that IMO is capable of taking this matter into its own hands. Failure to do so would only play into the hands of those more radical sectors who believe that these objectives can be achieved independently from international co-operation. 1.33 The delegation of Italy stated that the Italian Government is committed to this cooperation in IMO and believed that only through cooperation can IMO deliver the necessary measures. 1.34 The delegation of Spain reiterated its deep concern on the issue of substandard oil tankers after having suffered during the last years spate of maritime accidents in its area of jurisdiction, which while it promoted the development of an effective national search and rescue capability for the benefit of the international community, nevertheless such accidents still caused the loss of human lives and costly damage to the marine environment. 1.35 After recalling that these casualties have occurred to ships of more than 20 years of age, the delegation of Spain expressed its strong view on the necessity and urgency of dealing with this problem to avoid further maritime casualties. To this effect and also in line with the proactive approach agreed by the Organization, the delegation invited all delegations to contribute to the objectives of this session of the Committee by seriously considering the text of amendments already approved by MEPC 45 and circulated by the Secretary-General, and in doing so to focus on technical questions rather than on other aspects which may cast a doubt on the capacity of the Organization to reach a favourable conclusion on this issue. 1.36 The delegation of France thanked the Secretary-General and his team for the work they have done to minimize marine pollution from ships.

1.37 The delegation of France went on to state that the French people are shocked by the damage to their environment by tanker accidents and they expect effective action to be taken as soon as possible. France have always urged to ensure that IMO should be the appropriate forum to discuss and decide on improvement of the maritime activities. France tried to find a consensus with European partners to adopt, during this session of the Committee, the necessary amendments to the MARPOL Convention. If the Committee fails to get a final decision, there will be serious disappointment, which would bring distrust in the maritime world and particularly in shipowners and administrations. Regarding the timetable of single-hull tankers ban, the delegation of France stated that it is in favour of Alternative A for Category 2 and Category 3 tankers, which means 2015.

MEPC 46/23 - 12 -

I:\MEPC\46\23.DOC

1.38 The delegation of France also informed the Committee that the pumping operations on the Ievoli Sun wreck have started. This operation was prepared together with the British authorities and the ship owner with the support of an expert group. The delegation stated that France would keep IMO informed of the development and result. 1.39 The delegation of the Marshall Islands advised the Committee that the Flag State investigation on the collision between the Baltic Carrier and the Tern is still proceeding and that a report detailing findings, conclusions and any recommendations will be forwarded to this Organization on completion of the investigation. The delegation expressed concern about the pollution caused by this new double-hull oil tanker. 1.40 The delegation of the Marshall Islands expressed gratitude for the outstanding co-operation their country received in the course of the investigation from the Cyprus Marine Authorities as the flag State of the other vessel involved. The investigators also worked closely with the Danish and German authorities. This investigation illustrates the success of IMO in urging Member States to exchange information and it demonstrates that IMO’s Code for the Investigation of Marine Casualties and Incidents can be effectively implemented. 1.41 In supporting the statement by the Secretary-General, the Maltese delegation stated that not only unilateral or regional action should not be resorted to but action aimed only at one particular region should possibly be avoided. The Maltese delegation also said Malta as the flag State was conducting investigations in the loss of both the Kristal and the Balu. The delegation offered the condolences of the Maltese Administration to the families of those who had lost their lives and thanked the Spanish and Portuguese Administrations for their cooperation and the rescue teams and rescue ships which helped avoid further loss of lives. The delegation added that it was too early to come to any conclusion even though there were already some good indications. 1.42 The Maltese delegation further added that there were two important sides of the Kristal incident, one related to the loss of the ship itself and one to the loss of lives after the abandonment of the ship. The result of both inquiries would be made available to IMO and interested parties. 1.43 The Maltese delegation said that, with regards to a statement appearing in one of the papers for MEPC 46, they should bring to attention the fact that Malta on the first day of MEPC 45 had presented a copy of the Erika investigation report to the interested parties, including IMO and also a CD version of the report was made available to each and every delegation. 1.44 The Committee noted the report of the Secretary-General that credentials of the delegations were in due and proper order. 1.45 The agenda for the session, as adopted by the Committee, together with the list of documents considered under each item, is shown at annex 1.

- 13 - MEPC 46/23

I:\MEPC\46\23.DOC

2 CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO MANDATORY INSTRUMENTS

Introduction 2.1 The Committee recalled that the MEPC 45 (2 to 6 October 2000) approved the proposed amendments to regulation 13G of MARPOL Annex I in the wake of the Erika incident (MEPC 45/20, paragraph 7.92 and annex 9), the text of which is produced in document MEPC 46/2. 2.2 The Committee noted that the proposed amendments were circulated by the Secretary-General of the Organization, in accordance with article 16(2)(a) of MARPOL 73/78, under cover of Circular letter No. 2264 of 10 October 2000. 2.3 The Committee noted further that, in accordance with article 16(2)(c) of MARPOL 73/78, the proposed amendments would be considered by the Committee, where Parties to MARPOL 73/78, whether or not they are Members of the Organization, can participate in the proceedings. 2.4 The Committee recalled that MEPC 45 recognized that details of the Condition Assessment Scheme (CAS), which was referred to in paragraph (6) of the proposed amendments to regulation 13G, must be decided by MEPC 46 when adopting the proposed amendments to regulation 13G, agreed to hold the MEPC Intersessional Working Group before MEPC 46 to develop the Condition Assessment Scheme (CAS). The Council, at its eighty-fifth session (13 to 17 November 2000), approved the meeting of the MEPC Intersessional Working Group. 2.5 The Committee recalled that the Intersessional Working Group on Condition Assessment Scheme met from 31 January to 2 February 2001 to consider a draft proposal (MEPC/CAS/3) submitted by Denmark, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom together with comments submitted by IACS. The Group discussed the principles of the Scheme and related issues. The report of the Group, including the draft text of the Condition Assessment Scheme, is submitted to the Committee in document MEPC 46/2/3. 2.6 The Committee noted that there were 14 documents submitted under this item, which could be divided into two groups: One group of documents mainly comment on the amendments to regulation 13G, while the other group of documents mainly provide comments on the Condition Assessment Scheme. The Committee agreed that comments on the amendments to regulation 13G would be dealt with first, followed by discussion on the Condition Assessment Scheme. The Committee also noted the work undertaken by MSC 73 regarding other measures necessary to minimize oil pollution from substandard ships, which are reported in document MEPC 46/12/3. Proposals on amendments to regulation 13 G of MARPOL Annex I 2.7 The Committee noted that the submissions mainly dealing with the amendments to regulation 13G were MEPC 46/2 (Secretariat), MEPC 46/2/1 (Brazil), MEPC 46/2/2 (Norway), MEPC 46/2/4 (France), MEPC 46/2/5 (ICS, BIMCO, INTERTANKO), MEPC 46/2/9 (Denmark), MEPC 46/INF.18 and MEPC 46/INF.25. 2.8 The Committee noted that Brazil, in document MEPC 46/2/1, questioned the decision of MEPC 45, stating that it approved the draft amendments to MARPOL 13G to accelerate the

MEPC 46/23 - 14 -

I:\MEPC\46\23.DOC

phase-out of single-hull tankers without proper studies of the causes of the accident based on the findings of the Erika incident report. Brazil conducted its own study on single-hulls versus double-hulls, the outcome of which was presented to this session. 2.9 The Committee noted that Norway, in document MEPC 46/2/2, put forward a proposal on the phase-out schedule in the draft amendments to regulation 13G. Norway, after having analysed the specifics of the two alternatives in document MEPC 46/2 on Category 2 tankers, concluded that both alternatives may be modified so as to significantly decrease the negative economic consequences for the oil tanker industry. The modified alternatives retain the final end date of both original alternatives. In the view of Norway, the modified alternatives are also more closely in line with the general principles agreed during MEPC 45. Norway therefore proposed that the two modified phase-out alternatives presented in its document MEPC 46/2/2 should replace "Alternative A" and "Alternative B" of MEPC 46/2 for Category 2 tankers. The Norwegian delegation also stressed the need for finding a compromise on the question of final phase-out date for single-hull oil tankers. By deciding the phase-out of each tanker to take place on its anniversary date, as proposed by ICS, BIMCO and INTERTANKO, instead of all tankers being phased out on 1 January of each year, as proposed in the basic proposal, would result in 2015 becoming a balanced compromise between the two alternatives in the basic proposal. In view of this, Norway strongly recommended all delegations to accept this compromise. 2.10 The Committee noted that France, in document MEPC 46/2/4, proposed to extend the coverage of the Condition Assessment Scheme to apply Category 3 tankers if such tankers are to be authorized to continue operation beyond 2010, and provided an alternative text of paragraph 6(a) of the draft amendments to regulation 13G. 2.11 The Committee noted that India, in document MEPC 46/2/7, expressed the opinion that Condition Assessment Scheme should not be applied to Category 1 tankers. 2.12 The Committee noted that ICS, BIMCO and INTERTANKO, in document MEPC 46/2/5, commented on both the proposed amendments to regulation 13G and the associated Condition Assessment Scheme. The three organizations reiterated their support for internationally agreed regulations. Nevertheless, they expressed regrets that the full implications of amending regulation 13G had not been fully evaluated or justified, and provided the comments reflected in MEPC 46/2/5. 2.13 The Committee noted that Denmark, in document MEPC 46/2/9, referring to Section 12.1 of the draft CAS document which requested the Administration to communicate to the Organization particulars of the Statement of Compliance, proposed that paragraph (6)(b) of the draft amendment to regulation 13G be amended to include information on “suspension, withdrawal or refusal” of the Statement of Compliance in the communication to the Organization. 2.14 The Committee noted, in document MEPC 46/INF.18, a forecast by Japan on the demolition amount of Category 1 tankers. According to Japan’s calculation of demolition data, there would be many tankers scrapped in 2000, 2001 and 2002. As a result, annual demolition amount after 2003 was estimated as a proper level and the phase-out schedule of Category 1 tankers approved at MEPC 45 would not create problems from the ship scrapping and ship building points of view. 2.15 The Committee noted that document MEPC 46/INF.25 submitted by the Association of European Shipbuilders and Shiprepairers (AWES) provided information on the available world

- 15 - MEPC 46/23

I:\MEPC\46\23.DOC

shipbuilding capacity with regard to the proposed amendments to regulation 13G. AWES’s evaluation concluded that there would be sufficient capacity with the shipbuilding industry world-wide to cope with new building demand due to the amendments to regulation 13G. General discussion on regulation 13G in the plenary on Monday, 23 April 2.16 Brazil stated that the reason why Brazil reserved its position at MEPC 45 on the proposed amendments to regulation 13G was that it needed time to conduct its own studies in view of the political decision taken at MEPC 45 to accept the proposals to speed up the phase-out of single-hull tankers without further studies and the relevant consideration of the cause of the Erika accident which led to the amendment proposals to regulation 13G. 2.17 Brazil emphasized that the Committee must be very careful in taking the decision at this session because double-hulls would not solve the problem and what the maritime world needs is well-maintained tankers. The Committee should not rush to decisions under political pressure. 2.18 During the discussion of the Brazilian submission, the following views were expressed:

.1 the double-hull concept was already enshrined in regulation 13F adopted by the Committee in 1992 with a view to prevent oil pollution from tankers;

.2 the Brazilian submission stressed economic related issues, but failed to address

other important issues, such as environmental, social, political and public opinion issues;

.3 judging from figure 5 (Location of major oil spills) of the Brazilian submission, it

could be seen clearly that most tanker accidents in the past decade have happened in Western Europe and South Africa but not in North America, which indicated that sub-standard ageing tankers moved from North America to other regions to continue operation because of OPA ’90. Therefore it is absolutely necessary for IMO to take action to accelerate the phase-out of old single-hull tankers; and

.4 well-maintained single-hull tankers can continue operation beyond 2005 for

Category 1 tankers and beyond 2010 for Category 2 tankers, subject to a CAS survey.

2.19 The Spanish delegation recognising the Brazilian contribution as contained in the above document and the fact that the question of double-hull vessels is already enshrined in the MARPOL Convention, emphasised the need to accelerate the withdrawal of non-complaint, aged ships, as already decided by the Committee. It further referred to various inconsistencies found in the technical study attached to the above document which, in its view, tend to diminish the urgency to agree on an accelerated withdrawal of such ships. In particular it referred to the direct correlation between accidents and age of the ship, the higher probability of spillage by single-hull vessels as opposed to double-hull vessels and the economic – financial study presented to justify a 25-year period of life of an oil tanker to make it profitable. 2.20 Thailand recognized the importance of marine pollution prevention and expressed support for IMO’s initiative to phase-out single-hull tankers. However, Thailand strongly believed that careful consideration must be given to the phasing-out period to avoid economic impact to countries like Thailand which relies heavily on oil import. The study should include financial ability of smaller tanker owners below 20,000 DWT operating within the territorial waters of the

MEPC 46/23 - 16 -

I:\MEPC\46\23.DOC

country concerned. Consideration should also be given to the ship building capacity in this region during the course of phasing-out period, since having ships built outside the region can be very costly. Consequently, assessment of such ability and capacity are needed in determining the phasing-out period. Thailand emphasized that proper maintenance and safe operation of tankers are still essential for spill prevention, regardless of single or double-hull. Thailand also expressed support for Brazil’s document MEPC 46/2/1. 2.21 The majority of the delegations that spoke supported the views of Brazil in that the cost of compliance with the proposed amendments to regulation 13G is very high especially for developing countries. In their view, well-maintained single-hull tankers should be allowed to continue operation beyond the phase-out dates proposed in the amended regulation 13G. 2.22 A number of other delegations defended the proposed amendments to regulation 13G which had already been intensively discussed and approved by the Committee at its forty-fifth session. This decision was taken on the basis of a number of factors including the impact study of the proposed phase-out scheme of single-hull tankers which was carried out by experts, while taking into account many relevant factors including the world ship building and scrapping capabilities. 2.23 The Committee recognized that the Brazilian submission offered some points worthy of consideration in the consideration and adoption of the proposed amendments to regulation 13G, while noting that there was no written proposed amendments to regulation 13G in document MEPC 46/2/1. 2.24 The Committee also recognized that human error is the main cause of many tankers accidents, which have been addressed by the Organization and will continue to be addressed as a very important matter. 2.25 After an extensive exchange of views on the Brazilian submission and related issues, the Committee agreed that it must move forward on the basis of the proposed amendments to regulation 13G as contained in document MEPC 46/2, and that Brazilian submission and views of delegations could be taken into account where relevant by the Working Group in its deliberations. The objective is to find a solution by consensus. 2.26 The Committee considered the various submissions on the proposed amendments contained in MEPC 46/2. In the draft amendments, there were five points remaining to be resolved:

.1 Alternative A stipulates “1 January 2015 for ships delivered in 1992 or later”, whereas Alternative B stipulates “1 January 2017 for ships delivered in 1995 or later”. Other dates are also included between 2012 and 2015 in both A and B alternatives. In addition to alternative A/B, “anniversary date” for phase-out must be resolved;

.2 the date of application of CAS to Category 1 tankers: [25 years after its date of

delivery] or [2005]; .3 application of CAS for only Category 2 by India (MEPC 46/2/7) and application

of CAS for Category 3 by France (MEPC 46/2/4);

- 17 - MEPC 46/23

I:\MEPC\46\23.DOC

.4 there is one alternative text of paragraph (6) of amended regulation 13G for a non CAS option; and

.5 “withdrawal and refusal” of Statement of Compliance.

2.27 With regard to the two sets of alternative dates, many delegations supported Alternative A, while many other delegations expressed their preference for Alternative B. Also a substantial number of delegations considered that the “anniversary date” is an option which would benefit the shipping community. After discussion, the Committee agreed that alternatives for phase-out of single-hull tankers should be further discussed by the Working Group, including the “anniversary date”. 2.28 With regard to the date of application to Category 1 tankers, the Committee agreed that the date should be 2005 and decided to delete the text of “25 years after its date of delivery” in square brackets from paragraph 6 (a) of the proposed amendments to regulation 13G. 2.29 With regard to the Indian proposal that the application of CAS should be limited to Category 2 tankers and the French proposal that the application of CAS should be extended to Category 3 tankers, the Committee decided that CAS should be applied to Category 1 and Category 2 tankers as approved by the Committee at MEPC 45. The Committee understood that application of CAS to Category 3 tankers would be examined in the future. 2.30 With regard to the alternative text of paragraph (6) of amended regulation 13G for a non CAS option, the Committee agreed that the CAS was necessary to implement the amended regulation 13 and decided to delete the alternative text for the non CAS option. 2.31 With regard to the inclusion of information of “withdrawal and refusal” of Statement of Compliance to be communicated to the Organization, the Committee agreed that such information is appropriate and therefore should be included. Condition Assessment Scheme 2.32 The Committee noted that the submissions commenting on the Condition Assessment Scheme were MEPC 46/2/3 (Secretariat), MEPC 46/2/6 (IACS), MEPC 46/2/7 (India), MEPC 46/2/8 (Republic of Korea), MEPC 46/2/10 (IACS and INTERTANKO) and MEPC 46/2/11 (ICS and INTERTANKO).

2.33 The Committee noted that document MEPC 46/2/3 contained the report of the MEPC Intersessional Working Group on the Condition Assessment Scheme under MARPOL regulation 13G, which met from 31 January to 2 February this year.

2.34 The Committee noted that the Group reviewed the draft CAS document paragraph by paragraph, primarily on the principles of CAS. The main points of discussion in the Group were summarized in the annex to the document, which covered those on the Definitions, General Provisions, Application, Scope and Timing, Survey Planning Requirements, CAS Survey Requirements, Acceptance Criteria, CAS Final Report, Statement of Compliance, Verification and “Second Opinion”.

2.35 With regard to verification or “second opinion”, the Committee noted that the majority of the Group supported the view that the “second opinion” was an essential part in the verification

MEPC 46/23 - 18 -

I:\MEPC\46\23.DOC

process. It was recognised that it was the Administration which would bear the overall responsibility for the entire CAS procedure. 2.36 India, in document MEPC 46/2/7, proposed that CAS should be incorporated in resolution A.744(18) with appropriate amendments. In the view of India, CAS was only a duplication of the efforts already done by IMO in resolution A.744(18) and any further efforts should only be towards strengthening it. 2.37 The Committee noted that the Republic of Korea, in document 46/2/8, proposed editorial or technical changes to the CAS document, which could be dealt with by the working group. However the Republic of Korea also proposed to add one new section: “Section 11.3 - Interim Statement of Compliance” to deal with possible delay in the CAS process by RO and/or the Administration. The Republic of Korea expressed the opinion that it was not proper and reasonable to ask the ship not to operate until the decision for the ship was made by the Administration. Therefore it proposed to introduce an Interim Statement of Compliance which might be issued by the Administration to the ship. 2.38 The Committee noted that IACS and INTERTAKO, in document MEPC 46/2/10, recalled that the MEPC Intersessional Working Group agreed that the CAS Survey Plan should be developed in a consistent and common format based on a model plan. However due to time constraints, the MEPC Intersessional Working Group was not able to develop such a model plan. With a view to facilitating consideration by the Committee, IACS and INTERTANKO developed a CAS Model Survey Plan, which was attached at annex to their document. 2.39 The Committee noted that ICS and INTERTANKO, in document 46/2/11, provided mainly editorial or technical comments on the CAS guidelines. However they also invited the Committee to consider one important aspect of the CAS guidelines, which appeared to have been overlooked, namely the timeframe needed by an Administration to assess the work done by RO on its behalf and the time for issuing the Statement of Compliance to the ship. In the view of ICS and INTERTANKO, the CAS certification required new procedures and owners should know the completion date of the CAS survey in advance. General discussion on CAS in the plenary on Monday, 23 April 2.40 Having considered the report of the Group, the Committee approved the report in general and invited MSC 74 to note operative paragraph 4 of the draft MEPC resolution on CAS and the discussion of the Group on the ISM procedure related matter and take action as appropriate. 2.41 In view of the large number of comments on the CAS requirements, the Committee agreed to consider only matters of principle relating to the CAS guidelines at plenary and matters of detail would be left to the Working Group. 2.42 The Committee considered the following points raised by India in document MEPC 46/2/7:

.1 to incorporate the proposed CAS requirements into resolution A.744(18); .2 to delete Section 10 of the draft text of the proposed CAS; and .3 to remove the requirement of additional certification by way of CAS or similar

instruments, since this could be merged with the IOPP Certificate.

- 19 - MEPC 46/23

I:\MEPC\46\23.DOC

2.43 The Bahamas commented that in its original form CAS had called for a second opinion on the condition of the ship but that had proved to be impracticable after IACS had stated that its members would not inspect ships classed by other members. In the Bahamas view the flag State review of documents which was now proposed as a substitute was only bureaucratic exercise which would not add to the safety of the ship being inspected. They supported the proposed the deletion of Section 10. 2.44 The Committee recalled that those points were discussed at MEPC 45 and agreed that CAS should be a stand-alone document for the time-being. However, the CAS requirements may be considered to be included into resolution A.744(18) at an appropriate time in the future. 2.45 With regard to the deletion of Section 10 from the draft text of the CAS and the deletion of Section 9 proposed during the discussion, the Committee agreed that both Section 9 and Section 10 are essential parts of CAS and therefore should be retained. 2.46 With regard to the merger of the Statement of Compliance with the IOPP Certificate, the Committee agreed that the possibility of attaching the Statement of Compliance to the IOPP Certificate should be pursued by the Working Group. Timeframe and the Interim Statement 2.47 With regard to the proposal of the Republic of Korea to add a new section 11.3 on “Interim Statement of Compliance”, the Committee considered it together with the suggestion by ICS and INTERTANKO in document MEPC 46/2/11 to define the timeframe between the completion of the CAS Survey and the issuance of the Statement of Compliance. The Committee felt that the timeframe was an important matter for the shipping industry and agreed that a timeframe should be considered by the Working Group. Editorial comments 2.48 The Committee decided to refer the editorial and technical comments by IACS in document 46/2/6, by the Republic of Korea in document MEPC 46/2/8 and by ICS and INTERTANKO in document MEPC 46/2/11 to the Working Group. The draft model CAS Survey Plan prepared by IACS and INTERTANKO would also be considered by the Working Group. INSTRUCTION TO THE WORKING GROUP 2.49 The Committee established a working group with the following terms of reference:

Taking into consideration the comments and proposals in the submissions and the views expressed at plenary on the submissions, the Working Group is instructed to: .1 find a compromise solution on the phase-out scheme; .2 finalize the proposed amendments to regulation 13G of MARPOL Annex I as

contained in document MEPC 46/2, including the draft MEPC resolution on the adoption of the amendments;

MEPC 46/23 - 20 -

I:\MEPC\46\23.DOC

.3 finalize the draft CAS document as contained in document MEPC 46/2/3 including resolving a number of square brackets, and the draft MEPC resolution on the adoption of the CAS guidelines;

.4 consider, if time permits, the outcome of discussions at MSC 73 on oil tanker

safety and environmental matters and clarify or define environmental issues; and .5 submit a report to the plenary on Thursday for consideration with a view to

adoption. Outcome of the Working Group 2.50 The Working Group met from 23 to 26 April 2001 under the Chairmanship of Mr. Z. Alam ( Singapore). Having considered the report of the Group (MEPC 46/WP.4), the Committee took decisions as summarized in the following paragraphs. Amendments to regulation 13G and the IOPP Certificate 2.51 The Committee noted that the Group successfully developed a package of compromise proposal for regulation 13G and Condition Assessment Scheme. The Committee noted, in particular, the following discussions within the Group:

Category 1 tanker .1 Several delegations supported in principle the suggestion in document MEPC 46/2/5

that the alternative phase-out dates should be seriously considered in order to provide smoother phase-out of such tankers. After discussion, the Group decided to retain the dates as contained in document MEPC 46/2.

Category 2 and Category 3 tankers .2 The Group agreed with the suggestion in document MEPC 46/2/5 that the phase-out

dates for Category 2 tankers should be aligned with those for Category 1 tankers so that Category 2 tankers which are better environmentally protected than Category 1 tankers may not be phased-out earlier than for Category 1 tankers. Consequently, similar adjustment was made to Category 3 tankers.

.3 With regard to the last phase-out date for Category 2 and Category 3 tankers, several

delegations, particularly those from EU Member States, insisted on 2015, while the delegation of Brazil, supported by some delegations, proposed that these ships may operate until they reach 25 years of age.

.4 After intensive consultations among delegations with different interests, the Group

agreed to a package of the revised regulation 13G which could be recommended to the Committee for adoption. The following is an outline of the compromise package:

.4.1 the phase-out years in the table of paragraph (4) terminate at 2015;

- 21 - MEPC 46/23

I:\MEPC\46\23.DOC

.4.2 Category 2 and Category 3 tankers with either double bottoms or double sides only or double hull spaces not complying fully with paragraph (1)(c) of the revised regulation 13G may be allowed to continue operation until they reach 25 years of age;

.4.3 other tankers in Category 2 and Category 3 complying with

paragraph (6)(a) or (b) of the revised regulation 13G may be allowed to continue operation until the anniversary date in 2017 or they reach 25 years of age, whichever is the earlier date; and

.4.4 port States have the right to deny entry of such tankers into their ports or

offshore terminals. In such cases, that party shall communicate to the Organization for circulation to the Parties to the present Convention particulars thereof for their information.

2.52 The delegation of Sweden stated that the EU member States accept the report of the Group and the compromise proposal. 2.53 The delegations of Italy and Bahamas withdrew their reservations made at the Group. 2.54 A large number of delegations congratulated the Group for its successful development of the compromise proposal and supported the revised regulation 13G. 2.55 Having noted the above statements, the Committee adopted, by consensus, amendments to regulation 13G of Annex I to MARPOL 73/78 and consequential amendments to the Supplement to the IOPP Certificate by resolution MEPC.95(46). The text of the resolution and amendments to MARPOL 73/78 annexed thereto adopted by the Committee is set out at annex 3. Condition Assessment Scheme 2.56 The Committee considered and adopted by resolution MEPC.94(46) the Condition Assessment Scheme as a mandatory instrument under regulation 13G of MARPOL Annex I, with the understanding that the Model Survey Plan referred to in the Condition Assessment Scheme will be developed at MEPC 47 and will be made mandatory in due course. The text of the resolution and the Condition Assessment Scheme annexed thereto adopted by the Committee is set out at annex 2. Achievement 2.57 After the adoption of the revised regulation 13G and the Condition Assessment Scheme by consensus, many delegation stated that this is an important achievement in the history of IMO, for which all Member States of IMO should be congratulated. 2.58 Many delegations also stated that IMO had, once again, demonstrated that it can respond to the needs of Member States and the world shipping community. Delegations also emphasized that IMO should, always and without exception, be regarded as the only forum where safety and pollution prevention standards affecting international shipping should be considered and adopted.

MEPC 46/23 - 22 -

I:\MEPC\46\23.DOC

Expression of appreciation 2.59 Many delegations expressed their deep appreciation to the Secretary-General for his leadership in the Organization to support delegations to find a solution to the issue of single-hull tankers in the wake of the Erika incident. The Impact Study initiated by the Secretary-General last year which provided factual information was quite useful for the Committee to reach the compromise of the revised regulation 13G at this session of the Committee. 2.60 The Committee expressed its appreciation to Mr. Z. Alam (Singapore), Chairman of the Working Group, to Mr. Y. Sasamura (Japan), Chairman of the informal drafting group on regulation 13G, to Mr. N. Charalambous (Cyprus), Chairman of the informal drafting group on the Condition Assessment Scheme and to all delegations which had made positive contributions to the adoption of the revised regulation 13G and the Condition Assessment Scheme by consensus. Reservations and statements by delegations 2.61 The delegation of the United States reserved its position on the revised regulation 13G. 2.62 On behalf of the European Community Member States, the delegation of Sweden stated that those Member States would make use of paragraph 8(b) of the revised regulation 13G of MARPOL Annex I to deny entry of oil tankers referred to in paragraph (5) of the same regulation into the ports or offshore terminals located in the Community beyond the anniversary date of such tankers in 2015 in full respect of the conditions laid down in the paragraph 8(b). 2.63 The delegation of Italy called upon Member States of IMO that belong to the Mediterranean Area to take full advantage of paragraph 8(b) of the revised regulation 13G of MARPOL Annex I, in order to make the Mediterranean Sea cleaner and safer. 2.64 The delegation of Cyprus made a statement after the adoption of the revised regulation 13G in relation to application of paragraph (5)(a) or (5)(b) of the regulation and related matters. A full text of the statement is set out in annex 13. 2.65 The delegation of Malta made a statement after the adoption of the revised regulation 13G in relation to application of paragraph (5)(a) or (5)(b) of the regulation and related matters. A full text of the statement is set out in annex 13. Statement by the Secretary-General 2.66 The Secretary-General, after the revised regulation 13G was adopted by consensus, stated that the action by the Committee had clearly demonstrated that IMO, as the only place where International regulations with respect to shipping matters could be addressed, was capable of acting efficiently and expeditiously and it was possible for it to deal with any matter regardless of how difficult it appeared to be at the outset. The Organization had also adjusted the CLC and Fund Conventions to take care of liability matters, made amendments to resolution A.744(18) with regard to enhanced programmes of surveys, and taken action on certain operational matters with respect to tankers. 2.67 The Secretary-General stated further that what the Committee had just concluded was the culmination of a great deal of work done since January 2000, which was to make sure that IMO, in fact, would live up to its role as the regulatory body for international maritime safety and

- 23 - MEPC 46/23

I:\MEPC\46\23.DOC

prevention of pollution from ships. The Secretary-General believed that the point has been made and the Committee was to be congratulated for that. 2.68 The Secretary-General recalled that, at his initiative, a group of experts had been asked to provide some factual data which could be presented to the MEPC to allow it to make decisions based on facts and not on emotional opinions during last July and August. The Secretary-General thanked those experts for giving up their holiday period so that this could be done. 2.69 The Secretary-General also thanked everyone else who had participated in this whole process, and especially Mr. Julian, the Chairman of the Committee, Mr. Alam, the Chairman of the Working Group, and those who had participated in and assisted the Working Group including staff of the Organization, for their tremendous contribution to bringing this difficult issue, which was probably one of the most important matters that would ever have to be dealt with by this Organization, to such a successful conclusion. Post- Erika related issues 2.70 The Committee noted that the Group considered documents MEPC 46/12/3 and MEPC 46/WP.3 with regard to the recommendations from FSI 9 (MEPC 46/WP.3, paragraph 5.2) to include, in its work programme, a new item on the development of provisions on “transfer of class” and from DE 44 (MEPC 46/WP.3, paragraph 6.2.1.2) to include, in its work programme, a new item on “Protection of fuel tanks” (DE 44/19, annex 12). As no papers from States or organizations had yet been submitted on environmental issues, the Committee noted that the Group was not in a position to develop further work programme items on environmental issues. 3 HARMFUL AQUATIC ORGANISMS IN BALLAST WATER 3.1 The Committee recalled discussions on the issue of harmful aquatic organisms and pathogens in ballast water since 1990 and, in particular, that MEPC 44 had agreed that the Committee should aim at holding a Conference on Ballast Water Management during the biennium 2002 - 2003. The Committee also noted that if the Conference were to be held in 2003, only three MEPC sessions (including the current session) were available to finalize the text of the legal instrument on this very complex subject. 3.2 The Committee further noted that, at MEPC 45, many ballast water issues had been considered. On the basis of detailed instructions by the Committee, the Ballast Water Working Group made good progress during the last session and developed several regulations for the draft “Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments”, as presented in annex 2 to document MEPC 46/3, on the basis of a two-tiered approach, which the Committee had accepted in principle (MEPC 45/20, paragraph 2.5), as follows:

.1 tier one would require all ships to meet certain baseline requirements for ballast water management at all times throughout the world; and

.2 tier two would enable ballast water control areas to be designated by contracting

parties where additional measures could be required. 3.3 The Committee further noted that the Working Group had also discussed several issues in detail as described in its report, and in particular had:

MEPC 46/23 - 24 -

I:\MEPC\46\23.DOC

.1 drafted a MEPC/MSC Circular Letter to consider ballast water and sediment management options when developing and building new ships for consideration by the Committee with a view to its adoption during this session;

.2 concluded that ballast water exchange should continue to be regarded as an

interim solution and that the aim was to produce safe and more effective alternative ballast water treatment options that should ultimately replace ballast water exchange in view of:

.1 its uncertain effectiveness of removal of harmful aquatic organisms and

pathogens; .2 the geographical and voyage limitations relating to ballast water exchange

areas in open ocean waters; and

.3 the safety constraints relating to ballast water exchange; and

.3 recommended that the principal issue left outstanding and to be resolved was the development of the standards that would be required.

Draft text of the legal instrument 3.4 The Committee considered document MEPC 46/3/2 concerning a consolidated draft text of the articles and regulations for the legal instrument, which the United States had submitted in response to a request from the Chairman of the Ballast Water Working Group. In introducing this document, the delegation of the United States explained that this restructured text was based on annex 2 to the report of the Ballast Water Working Group (MEPC 46/3) and that texts had been developed and redrafted to make these consistent with the draft antifouling systems Convention being considered by the Committee (see item 5 of this report). A table had been added to show the revised locations of texts already prepared as well as footnotes to show the sources of new and existing texts. The draft texts concerning Special Requirements in Certain Areas (Tier two), which the Ballast Water Working Group had developed under Section D of document MEPC 46/3, annex 2, now renamed Section C in the annex of document MEPC 46/3/2, had not been included to allow for a full discussion of these issues. Furthermore, Section E on “Standards” had been left open to allow for a full discussion of standards by the Committee. 3.5 The Committee thanked the delegation of the United States for the preparation of document MEPC 46/3/2 and referred the specific comments to this document by several delegations for consideration by the Ballast Water Working Group. 3.6 The Committee agreed to use the “draft text of International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments” developed by the United States (annex to document MEPC 46/3/2) as the basis to further develop this instrument. 3.7 The Committee noted all other documents submitted under this agenda item and referred these and the abovementioned documents for detailed consideration by the Ballast Water Working Group.

- 25 - MEPC 46/23

I:\MEPC\46\23.DOC

Report of the Ballast Water Working Group at MEPC 45 3.8 The Committee approved, in general, the report of the Ballast Water Working Group at MEPC 45 (MEPC 46/3) noting that a number of the issues identified in this report are still to be resolved and that the annex to the report containing the draft text for the Convention is superseded by the United States consolidated draft text in document MEPC 46/3/2. Instructions to the Ballast Water Working Group 3.9 The Ballast Water Working Group was instructed to:

.1 review the draft consolidated text prepared by the United States as contained in document MEPC 46/3/2, and then continue to develop the draft legal instrument - taking into account the report of the Ballast Water Working Group (MEPC 46/3) as well as the general comments to the Ballast Water Working Group’s report as contained in documents MEPC 46/3/5 (Australia), MEPC 46/3/14 (Brazil), and the specific comments on the draft instrument as contained in the documents MEPC 46/3/1 (Greece), MEPC 46/3/7 (Japan) and MEPC 46/3/15 (India);

.2 develop a framework for standards for ballast water treatment and continue the

work on the standards themselves under Section E based on the proposals and suggestions in documents MEPC 46/3 (report of the Working Group), MEPC 46/3/3 (United States), MEPC 46/3/6 (Germany), MEPC 46/3/8 (Norway), MEPC 46/3/11 and Rev.1 (Japan), MEPC 46/3/14 (Brazil) and MEPC 46/INF.34 (Netherlands);

.3 continue the work on Section B (Tier One requirements), using the Working

Groups' report and relevant submissions to this session; .4 consider issues related to ballast water management areas to be included in

Section C - “Special Requirements in Certain Areas”, based on the proposals in documents MEPC 46/3/4 (Secretariat), MEPC 46/3/5 (Australia), MEPC 46/3/9 (Norway), MEPC 46/3/10 (Friends of the Earth International), MEPC 46/3/12 (Japan) and MEPC 46/INF.17 (United Kingdom);

.5 identify on which issues guidelines should be developed referred to in the draft

regulations (MEPC 46/3, paragraph 9.8) and consider arrangements to develop these guidelines; and

.6 take note of:

.1 the issues related to options for ballast water treatment based on the proposals and suggestions contained in documents MEPC 46/3/13 (Japan), MEPC 46/INF.19 (Japan) and MEPC 46/INF.22 (Australia);

.2 the information concerning the activities developed under the

GEF/UNDP/IMO Global Ballast Water Management Programme contained in documents MEPC 46/INF.13 (India), MEPC 46/INF.28 (Secretariat) and MEPC 46/INF.30 (Brazil) and comment as appropriate; and

MEPC 46/23 - 26 -

I:\MEPC\46\23.DOC

.3 the information related to R & D in documents MEPC 46/INF.23 (Australia), MEPC 46/INF.24 (Friends of the Earth International) and MEPC 46/INF.27 (Secretariat);

.7 give an oral report to Plenary on Friday, 27 April 2001 and a full report of the

Working Group to the next session of MEPC. Oral report of the Ballast Water Working Group 3.10 The Committee received an oral report from the Chairman of the Ballast Water Working Group, Mr. M. Hunter (United Kingdom), reflecting the status of work carried out by the Group during this session as reflected in the following paragraphs: 3.11 The Working Group was conscious that the programme towards the diplomatic conference (MEPC 46/3, annex 4) required completion of the text of the proposed legal instrument at MEPC 47. The Working Group acknowledged that the fundamental principles in this instrument must be finalized at this session if this programme is to be achieved, and therefore made it a priority to address these key issues within the instructions from Plenary. 3.12 The Working Group reviewed the consolidated text of the draft legal instrument prepared by the United States (MEPC 46/3/2), and agreed, with minor changes, to the principles contained therein while recognizing that some elements would require further review in the light of subsequent development of the instrument. The Working Group also agreed that this text should be used as the basis for further development and invited members to submit detailed proposals for consideration at MEPC 47. The Secretariat undertook to collate all proposals into the text for use as a working document for that session. 3.13 The Working Group agreed on the following key principles concerning the requirements for ships to conduct ballast management within Tier 11:

.1 ballast water exchange would be one of the “toolbox” of options currently permitted within the instrument, but it was recognized as an interim solution in view of its uncertain effectiveness and the safety concerns (MEPC 45/20, paragraph 2.17);

.2 in view of the difficulties of defining the biological efficiency of ballast water

exchange, any treatment standard would not be based upon the performance of ballast water exchange; and

.3 it should be the aim of the Organization, reflected in the structure of the draft

instrument, to encourage the adoption of new, efficient and effective ballast water treatment technologies as these become available. To ensure periodic review of the standards and available technology, the Working Group included within the draft text a commitment for the Organization to re-examine the issue at periodic intervals.

3.14 With regard to the standards themselves the Working Group agreed that the following would be used as a starting point and framework for the finalization of standards:

1 Requirements applicable to all ships.

- 27 - MEPC 46/23

I:\MEPC\46\23.DOC

.1 in considering the standard for ballast water exchange, the Working Group agreed that the standard for new ships should be based upon volumetric exchange efficiency, but that an alternative, and arguably lesser requirement, such as three times flow-through, might be appropriate for existing ships. A draft text was prepared although this would need to be supplemented by requirements which may be extracted from the Guidelines contained in resolution A.868(20)2 and other available documents; and

.2 in considering the development of standards for ballast water treatment, the

Working Group agreed that there should be a single standard, which should be based upon environmental performance and that it may be necessary to supplement this standard with additional requirements particular to individual treatment technologies. The Working Group reviewed relevant documents submitted to this session, as well as the outcome of the 1st International Ballast Water Treatment Standards Workshop3 and agreed that the standard should be a performance standard suitable for type approval, and that the requirement placed upon the ship should be simply to operate type approved equipment. The Group further agreed to take the Workshop conclusions and proposed options for standards as a basis for further development, with the target to finalize these standards at MEPC 48, as suggested in document MEPC 46/3, annex 4.

3.15 To facilitate the work needed to further develop the ballast water treatment standard the Working Group agreed to recommend the establishment of a “Ballast Water Standard Correspondence Group” with the following Terms of Reference:

.1 This Correspondence Group shall work towards developing a Ballast Water Treatment (BWT) Standard, taking into account:

.1 the outcome of the 1st International Ballast Water Treatment Standards

Workshop held in March 2001;

.2 any other issues related to developing such a standard. These would include, among others, those aspects outlined in document MEPC 46/3/3, paragraphs 2 and 3;

.3 the role that sampling may play in verifying compliance with any standard

developed; and

.4 comment upon the availability of treatment technologies.

.2 This Correspondence Group shall submit a report of its work and findings to MEPC 47 for its consideration and action as appropriate.

.3 All interested delegations are invited to contribute to the work of this

Correspondence Group.

2 Guidelines for the control and management of ships’ ballast water to minimize the transfer of harmful

aquatic organisms and pathogens. 3 Organized by the GloBallast PCU and held at IMO Headquarters from 28 to 30 March 2001.

MEPC 46/23 - 28 -

I:\MEPC\46\23.DOC

3.16 In case the Committee would agree to establish this Correspondence Group, the delegation of the United States offered to act as its co-ordinator. 3.17 With regard to progression towards a diplomatic conference in 2003, the Working Group agreed to maintain the timetable set out in document MEPC 46/3, annex 4, provided that the principles outlined above were agreed at this session. If these principles were changed at MEPC 47, then it might prove difficult to finalize text at that session. Based on this assumption, the Working Group recommended to the Committee that a diplomatic Conference may be provisionally scheduled for 2003. 3.18 With regard to the draft MEPC/MSC Circular letter to consider design suggestions for ballast water and sediment management options (MEPC 46/3, annex 3), which is aimed at informing and stimulating the ship-building community about the future directions of ballast water management, no comments had been received in the intersessional period. The Working Group considered a few substantive changes to the proposed text. The Working Group also agreed to recommend the Committee to:

.1 refer the current text to MSC 74, recommending it to review specific safety aspects in light of document MEPC 46/INF.22 by Australia; and

.2 to complete the full text after review at MEPC 47. 3.19 In commenting to the oral report, the delegation of the United States stated that the development of a ballast water standard was the cornerstone of the proposed instrument and that it was a significant achievement that a starting point and framework had been developed at this session for finalization of a standard at MEPC 48. The delegation noted that it was essential that a single performance-based standard be developed and incorporated into the instrument that could be applied both to new and existing ships. Finally, the delegation offered its services in co-ordinating the proposed correspondence group on ballast water treatment standards, so that performance-based standards can appropriately take centre stage in the final instrument. 3.20 The delegation of Brazil drew attention to the issue of pathogens carried by ballast water, which can spread diseases, including cholera, hepatitis A and E and the paralysing toxin PSP. In view of the risks presented by such pathogens, the delegation offered to lead an informal contact group* in order to exchange information and suggestions regarding the establishment of standards for the management of pathogens in ballast water. Brazil would consolidate the information received and prepare a submission to MEPC 47. 3.21 The Committee accepted the offer by Brazil and invited delegations to provide relevant information to the indicated contact address.

∗ Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária

www.anvisa.gov.br Dr. Cátia Pedroso Ferreira Gerente de Portos Catia.Ferreira@anvisa.gov.br Tel: (61)448-1094 Fax: (61)448-1291 SEPN 515 Bloco B Ed. Ômega 3° andar Brasilla DF 70770-502

- 29 - MEPC 46/23

I:\MEPC\46\23.DOC

Action taken by the Committee 3.22 The Committee agreed to establish a Correspondence Group on Ballast Water Treatment Standards and accepted the kind offer by the United States to lead this group*. The terms of reference for the Correspondence Group is set out in annex 12. 3.23 The Committee considered that in light of the progress achieved with the development of standards and the further development of the draft legal instrument at this session, there was sufficient confidence to recommend to the Council that a diplomatic conference could be held during the next biennium. 3.24 The Committee agreed to request MSC 74 to review specific safety aspects of the draft MEPC/MSC circular on design suggestions for ballast water and sediment management options (MEPC 46/3, annex 3) in light of document MEPC 46/INF.22. 3.25 In response to a query by the delegation of Panama concerning the ongoing work in MSC on safety aspects of bulk carriers carrying out mid-ocean ballast water exchange, the Chairman of MSC informed the Committee that once MSC have completed its review of this matter MEPC would be informed accordingly. 4 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE OPRC CONVENTION AND THE OPRC-HNS

PROTOCOL AND RELEVANT OPPR CONFERENCE RESOLUTIONS 4.1 The Committee considered the report of the OPRC Working Group at MEPC 45 (MEPC 46/4) and recalled that:

.1 the OPRC Working Group developed an outline of a programme to implement Article 12 of the OPRC Convention and how the Organization can perform the duties mentioned in the OPRC-HNS Protocol;

.2 in light of the tanker Erika incident and other recent spills of high-density oils,

the Committee approved in principle, an R&D Forum to address responses involving these types of oils and accepted the offer of France to host and assist the organization of the 3rd R&D Forum in Brest in March 2002 after MEPC 47; and

.3 the OPRC Working Group approved the revised draft of the guidance document

(MEPC 46/4/2) on “Guidance on Managing Seafood Safety During and After Oil Spills” and requested the Secretariat to transmit the document to FAO to seek the agreement for a joint FAO/IMO publication.

4.2 The Committee, in considering the agenda of the OPRC Working Group at this session, decided to:

* Cdr. Scott Newsham Tel: +1 202 267 1354

Chief, Environmental Standards Division Fax: +1 202 267 4690 Commandant (G-MSO-4) Mbl: United States Coast Guard E-M: snewsham@comdt.uscg.mil 2100 Second Street S.W. Web: Washington, DC. 20593-0001 Profession: Maritime Safety and USA Environmental Protection

MEPC 46/23 - 30 -

I:\MEPC\46\23.DOC

.1 delete item 5 on the 1973 Intervention Protocol as this would be dealt with under Agenda item 17 of the Committee in plenary; and

.2 delete item 10 on ‘Other business’ since the Working Group should not deal with

such other matters without instructions by the Committee. 4.3 In reviewing the schedule of tasks and target dates in document MEPC 46/4, annex 4, the Committee agreed that, although the Committee could agree with the suggested tasks, their timing with future meetings and target completion dates should be further considered under item 20. 4.4 In light of the speech of the Secretary-General during the opening session of MEPC 46 on the Castor incident, which highlighted the issue of the provisions of sheltered waters for ships in distress, the Chairman requested the OPRC Working Group to add this item on its agenda and to consider the issue of safe havens by developing principles and criteria to be considered when developing country contingency plans to handle a request by a vessel for a safe haven, particularly regarding ship-to-ship transfer requirements and other pollution prevention issues, in order to assist the discussion in the MSC. 4.5 The Committee adopted the agenda of the OPRC Working Group (MEPC 4/1/1) as amended (see paragraph 4.2 above). Response to Spills of High-density Oil 4.6 The Chairman recalled that, at MEPC 44, France was invited to submit a report on the response to the pollution following the Erika incident. The Chairman thanked France for submitting the report (MEPC 46/4/4), which was referred to the OPRC Working Group as a basis for its deliberation on spillage of high-density oils. 4.7 The Committee also recalled that it requested the Secretariat, in co-operation with Governments and organizations, to form a Steering Committee for the 3rd R&D Forum and that at this session, a meeting of the Steering Committee was organized by the Secretariat. The Chairman encouraged Member States and organizations to donate funds and to participate in this important event. Guidance on Managing Seafood Safety During and After Oil Spills 4.8 The Committee noted that the document MEPC 46/4/2 on “Guidance on Managing Seafood Safety During and After Oil Spills” was revised and approved by the OPRC Working Group for a joint IMO and FAO publication at MEPC 45. 4.9 The Committee recalled that the FAO Fisheries Department accepted the revised guidance document as annexed to MEPC 46/4/2 and agreed to a joint IMO/FAO publication. Instruction to the OPRC Working Group 4.10 The Committee instructed the OPRC Working Group to carry out its work according to its work programme and its agenda as amended and give a verbal report on Friday to the Committee on those items on which a decision is required by the Committee, such as:

- 31 - MEPC 46/23

I:\MEPC\46\23.DOC

.1 work of the Correspondence Group for the revision of Section IV of the Manual on Oil Pollution;

.2 progress of the Third R&D Forum; .3 Guidance on Managing Seafood Safety During and After Oil Spills; and .4 development of criteria which could be used by coastal States when considering

safe haven/sheltered water issues from a marine environment protection perspective.

Interim Report of the OPRC Working Group 4.11 Having received the interim report of the OPRC Working Group (MEPC 46/WP.6), the Committee:

.1 approved the draft document on “Guidance on Managing Seafood Safety During and After Oil Spills” as a joint IMO and FAO publication and requested the Secretariat to proceed with its printing;

.2 took note of the progress of work on the preparation of the 3rd R&D Forum –

High-density Oil Spill Response and recommended that the Secretariat explore the possibility of using the Technical Co-operation Fund to enable the participation of developing countries in the Forum;

.3 took note of the progress of work of the Correspondence Group for the revision of

Section IV of the Manual on Oil Pollution, in particular the addition of three new chapters on bioremediation, heavy fuel oils/emulsified oils and in-situ burning and agreed to establish a correspondence group to prepare a consolidated draft document to MEPC 47 for comment and review with a view to its approval for publication at MEPC 48. The terms of reference for the correspondence group is set out in annex 12;

.4 agreed that a drafting group should meet during MEPC 47 in order to meet the

objectives as set out at sub-paragraph .3 above and review the final draft of Section IV of the Manual on Oil Pollution before its consideration by the Committee at MEPC 48 for its approval and publication; and

.5 considered the work carried out by the OPRC Working Group on the issue of

sheltered waters/safe havens from the marine environment protection perspective, and agreed to forward it to MSC for consideration. A proposed set of issues from which criteria would need to be developed as guidance to Member States when considering sheltered waters/safe heaven from a marine environmental response perspective is set out in annex 4.

4.12 The delegation from New Zealand congratulated the Correspondence Group for their work on the revision of the Section IV of the Manual on Oil Pollution, and in particular, the Netherlands for taking the lead and to the OPRC Working Group for their work on the issue of sheltered water at such a short notice.

MEPC 46/23 - 32 -

I:\MEPC\46\23.DOC

4.13 Spain congratulated the OPRC Working Group for their work on the issue of sheltered waters despite the limited reference materials available. 5 HARMFUL EFFECTS OF THE USE OF ANTI-FOULING PAINTS FOR SHIPS 5.1 The Committee considered the text of the draft legal instrument, as approved by MEPC 45, taking into account the various comments contained in the documents submitted to MEPC 46 and established a Drafting Group to prepare a revised text of the draft instrument, to be submitted to the diplomatic Conference as a Conference document with all the modifications clearly marked. Comments on the unresolved parts of the text of the draft Convention Article 4 and Annex 1, Controls on Anti-Fouling Systems Extent of the ban: 5.2 The Committee having noted that the United Kingdom, Liberia, Japan and AWES in their documents (MEPC 46/5/6, MEPC 46/5/9, MEPC 46/5/9, MEPC 46/5/15 and MEPC 46/5/7, respectively) unanimously agreed to incorporate an obligation into the draft instrument, but noted the need for alternative drafting to restrict Parties to the Convention from applying or installing Annex 1 anti-fouling systems within their territory. 5.3 The Committee agreed to modify the text of article 4 as proposed by the United Kingdom in paragraph 3 of document MEPC 46/5/6, and instructed the Drafting Group to add a reference to shipyards to compliment the existing reference to ports and offshore terminals. Interpretation of complete ban: 5.4 The Chairman recalled that the issue of the interpretation of the complete ban of organotin compounds which act as biocides in anti-fouling systems still needs clarification, that is whether to require the removal of organotin-based anti-fouling systems or whether it is sufficient to overcoat these systems with a sealer coating. 5.5 The Committee discussed options A and B of Annex 1 with numerous delegations expressing their preference for Option A and others expressing support for Option B. 5.6 In discussing this issue, the Committee also noted the information provided by CEFIC (MEPC 46/5/12) on sealer-coats, namely:

.1 the coatings industry is able to provide non-polishing inert “sealer-coats” which provide a barrier to TBT leaching from underlying TBT anti-fouling paint;

.2 there will be cases where application of “sealer-coats” may not be appropriate for

a particular ship, e.g., when a substrate is in poor condition and removal is the most appropriate option; and

.3 the cost of re-blasting a ship’s hull may be over four times the cost of applying a

“sealer-coat” (on a square meter basis).

- 33 - MEPC 46/23

I:\MEPC\46\23.DOC

5.7 In discussing this issue and the implications of removing organotin-based anti-fouling systems, the Committee agreed that a mandatory provision should be included in the draft text requiring the safe handling disposal of waste generated from the removal of anti-fouling systems restricted under Annex 1 of the treaty. 5.8 The representative from AWES expressed his view that such a provision may need to be in the form of a recommendation as he was not aware whether all shipyards had in place proper facilities for removing organotin-based anti-fouling systems from ships. In this respect he informed the Committee that, while several European shipyards have in place such facilities, he could not comment whether shipyards in other parts of the world had such facilities. Recognizing that the majority of the world’s shipyards are in Japan and the Republic of Korea, and taking into account that most of these are privately owned and some may at present be undergoing financial difficulties, the delegate from AWES invited the delegations of Japan and the Republic of Korea to express their views on this issue. 5.9 In response to the request from AWES, the delegations from Japan and the Republic of Korea informed the Committee that shipyards in both countries would not have any problems in providing proper facilities for removing organotin-based anti-fouling systems from ships. The delegation from Korea also mentioned that the Korean shipyards have been managing their business well thanks to kind shipbuilding orders from foreign countries. 5.10 The Committee considered the various arguments in support of both options and agreed to retain both options A and B in square brackets at this stage for the Diplomatic Conference to decide upon. 5.11 The Committee noted that both the United States and Japan had submitted documents (MEPC 46/5/1 and MEPC 46/5/16, respectively) pointing out that option B in annex 1 as written in the draft instrument (MEPC 45/20, annex 2) is misleading as it allows for removal and over-coating with a sealer, as well as over-coating without the use of sealers, the latter being an option which was not under debate by the Committee. In view of this, the Committee instructed the Drafting Group to modify the text of option B. Effective ban dates: 5.12 The Chairman recalled that the issue of whether the effective ban dates should be independent from the entry into force needs to be resolved. 5.13 The Committee discussed the proposal to delete the text in square brackets “or entry into force of the Convention, whichever is later” which follow the effective dates of 1 January 2003 and 1 January 2008. Following an exchange of views on this question, the Committee agreed to keep the text in square brackets for the diplomatic Conference to decide upon. 5.14 The Committee also noted that Japan’s support for the deletion of the text was conditional to their proposal to modify the text for the control measures for the 1 January 2003 effective date, as the retroactive regulation on prohibition and restriction of “action” (represented by the words “apply” and “re-apply”) will cause legal problems when countries try to ratify the Convention.

MEPC 46/23 - 34 -

I:\MEPC\46\23.DOC

Annex 4, Form of International Anti-fouling System Certificate 5.15 The Committee noted the proposals by Japan and WWF (MEPC 46/5/16 and MEPC 46/5/3, respectively) for the text in the certificate to be modified and instructed the drafting group to review the recommended changes and to modify the text as appropriate. Article 9, Surveys Category of ships subject to survey and certification: 5.16 The Committee, in considering which vessel size should serve as the threshold for survey and certification requirements, noted the support expressed by the United States and Japan for thresholds of 400 and 500 gross tonnage, respectively. 5.17 Having discussed the issue, the Committee agreed to select the 400 gross tonnage limit, recognizing that virtually all ships are examined at this tonnage. The Committee noted that Cyprus and Japan expressed their preference to have in place 300 and 500 gross tonnage threshold limits, respectively. Guidelines for Surveys: 5.18 The Chairman recalled that paragraph 4 of article 9 requires surveys to be carried out based on the Guidelines for Surveys of Anti-fouling Systems that are to be developed by the Organization. 5.19 The Committee noted that, following the request from MEPC 45 for the FSI Sub-Committee to review the preliminary draft Guidelines prepared by Japan (MEPC 45/4/3) and to report back to the Committee, that the 9th FSI Sub-Committee had placed the review of the Guidelines on their work programme as an issue to be considered once the Diplomatic Conference has been held. 5.20 The Committee, in considering the request by Japan for MEPC 46 to approve the draft Guidelines prepared by Japan (MEPC 46/5/17) to be adopted by the Diplomatic Conference as a Conference resolution, agreed that these should be developed before the Convention enters into force and requested the FSI Sub-Committee to review the draft Guidelines at its meeting in 2002. Article 10, [Placards and] Issue of Endorsement of International Anti-fouling Certificates 5.21 The Committee, in noting the support expressed by Japan, ISAF and AWES in their documents (MEPC 46/5/15, MEPC 46/5/2 and MEPC 46/5/7, respectively) to delete the text in square brackets in article 10 which requires smaller vessels to display placards, agreed to delete this text. 5.22 In reviewing the proposal by AWES (MEPC 46/5/7) for smaller ships to carry onboard a declaration indicating the anti-fouling system that has been used on the ship, instead of a placard, the Committee agreed to include this requirement in the draft instrument. The Committee also agreed to a proposal from the floor that ships within a certain size category (e.g., over 25 meters in length, but less than 400 gross tons) should be required to carry such a declaration and asked the Drafting Group to consider what the appropriate threshold should be.

- 35 - MEPC 46/23

I:\MEPC\46\23.DOC

5.23 The Committee further agreed to the proposal by India (MEPC 46/5/14) that the requirement for smaller vessels should be limited to those engaged in international voyages. 5.24 The Committee instructed the Drafting Group to review the text of this article in view of the above-mentioned decisions. Article 15, Inspection of Ships and Detection of Violations 5.25 The Committee noted the proposals expressed by the United States, Japan and the United Kingdom (MEPC 46/5/1, MEPC 46/5/15 and MEPC 46/5/6, respectively) to delete paragraph 1bis in square brackets which places an obligation on a Party which may damage an anti-fouling system during sampling and to restore the system and compensate for delay and damage should the master of the ship determine that the anti-fouling system has been damaged during the sampling. 5.26 The Committee also noted the view expressed by Liberia (MEPC 46/5/11) that whilst paragraph 1bis addresses restoration or compensation for damage by the sampling Party, it is unlikely given the latitude available for litigation under domestic law of each Party, that this would provide an expeditious remedy to the shipowners. 5.27 The Committee further noted the proposal by the United Kingdom to incorporate the concept of damage to the anti-fouling system contained in paragraph 1bis into article 16. 5.28 Having discussed this issue at length, the Committee agreed to the following and instructed the Drafting Group to modify the text accordingly:

.1 to leave paragraph 1bis in square brackets; .2 to place the concept of damage into article 16 as proposed by the United Kingdom

(MEPC 46/5/6) and to place it in square brackets; and .3 to include a footnote indicating that the proposal by the United Kingdom is an

alternative suggestion to the proposal contained in paragraph 1bis. 5.29 Committee noted that the diplomatic Conference would need to consider whether to include a damage clause in the text of the instrument. Should a decision be taken to include a damage provision in the treaty, then a decision would be needed whether it should be placed into article 15 or 16 and what the appropriate wording should be. Article 18, Amendments 5.30 The Committee noted that Japan and the United States had both submitted proposals (MEPC 46/5/15 and MEPC 46/5/1, respectively) on how to handle the amendment of the treaty and its annexes, the main difference between the two proposals being that articles 9 to 13 were subjected to tacit amendment procedures in the Japanese paper. 5.31 Having heard that the United States and Japan had agreed to a combined proposal, based on the text of MEPC 46/5/1 with the modification that articles 9 to 13 be placed into an annex, the Committee instructed the Drafting Group to develop text for this article based on the procedures found in MEPC 46/5/1 and moving articles 9 to 13 to an annex, with drafting changes as needed.

MEPC 46/23 - 36 -

I:\MEPC\46\23.DOC

5.32 Cyprus and Japan pointed out that if a new substance is added to annex one, then a transition period as currently provided for in the phase-out of the organotin-based anti-fouling systems, should be considered. 5.33 The Committee requested the Drafting Group, provided it has spare time, to review the amendment procedures taking into account the above-mentioned proposal by Cyprus. Article 20, Entry into Force 5.34 The Chairman informed that the Committee, at this session, will not be expected to decide on the entry into force provision as this will be left for the Diplomatic Conference to decide upon. 5.35 Although a few delegations felt that text should be placed in this article, the majority of delegations agreed that it was important to first see the full content of the Convention before placing any text into this article. The Committee recalled the document submitted by the Netherlands to the previous session of the Committee (MEPC 45/4/2) outlining some of the options for the conditions of entry into force of the legal instrument and agreed to leave this article blank for the Diplomatic Conference to provide the text. Article 23, Relationship to International Law and Other Agreements 5.36 The Committee noted that the whole of this article is currently in square brackets following an extensive discussion at MEPC 45 on a proposal by Denmark to delete this article in view of the difficulties that having such an article could have on national legislations, and instead to place a reference to UNCLOS in the preamble. 5.37 The Committee discussed the proposal from Denmark (MEPC 46/5/5) for this article to be deleted so as to prevent the anti-fouling Convention being developed from being subordinated to all other existing agreements. Having discussed this issue, the Committee subsequently agreed to delete the text at the end of the sentence “or under any existing international agreement”. 5.38 Following the decision to delete the clause referring to “any existing international agreement,” Denmark proposed that the remaining text be moved to the preamble, however, there was insufficient support for this suggestion. 5.39 The delegation from Denmark maintained their position that the article should either be deleted or moved to the preamble. Comments on those parts of the draft instrument which do not appear in square brackets Article 1, General Obligations and Article 5, Process for Proposing Amendments to Controls on Anti-Fouling Systems Precautionary principle: 5.40 The Chairman recalled that the Committee at its last session agreed not to reference the precautionary principle in the main body of the text as it was felt that this principle was adequately referenced in the preamble to the Convention, but that Denmark may elect to make such a proposal in writing for consideration at MEPC 46.

- 37 - MEPC 46/23

I:\MEPC\46\23.DOC

5.41 The Committee noted the information contained in the joint document by Denmark and Sweden (MEPC 46/5/8) and the document by Italy (MEPC 46/5/4) outlining reasons why they felt it was important to incorporate the precautionary language in the main body of the Convention. 5.42 Whilst a number of delegations expressed their support for incorporating the proposed text, the Committee, in view of a majority support, decided not to include such text in the main body of the treaty as this was adequately addressed in the preamble. 5.43 The delegation from Denmark, in referring to other international agreements where similar language is placed in the main body of the text (e.g., the Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants and the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety) maintained its position that this text should be in the main body of the treaty. 5.44 The delegation of the Bahamas pointed out that paragraph 3 of article 1 goes against the objective of establishing a single global standard, as it provides that Parties ports can take more stringent measures either individually or jointly than those provided by the Convention. This view was supported by the delegation of Vanuatu. One delegation asked for an explanation of paragraph 3 of article 1. In response to this request, the Chairman of the Drafting Group, Mr. Bryan Wood-Thomas (United States) explained that paragraph 3 of article 1 provides an explicit statement that States to the agreement are free to take more stringent measures than those specified in the treaty. While States possess such a right to require more stringent measures, an explicit statement to this effect removes any potential argument that the treaty is intended to constrain this right. Article 5, Process for Proposing Amendments to Controls on Anti-Fouling Systems 5.45 The Committee noted the proposal by Japan (MEPC 46/5/15) to add text to article 5 to reflect that the amendment procedures of annex 1 should be subject to article 18 and the request from the United Kingdom (MEPC 46/5/6) for the Committee to consider the mechanism for providing the data requirements for the initial and comprehensive proposals. 5.46 The Committee agreed to the Drafting Group addressing the proposal by Japan in light of the text being proposed for article 18. Article 2, Applications 5.47 The Committee noted the proposal by the United Kingdom (MEPC 46/5/6) for article 2 to be modified to take into account the application of the Convention to fixed or floating platforms, which do not in practice fly a Party’s flag but which operate under the authority of a Party, as well as to clarify the circumstances in which the Convention applies to ships of non-Parties. 5.48 Having considered the proposal, the Committee agreed to modify the text of the article as proposed by the United Kingdom and instructed the Drafting Group accordingly. 5.49 The Committee agreed to modify the text proposed by the United Kingdom in line with a proposal made to specifically reference shipyards.

MEPC 46/23 - 38 -

I:\MEPC\46\23.DOC

Proposal to have designated laboratories for certifying alternative systems 5.50 The Committee discussed the proposal by Brazil (MEPC 46/5/13) to include two new articles containing provisions for the establishment of laboratories authorized by IMO to carry out certification of anti-fouling systems and for IMO to prepare a publication of procedures for testing anti-fouling systems. 5.51 The Committee noted that the issue of IMO being involved in the approval of anti-fouling systems had been discussed previously by this Committee and it was decided that IMO should not get involved in the approval of chemicals and the assessment of anti-fouling system performance. 5.52 The delegate from CEFIC informed the Committee that the industry is able to confirm that alternative coatings are available, that the market place is the best judge for efficacy of alternatives, and that some countries had in place national legislation for approval of systems. 5.53 Although a number of delegations supported the proposal by Brazil, the Committee agreed, based on a majority view, that it would be inappropriate for IMO to be involved in the approval of anti-fouling systems and decided not to include such provisions in the Convention. Article 6, Expert Groups 5.54 The Committee agreed to the proposal by the United States (MEPC 46/5/1) that, the reference to “expert group” should be changed to “Technical Group” to reflect that the group is a mechanism assembled by Parties that is responsible for technical review of a given proposal/proposals submitted under the treaty in future years and is open to participation by Parties and non-Parties as well as intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations, and not a group of appointed individuals who are experts in one or more fields relevant to the review and who would serve in an individual capacity only. Article 9, Surveys 5.55 The Committee noted the information provided by CEFIC (MEPC 46/512) relating to the usefulness of Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) and urged Member States to ensure that MSDS’s are always supplied and available for inspection at the site of application of an anti-fouling system. Article 13, Validity of International Anti-Fouling Certificates 5.56 The Committee, in noting the proposal by the United States (MEPC 46/5/1), agreed to instruct the Drafting Group to modify the text of article 13 as proposed by the United States, in order to clarify that the current norms as reflected in SOLAS chapter I, regulation 14-9-ii, MARPOL 73/78 Annex I, regulation 8(3), and the Introduction of the Harmonized System of Survey and Certification to Annexes I and II of MARPOL 73/78 (MEPC.39(29)), regulation 8(9)(c) require the issuance of a new certificate whenever a transfer occurs, but that a new certificate may be issued based upon either 1) a new survey that results in a satisfactory result, or 2) the existing certificate.

- 39 - MEPC 46/23

I:\MEPC\46\23.DOC

Annex 1, Controls on Anti-Fouling Systems Application of the proposed ban on organotin-based anti-fouling systems: 5.57 The Committee noted the proposal by Liberia (MEPC 46/5/10) for the application of the proposed ban on organotin-based anti-fouling systems to be modified to recognize the environmental risk relationship between vessel numbers and size, namely that:

.1 the ban on application to take effect on entry into force of the draft treaty for vessels below 20,000GT; and

.2 the ban on application on the remaining vessels of 20,000GT and above at five

years after entry into force of the draft treaty, when proven 60-month alternatives are available, and when a more complete environmental assessment of the alternatives has been developed and evaluated.

5.58 The Committee noted that Iran supported the proposal by Liberia and, after listening to the views of other delegations on this proposal, the Committee decided that there was no need for such a modification. 5.59 The Committee also noted the following points raised in document MEPC 46/5/11 (Liberia):

.1 There is a need for the treaty to allow vessels to repair damage to their anti-fouling coating using their existing system and not another coating which may be incompatible with their existing coating during the period between the ban on the application and the complete prohibition.

.2 There is a need to include provisions in the draft treaty that will exempt vessels

being normally recycled within a time frame before and shortly after the complete prohibition takes effect. Another scenario involves single hull tankers that will be “scrapped” as a result of the proposed amendments to regulation 13G of Annex I of MARPOL. These single hull tankers must be given a blanket exemption from the application of the draft treaty. Even for those single hull tankers that will be trading well into the next decade, exempting them from the application of the treaty should not create environmental concerns, as the number of such tankers is small. The cost of maintaining TBT-based coatings as compared with that of alternatives would of itself promote a move to non-TBT based anti-fouling systems.

5.60 In discussing the issue of paint compatibility, the observer from CEFIC informed the Committee that it is possible to repair organotin-based anti-fouling systems with a non-organotin-based system, provided that consultation takes place between the shipowner and the paint manufacturer to ensure that the specific systems in question are compatible. A number of delegations expressed the view that it was not necessary to use the same paint formulation when repairing a damaged area. 5.61 In discussing the proposal to include a provision in the draft treaty that will exempt vessels scheduled to be recycled within a time frame before and shortly after the complete prohibition takes effect, some delegations noted that it would be unreasonable to expect a vessel to repaint only 1 year or 2 years before its planned retirement. It was also suggested that

MEPC 46/23 - 40 -

I:\MEPC\46\23.DOC

removal or over-coating should not be required until the first scheduled dry dock interval after 2008. It was subsequently pointed out that this would effectively extend the 2008 date to 2012 or 2013. Some delegations pointed out that ships will drydock between 2003 and 2008 and will have the opportunity to apply non-TBT based anti-fouling systems. 5.62 After discussing the points raised by Liberia, the Chairman concluded that specific written proposals would be necessary if the Conference was to consider these suggestions. General comments relating to the draft instrument 5.63 The Committee noted the information contained in document MEPC 46/5/11 (Liberia) relating to the testing of anti-fouling systems and the information in document MEPC 46/INF.26 (Australia) on the project underway on the testing of alternative anti-fouling systems. Documents relating to the Diplomatic Conference 5.64 The Committee reviewed the draft provisional Rules of Procedure for the International Conference on the Control of Harmful Anti-fouling Systems for Ships contained in document MEPC 46/5 and approved them for submission to the Diplomatic Conference. Instructions to the Drafting Group 5.65 The Drafting Group was instructed to:

.1 review the draft text of the Convention including the four annexes in accordance with the decisions of the Committee and taking into account the comments contained in the submissions and the views expressed at plenary;

.2 prepare a revised text of the Convention including the four annexes with all the

modifications clearly marked and submit this to plenary on Friday, 27 April 2001; and

.3 provide an oral report to plenary on Friday, 27 April 2001.

Report of the Drafting Group 5.66 The Chairman of the Drafting Group, Mr. Bryan Wood-Thomas (United States), in providing an oral report of the Group's deliberations on Friday, 27 April 2001, informed the Committee of the following:

.1 the Group reached consensus on a single text that was fully supported by every member of the drafting group, and which is free of square brackets except those in articles 15 and 16 associated with the proposed damage clause;

.2 as a result of the United States and Japanese proposals on treaty amendment

procedures, the Group converted articles 9 through 13, concerning surveys and certification requirements into regulations 1 through 5 of Annex 4. The Group also reviewed articles 18 and 19 as proposed by the United States and made drafting changes as appropriate. Denmark and at least one other delegation noted that they did not support paragraph 3bis of article 19;

- 41 - MEPC 46/23

I:\MEPC\46\23.DOC

.3 in discussing the point raised by Cyprus concerning an appropriate phase-in period for existing ships when amending Annex 1 to add a new substance, the Group generally agreed that a phase-in period would be appropriate as a general matter, but others expressed a view that the period should be determined on the circumstances that may be unique to a particular anti-fouling system. Others expressed a view that incorporating such a provision into the body of the treaty was inappropriate. After discussion, the Group agreed to include the text as proposed in the Drafting Group by Cyprus in the meeting report; and

.4 that the principal points of debate at the Conference should be limited to the

entry-into-force provisions, removal versus sealers, the proposed damage clause, the amendment provisions, and other issues raised in pre-Conference submittals. The Chairman of the Drafting Group expressed his view that the October Diplomatic Conference could be approached with a manageable set of issues and with a reasonable expectation of success.

5.67 Upon hearing the oral report from the Chairman of the Drafting Group, and having considered the draft text of the Convention as modified by the Drafting Group (MEPC 46/WP.10), the Committee noted the following:

.1 several delegations expressed concern as regards article 19(3bis) and the need to re-visit this article at the Conference. The observer from Greenpeace expressed his concerns related to the exceptions introduced to the “tacit amendment” procedure, especially where this concerns Annex 1 and suggested that a straight-forward “tacit amendment” approach provides sufficient safeguards to address the concerns expressed;

.2 the delegate from Denmark informed the Committee that they, together with Italy,

Sweden, and other countries, intend to submit a proposal to the diplomatic Conference in order to include and operationalize the Precautionary Principle in the main body of the text. He invited delegations to look carefully into this matter in the light of the experiences from the most recent conventions which protect the environment (e.g., the Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants and the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety) and to work together at the Diplomatic Conference towards a Convention which everyone can sign. Greenpeace also urged delegations to look into this matter; and

.3 the delegation of Japan, supported by Norway, expressed its view that the

provision on control of annex 1 waste materials contained in article 4(bis) should be in the form of a recommendation as making it mandatory might delay the ratification of the Convention.

5.68 The Committee approved the revised draft text contained in annex 5 for submission to the Diplomatic Conference as a Conference document. 5.69 During the discussion on the draft text of the Convention, a delegation raised a question to the Committee concerning the need for extra days to the Conference. Having consulted with the Secretariat, the Committee was informed that, due to other scheduled meetings, the Diplomatic Conference could only be extended to use the following weekend, 6 and 7 October. However, the Committee was informed that this arrangement would require additional funds to

MEPC 46/23 - 42 -

I:\MEPC\46\23.DOC

meet mainly the cost of the required interpretation services for the extra days and the Committee did not take any action on this point. 6 IDENTIFICATION AND PROTECTION OF SPECIAL AREAS AND

PARTICULARLY SENSITIVE SEA AREAS Background 6.1 The Committee recalled that, in 1991, Guidelines for the designation of PSSAs were adopted as resolution A.720(17). Since then, this resolution had been the subject of several amendments which have been adopted as resolution A.885(21). 6.2 The Committee also recalled that, during MEPC 44, terms of reference had been agreed for the Correspondence Group to review resolution A.720(17) and revise the Guidelines for the Designation of Special Areas and Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas, as shown in MEPC 44/20, annex 14. 6.3 The Committee also recalled that, during MEPC 45, it had addressed six issues that the Correspondence Group could not agree on and then instructed a drafting group to finalize the text of the revision of resolution A.720(17). Having noted the results of the drafting group, the Committee then: .1 requested the Secretariat to produce a document containing additional information

including a flow chart to assist Member States in deciding the most appropriate method of providing additional protection for particularly sensitive sea areas; and

.2 requested the Secretariat to produce a draft Assembly resolution together with a

clean text of the revised Guidelines for discussion and approval at this session. Draft Assembly resolution on the identification and protection of Special Areas and Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas 6.4 The Committee noted the draft Assembly resolution and a separate draft document providing additional information to be used in conjunction with the resolution as set out in documents MEPC 46/6, MEPC 46/6/1, MEPC 46/6/1/Corr.1 and MEPC 46/6/1/Add.1. 6.5 After general discussion on these documents, the Committee instructed the Drafting Group to finalise the text of the draft Assembly resolution prior to approval and submission to the Assembly. Proposal from the United States to designate the marine area around the Florida Keys as a PSSA 6.6 In introducing document MEPC 46/6/2, the United States made the following points: .1 the proposal to make the marine area around the Florida Keys as a Particularly

Sensitive Sea Area (PSSA) to protect the fragile coral reef ecosystem is consistent with the Guidelines for the Designation of Special Areas and the Identification of Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas (resolution A.720(17)) and the Procedures for the Identification of Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas and the Adoption of Associated Protective Measures and Amendments to the Guidelines contained in

- 43 - MEPC 46/23

I:\MEPC\46\23.DOC

resolution A.720(17) (resolution A.885(21) as well as the results of the discussions of the drafting group on PSSAs at MEPC 45;

.2 the criteria required under paragraph 3.3.4 of resolution A.720(17) have been met,

as described in section 3.1; .3 the requirements for applying for the area to be a PSSA along with proposals for

the associated protective measures, as required by section 3 of resolution A.885(21) have also been described; and

.4 as a result, the United States requests the Committee to approve, in principle, the

proposal to designate the marine area around the Florida Keys as a Particularly Sensitive Sea Area and inform the NAV Sub-Committee of this decision and subsequently give final approval of this proposal.

6.7 Having considered the proposal by the United States, the Committee agreed, in principle, that it met all of the requirements laid down in resolutions A.720(17) and A.885(21). However, prior to giving final approval to this proposal, the Committee instructed the NAV Sub-Committee (which will meet in July 2001) to report back on any navigational issues that may need to be taken into account prior to final approval being given so that these may be reflected in the appropriate MEPC resolution. 6.8 The Committee agreed that the proposal by the United States for a PSSA as presented in document MEPC 46/6/2 should serve as a model by Member States when proposing their PSSAs in the future. Additional information for the designation of Malpelo Island as a PSSA 6.9 The Committee recalled that, during MEPC 44, it had considered a proposal by Colombia to make the Malpelo Island a Particularly Sensitive Sea Area (PSSA). Members also recalled that, whilst the Committee agreed that the proposal included many of the requirements needed for such a proposal, some additional information, described in resolution A.885(21) was needed to allow a final decision to be taken. 6.10 In introducing document MEPC 46/6/3, the delegation of Colombia indicated that the following additional information had been provided for the Committee to take into account: .1 a chart showing the area in question;

.2 an indication of the risk that international maritime activities pose, which is mainly due to illegal fishing and disposing of garbage by leisure craft into the sea;

.3 an indication of the type of ships in the area; and .4 proposals for associate protective measures.

6.11 Colombia emphasized that this area, which is of special ecological importance, was particularly vulnerable to illegal fishing and dumping of garbage from leisure craft and fishing vessels.

MEPC 46/23 - 44 -

I:\MEPC\46\23.DOC

6.12 Colombia requested the Committee to give international support to its efforts to protect its natural resources which would not cause any difficulties to legitimate shipping in the area. 6.13 In addition, Colombia expressed its concern that the problems associated with the Malpelo Island demonstrate a void in international regulations for the protection of fishing. In this context, Colombia proposed that consideration may be given to amending the STCW and Torremolinos Conventions to take account of fishing vessels. However, the Committee agreed that this was an issue that should be put to MSC for its consideration by Colombia. 6.14 Colombia requested that its statement be added to the report which is shown in annex 13. 6.15 In supporting Colombia’s proposal, Cuba informed the Committee of the measures that it had introduced to support the Sabana-Camagũey as a PSSA and requested that its statement be included in the report, which is shown in annex 13. 6.16 Following general support for this proposal, the Committee agreed to the proposal in principle. 6.17 However, prior to giving final approval to this proposal and in view of the “measure to be adopted” is the introduction of an “area to be avoided”, the Committee instructed the NAV Sub-Committee to review any navigational issues that may need to be taken into account and report back to the Committee. The Committee also requested to NAV Sub-Committee to ensure that the co-ordinates of the geographical points for the “area to be avoided” as given in document MEPC 46/6/3 are correct and to modify them accordingly. Extension of the “Special Area” of the Gulfs Area, under Annexes I and V of MARPOL 73/78 6.18 The Committee noted the information contained in MEPC 46/6/INF.32 which was Oman’s intention to propose an extension of the Special Area under Annexes I and V of MARPOL 73/78, to include the entire coastline of Oman. In order to do this Oman indicated its intention to submit a comprehensive document to MEPC 47 containing all relevant information as required by resolution A.720(17), as may be superseded by the new resolution to be adopted by the twenty-second session of the Assembly. Report from Australia regarding the grounding of a ship on the Great Barrier Reef 6.19 Australia informed the Committee of the effects caused by the grounding of a ship, containing oil and dangerous cargoes on the Great Barrier Reef, and a wide range of measures taken to promote ship safety and pollution prevention. The statement by Australia is shown in annex 13. Terms of reference for the Drafting Group 6.20 The Committee instructed the Drafting Group to:

.1 finalize the text of the draft Assembly resolution on Identification and Protection of Special Areas and Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas, to replace resolutions A.720(17) and A.885(21);

.2 make any final editorial corrections to the text of the Guidelines; and

- 45 - MEPC 46/23

I:\MEPC\46\23.DOC

.3 draft instructions for the Secretariat, to facilitate the development of additional

information to assist Member Governments when considering options for protecting environmentally sensitive areas from shipping operations and in following the above resolution.

6.21 Having received the report of the Drafting Group (MEPC 46/WP.5), the Committee approved, in principle, the text of the revised draft Assembly resolution, which is attached at annex 6, and instructed the NAV Sub-Committee to review the text carefully and submit its comments directly to the twenty-second session of the Assembly. 6.22 In addition, the Committee considered the request from the Drafting Group to establish a Correspondence Group to explore the possibilities of developing a suitable document to assist Member Governments in deciding on the most appropriate means of protecting a marine sensitive area. The Committee recognized that the maximum three Correspondence Groups had already been established and so decided not to establish a fourth at this time. However, Members were invited to make proposals for such a document for discussion at a future session. 7 RECYCLING OF SHIPS Background 7.1 The Committee recalled that, at MEPC 44, there was general agreement that IMO has a role to play in reducing the safety and environmental risks associated with the recycling of ships. 7.2 The Committee at that time further expressed its appreciation for the proactive approach being taken by the shipping industry and looked forward to being informed of the developments in this activity. 7.3 Whilst some concern was expressed about the need to form a correspondence group to provide feedback to the Committee on this issue, there was general agreement that it would provide useful information that could facilitate further discussions on the subject. 7.4 Having had a thorough debate on the subject, MEPC 44 agreed to consider this matter further at MEPC 46 and, in order to facilitate the discussion, decided to establish a correspondence group co- coordinated by Bangladesh. 7.5 The Committee also noted that the matter of ship recycling may involve safety matters and agreed to inform the above development to the MSC and invite its comments on the activities of the MEPC relating to ship recycling. Report of the Correspondence Group 7.6 The Committee considered the report of the Correspondence Group (MEPC 46/7) and noted the following aspects: .1 the report contained information gathered from the documents submitted to the

Committee and developed a full IMO bibliography which is attached at annex to the report;

MEPC 46/23 - 46 -

I:\MEPC\46\23.DOC

.2 six annexes were developed to address terms of reference of the Correspondence group a follows:

Annex 1 Ship recycling – current practices

Annex 2 The identification of relevant information from documents already submitted to MEPC and discussions that have taken place in the Committee on the issue during its forty-second, forty-third and forty-fourth sessions

Annex 3 Safety and environmental risks associated with the current

practices Annex 4 Procedures introduced by governments and industry to reduce the

environmental and safety risks associated with the recycling of ships

Annex 5 Information received from the Secretariats of ILO, the Basel

Convention, the London Convention and industry on their activities and perceived responsibilities associated with the recycling of ships

Annex 6 Views on areas where IMO may usefully contribute to the

reduction of safety and environmental risks associated with the recycling of ships identifying the originators of these views

.3 whilst Annexes 1 to 4 are factual and present information about the current

situation and practices, and provide information on hazardous substances and environmental problems, annexes 5 and 6 contain views of the Correspondence Group members on the roles of the stakeholders concerned and IMO;

.4 Annex 5 describes the possible roles of the different actors involved in ship

recycling and describes the responsibilities of IMO, the International Labour Organization, the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal, the 1972 London Convention and the Industry including the shipping industry and classification societies;

.5 Annex 6 examines IMO’s possible future role in ship recycling. It discusses

IMO’s role in pre-recycling activities, rendering the ship and its wastes harmless before it arrives at recycling yards. It also discusses IMO’s role as a co-ordinator among relevant international organizations.

7.7 Several delegations supported the views of India as contained in paragraph 4 of document MEPC 46/7/1 on current improvements at Alang Recycling Industry. In the same document, India strongly recommended that IMO should limit its action to providing internationally binding guidelines for preparing a vessel before it goes for recycling and IMO's role should end once the ship is de-registered on reaching the breaker's yard. 7.8 The Committee noted the information provided by Greenpeace International (MEPC 46/INF.21) on its report following the analyses of environmental samples taken from the Alang-Sosiya Shipbreaking Yards in India.

- 47 - MEPC 46/23

I:\MEPC\46\23.DOC

7.9 The Committee noted the information provided by the Secretariat (MEPC 45/INF.5 on the liaison with the Basel Convention on shipbreaking, and on the seventeenth meeting of the Technical Working Group of the Basel Convention which made progress of the work on the preparation of the technical guidelines on the dismantling of ships. 7.10 The Committee also noted the presentation by ILO of their film on ship breaking, “The Shipbreakers” . 7.11 Having noted all relevant documents, the Committee expressed its appreciation for the work of the Correspondence Group under the leadership of Capt. M.U. Ahmed and discussed the policy issues related to IMO’s future role, and the issue of the need for an environmental standard for ships delivered for recycling. 7.12 In the course of the Committee’s discussions, the following points were made:

.1 IMO’s main role should be to deal with ships before the recycling process and internationally binding guidelines should be established;

.2 IMO should discuss the feasibility of implementation of any guidelines before

commencing to write them; .3 IMO should continue to discuss whether it should take on the main co-ordinating

role in ship recycling; .4 it was suggested that a draft Assembly resolution for the twenty-third Assembly

should be developed; .5 in preparations for the final voyage before recycling, ships should not be rendered

unsafe; .6 IMO should discuss preparations for recycling of existing ships; .7 future ship concepts should be developed in order to reduce environment and

safety problems in the recycling industry; .8 the Correspondence Group should be re-established concentrating its work on the

future role of IMO and where to focus the Committee’s attention; and .9 the Correspondence Group should analyse the pros and cons regarding the

development of guidelines, binding guidelines, an Assembly resolution, or a new instrument regarding ship recycling.

Proposal for a Working Group 7.13 The delegation of the Netherlands expressed grave concern about the environmental aspects of ship recycling and considered that the MEPC should take a leading and co-ordinating role in addressing this issue. Close co-operation is needed with national authorities, both flag States and recycling countries, as well as international organizations such as ILO, the Basel Convention, EU, ICS and Greenpeace. IMO and its Member States should encourage self-regulating initiatives by the industry. The Netherlands very much welcomed the initiatives taken by the industry so far.

MEPC 46/23 - 48 -

I:\MEPC\46\23.DOC

7.14 The Netherlands proposed to establish a Working Group to address the matter of ship recycling, and look into the possibilities of the following measures: For the short term:

.1 the development of technical guidelines and codes of conduct for shipowners and possibly even flag States;

.2 assist in the development of a Ship Recycling Technology Programme aimed at

improving conditions at the recycling facilities in the current recycling countries. Such a Programme is being developed under the Basel Convention;

.3 continue collecting facts and figures on ship recycling.

For the long term:

.4 preventive measures through the development of new building techniques and the use of environmentally sound materials; and

.5 the development of financial instruments on ship recycling, if this is to be

pursued. 7.15 The Committee decided to re-establish the Correspondence Group on Recycling of Ships with Bangladesh as lead country* in order to prepare a document for in-depth discussion by a working group at its next session, and agreed with its Terms of Reference as contained at annex 12. 7.16 The Netherlands also informed the Committee of the forthcoming Second Global Ship Recycling Summit, which will be held in Rotterdam, Monday, 25 June this year. Statements by the Basel Convention Secretariat 7.17 The representative of the Basel Convention welcomed the report of the Correspondence Group on Recycling of Ships and highlighted the following issues:

.1 consideration of the Correspondence Group’s report at MEPC 46 was critical and timely, taking into account progress in the context of the Basel Convention;

* Capt. Moin Ahmed Representative of Bangladesh for Shipping and IMO Matters 2 Abbey Road Barking Essex IG11 7AX United Kingdom Tel: 020 8507 8800 Fax: 020 8594 0234 Telex: 8811818 e-mail: moin@bscuk.fsnet.co.uk

- 49 - MEPC 46/23

I:\MEPC\46\23.DOC

.2 a first draft of the text of the Technical Guidelines on the Environmentally Sound Dismantling of Ships will be considered at the next meeting of the Technical Working Group (TWG), which will be held in Geneva from 18 to 20 June 2001;

.3 the complexity of the issue requires the involvement of several stakeholders and in

this regard Secretariat of the Basel Convention was very pleased with the fruitful co-operation with IMO and ILO, as well as with the shipping industry and environmental NGOs; and

.4 there should be a next step. In 2002, the Conference of Parties (COP) to the Basel

Convention will consider the work done by the TWG and take decisions on any further step. Also, the legal issues relating to the dismantling of ships will be addressed. Clearly, the experience and authority of IMO will be essential to this process.

Statement by ILO 7.18 The representative of ILO, having participated in the Correspondence Group, welcomed the opportunity to inform the Committee of the following issues:

.1 ILO is moving rapidly to enter the field of ship recycling and will profit from the work already carried out by IMO and the Basel Convention;

.2 ILO is in the process of organizing workshops or fact-finding missions in

Chittagong (Bangladesh) and at the Gadanni Estate (in Pakistan); .3 the Basel Convention and the Chairman of the IMO Correspondence Group have

already participated in joint undertakings, for which ILO expressed its gratitude; and

.4 the role of ILO is to improve the working conditions of the labourers involved in

the ship-recycling process, as well as the productivity of the employers. 7.19 The Committee agreed that the IMO Secretariat should continue a close liaison role and dialogue with ILO and the Basel Convention Secretariats. The Chairman stressed that as well as the Secretariats of these Organizations liasing with each other, it is essential that MEPC delegates also liase with their colleagues in their home countries who attend ILO and Basel Convention meetings on ship recycling to ensure a consistent approach by Member Governments. It could not be left to the Secretariats to resolve the problem of which the Organization should take the lead role. 8 INTERPRETATION AND AMENDMENTS OF MARPOL 73/78 AND RELATED

CODES Information for reception facilities under MARPOL Annex IV 8.1 The Committee recalled that MEPC 44 approved the text of the revised MARPOL Annex IV and instructed the Secretariat to prepare a draft MEPC circular on information from Contracting States to MARPOL Annex IV to the Organization of regulations on discharge of sewage in waters under their jurisdiction and available reception facilities for sewage in their ports for consideration at MEPC 46 (MEPC 44/20, paragraph 12.40 and annex 10).

MEPC 46/23 - 50 -

I:\MEPC\46\23.DOC

8.2 In response to the instruction by MEPC 44, the Secretariat prepared a draft MEPC circular (MEPC 46/8, annex). The Chairman emphasized that amendments made at MEPC 44 were to address the concerns of countries that have not acceded to the revised MARPOL Annex IV and to assist these countries in order to facilitate its entry into force. 8.3 The Committee agreed to delete "before 1 October 2001" in paragraph 4 of the draft MEPC circular as annexed to MEPC 46/8 and to include a request for States who would later decide to impose more stringent requirements or introduce reception facilities to notify IMO and update the information.

8.4 The Committee approved the draft circular as amended and requested the Secretariat to issue it as soon as possible, as MEPC/Circ.380. Information collected through the circular should be reported to future sessions for consideration with the objective of facilitating the implementation of the revised MARPOL Annex IV when it enters into force. Interpretation of the term “damage” under the MARPOL discharge provisions 8.5 The Committee noted that Australia, in document MEPC 46/8/1 and a subsequent modification, proposed a unified interpretation of the term “damage” for the purpose of clarifying the exemption clause “…resulting from damage to a ship or its equipment” under regulation 11(b) of MARPOL Annex I and regulation 6(b) of MARPOL Annex II. 8.6 In the view of Australia, this interpretation was necessary because neither the regulations nor unified interpretations provided a definition of the term “damage”, which resulted in a case that an Australian Court accepted the defence that an oil discharge from a ship due to the rupturing of a hydraulic hose fitted to a shipboard crane was the result of “damage” and that the term “damage” included “fair wear and tear”, consequently the discharge was not in contravention of MARPOL 73/78. 8.7 Australia expressed concern that this precedent defeats the purpose of the MARPOL Convention. Australia held the view that the term “damage” should not include oil spills/leakages resulting from gradually developing and preventable defects, but should be strictly limited to those spills resulting from damage of a sudden or violent nature, normally associated with maritime casualties or similar incidents. In this respect, Australia proposed that the term “damage” in regulation 11 of Annex I and regulation 6 of Annex II be interpreted as not to include deterioration resulting from failure to maintain or defects that develop during the normal operation of the ship or its equipment. 8.8 The Committee noted the views expressed by several delegations in support of the proposal of Australia as described in paragraph 8.7. However, a number of delegations disagreed with the request to interpret the term “damage”. In the view of these delegations, the MARPOL Convention provides adequate safeguards for the interpretation of damage by a competent court. 8.9 The majority of delegations who spoke agreed that the interpretation proposed by Australia is appropriate, however due to a lack of consensus on the matter, a unified interpretation could not be agreed. Withdrawal of reservation under MARPOL Annex IV 8.10 The Committee recalled that MEPC 44 approved the text of the revised MARPOL Annex IV with a view to future adoption when MARPOL Annex IV enters into force

- 51 - MEPC 46/23

I:\MEPC\46\23.DOC

(MEPC 44/20, paragraph 12.40.1 and annex 10). The delegation of Germany, at that time, reserved its position (MEPC 44/20, paragraph 12.41). 8.11 The Committee noted that document MEPC 46/INF.3 contained a communication from the Embassy of Federal Republic of Germany in London dated 8 December 2000 informing that Germany reserved its position on the revised Annex IV at MEPC 44 was due to the national legal requirements at that time. Since then, the national legal process of Germany has been concluded and the reservation is withdrawn allowing Germany to accept the revised version of MARPOL Annex IV. 9 INADEQUACY OF RECEPTION FACILITIES 9.1 The Committee reconfirmed that this is an important MEPC agenda item which would provide the opportunity for proposals for improving reception facilities. 9.2 The Committee recalled that MEPC 44 adopted the Guidelines for ensuring the adequacy of port waste reception facilities under cover of resolution MEPC.83(44), published as an IMO publication in 2000 with financial support from INTERTANKO. The Committee further recalled that the Guidelines have at annex a “Revised consolidated format for reporting alleged inadequacies of reception facilities”. 9.3 The Committee reiterated its appreciation to INTERTANKO for its contribution to the printing costs of the Guidelines. 9.4 The Committee was informed that according to document FSI 9/8 regarding Mandatory reports under MARPOL 73/78 for 1999, only one flag State reported on inadequate reception facilities. The Committee was therefore reminded that the flag States have an obligation to report alleged inadequacies, and that the port States have an obligation to provide information on reception facilities in their ports, including changes or improvements in their reception facilities. 9.5 The Committee thanked Denmark for its information (MEPC 46/INF.20) about an Internet based regional information system on reception facilities in the Baltic Sea Area for MARPOL 73/78 Annexes I, II, IV and V wastes and requested progress reports as the system develops. 9.6 The Committee extended its appreciation to the Danish Government for their presentation of the Internet based information system. 9.7 In the discussion on reporting on reception facilities, one delegation pointed out that there may be a problem in implementing the Guidelines which could be the reason for hardly any reports having been received and suggested that the FSI Sub-Committee be asked to analyse the Guidelines. The Committee, noting that the guidelines had only recently been published, was of the view that such a review would be premature. 10 PREVENTION OF AIR POLLUTION FROM SHIPS 10.1 The Committee agreed to consider the following matters under this item: .1 Progress report by the Secretariat (MEPC 46/10);

MEPC 46/23 - 52 -

I:\MEPC\46\23.DOC

.2 Greenhouse gas emissions from ships (MEPC 46/10/1, MEPC 46/INF.9 and MEPC 46/INF.33); and

.3 Other matters (MEPC 46/INF.29).

Progress report by the Secretariat 10.2 The Committee considered the progress report prepared by the Secretariat on the follow-up activities as set out in document MEPC 46/10 and noted that the co-operation between the IMO and UNFCCC Secretariats had continued, and that matters related to greenhouse gas emissions from ships, including allocation of emissions from international bunker fuel oil may be considered by SBSTA 14 in July this year. 10.3 The Committee noted the views of BLG 6 on the outcome of the IMO Study on Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Ships and agreed to take these views into consideration in its further elaboration of an IMO policy on greenhouse gas emissions. 10.4 The Committee noted the progress by DE 44 on matters related to the development of the Guidelines for on-board NOx monitoring and recording devices, Guidelines for the sampling of fuel oil for combustion purposes delivered for use on board ships and the outcome of the Sub-Committee’s review of resolution MEPC.74(44) on Standard Specification for specification for shipboard incinerators and agreed to consider these issues in detail at its next session. Greenhouse gas emissions from ships 10.5 The Committee welcomed the information provide by the UNFCCC Secretariat during an oral presentation at lunch time on Tuesday, 24 April 2001, and noted the following meetings will be held shortly:

.1 COP 6/II Meeting will take place from 16 to 27 July 2001, in Bonn, Germany; and .2 SBSTA 14 Meeting will take place jointly with COP 6/II.

10.6 The Committee considered the proposal by Norway (MEPC 46/10/1 and MEPC 46/INF.9) on the merits of developing an emission standard on greenhouse gas emissions from ships as a vehicle to facilitate the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions from ships. 10.7 The delegation of United Kingdom reaffirmed its commitment to the Kyoto Protocol and supported the aim of it entering into force by 2002. It believes that there is a clear international consensus that global action is needed to address climate change and that IMO has a responsibility to put in place a strategy for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from ships, and that the Organization should press ahead with the development of such a strategy without delay. 10.8 The United Kingdom supported the view expressed by Norway and suggested that it is important for the Committee to agree a strategy on greenhouse gas emissions in time for the twenty-third Assembly in 2003 and in advance of negotiations for the second Kyoto commitment period that begins in 2005. It suggested that this aim should be reflected in the draft Assembly resolution on the Committee’s Long-term Work Programme as attached as annex to document MEPC 46/20/1.

- 53 - MEPC 46/23

I:\MEPC\46\23.DOC

10.9 The delegation of Spain reaffirmed its commitment to the mandate of the Kyoto Protocol for the Greenhouse Gas Emissions and reduction of GGE from ships based on COST-EFFECTIVENESS principle. 10.10 Rather than discussions being limited to technical issues, the United Kingdom, like Norway, considered that they should also take account of operational and market based measures which IMO should take a role in facilitating. To achieve this aim it suggested that a working group be established at MEPC 47. 10.11 The delegation of Japan supported the views of Norway and the United Kingdom and suggested that the report of this session of the Committee be forwarded to the Secretariat of UNFCCC. 10.12 Several delegations also supported the proposal by Norway and the views expressed by United Kingdom and suggested that the proposed working group should consider all types of greenhouse gas emissions covered by the Kyoto Protocol. 10.13 The Committee, after discussion, agreed to establish a working group at MEPC 47, with the following Terms of Reference:

.1 to evaluate proposals for greenhouse gas emissions reduction contained in the IMO Study on Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Ships;

.2 to collate and evaluate information and proposals submitted by Members; .3 to identify appropriate Sub-Committees for involvement; .4 to draw up a work plan; and .5 to prepare materials for consideration in developing an IMO strategy for

greenhouse gas reduction.

10.14 The Committee requested Members to submit written proposals to facilitate the work of the Working Group. 10.15 The Committee welcomed the offer by INTERTANKO to submit the outcome of a study on VOCs emissions from oil tankers to its next session. 10.16 The Committee noted the information by Japan (MEPC 46/INF.33) on a preliminary estimation of the emission of greenhouse gases other than CO2 undertaken by Ships & Oceans Foundation of Japan. Other matters 10.17 The Committee noted the information by Friends of the Earth International (MEPC 46/INF.29) on the outcome of a national study undertaken by Ministry of Environment, the Netherlands, on losses of ozone depleting substances from cooling systems on fishing vessels and merchant ships, and invited Members to report the findings of similar national studies in due course.

MEPC 46/23 - 54 -

I:\MEPC\46\23.DOC

10.18 The Committee noted that next year (2002) is the fifth year of the adoption of the 1997 Protocol, and recalled that the MARPOL Conference also adopted Resolution 1 on “Review of the 1997 Protocol”, which inter alia, invites the Committee, if the conditions for entry into force of the 1997 Protocol have not been met by 31 December 2002, to initiate, as a matter of urgency, a review to identify the impediments to entry into force of the Protocol and any necessary measures to alleviate those impediments. 10.19 The Committee agreed to urge Members to take the necessary steps to prepare for the implementation of the 1997 Protocol and to advise the Secretary-General of progress towards implementation to assist in the preparation work for a review in 2003 if this becomes necessary. 10.20 The Committee noted the information provided by the Netherlands that it had not been possible to meet the deadlines for submission of the results on application of resolution MEPC.82(43), Guidelines for monitoring the worldwide average sulphur content of residual fuel supplied for use on board ships, for the year 2000. The annual report for the year 2000 will be submitted to MEPC 47, together with the annual report for the year 2001, provided the Netherlands receive the reports from the provider of samples and testing services, in time to meet the deadline for submission of papers to the next session of the Committee. 11 REPORTS OF SUB-COMMITTEES Outcome of BLG 6 11.1 The Committee noted that the sixth session of the Sub-committee on Bulk Liquids and Gases was held from 5 to 9 February 2001 and its report was issued as BLG 6/16 and that those issues of relevance to the Committee were reported in MEPC 46/11. 11.2 Based on this report, the Committee: .1 noted the progress being made on matters related to the probabilistic methodology

for oil outflow analysis (paragraphs 4.6 to 4.16);

.2 noted the progress being made regarding the review of Annex I to MARPOL 73/78 (paragraphs 5.7 to 5.46);

.3 noted the progress being made regarding the review of Annex II to

MARPOL 73/78 (paragraphs 6.5 to 6.20); .4 noted the progress being made regarding the refinement of criteria used to assign

the carriage requirements of products subject to the IBC Code (paragraphs 7.3 to 7.12);

.5 approved the Sub-Committee’s recommendation that IMO attend the UN

Sub-Committee on Global Harmonized Systems (GHS) (paragraph 7.12.9); .6 noted the progress being made regarding the identification of the extent of

application of MARPOL 73/78 to FPSOs and FSUs (paragraphs 9.6 to 9.8);

- 55 - MEPC 46/23

I:\MEPC\46\23.DOC

.7 noted the progress being made regarding the potential application of DNA oil tagging as a means of detecting the source of oil pollution (paragraphs 11.2 to 11.9);

.8 noted that, under agenda item 10, it had already considered the views of the

Sub-Committee regarding the IMO Study on Greenhouse Gas emissions from ships, when establishing an IMO policy on Greenhouse Gas emissions before informing UNFCCC (paragraph 12.8);

.9 noted the outcome of the Sub-Committee’s consideration of the post-Erika

safety-related issues (paragraphs 2.2 to 2.4 and 13.2 to 13.3); .10 approved, subject to MSC’s concurrent decision, the proposed revised work

programme of the Sub-Committee and provisional agenda for BLG 7 (paragraph 13.5 and annex 6);*

.11 approved, subject to MSC’s concurrent decision, the holding of an intersessional

meeting of the ESPH Working Group in 2002 (paragraphs 7.12.8 and 13.10); and .12 approved the report in general. Outcome of FSI 9 11.3 The Committee noted that the ninth session of the Sub-committee on Flag State Implementation was held from 19 to 23 January 2001 and its report was issued as FSI 9/19 whilst those issues of relevance to this Committee were reported under MEPC 46/11/1 which was replaced by MEPC 46/11/1/Rev.1. 11.4 Based on this report, the Committee: .1 approved the draft MSC/MEPC circular on Communication of information on

authorization of recognized organizations (ROs) with editorial modifications proposed by the Secretariat;

.2 approved the draft Assembly resolution on Revised Self-assessment of flag State

performance, for submission to the twenty-second session of the Assembly for adoption;

.3 noted the opinion of the Legal Office on the implications of the recommendations

in paragraph 15 of the report of the Workshop for port State control MOU Secretaries and Directors of Information Centres, i.e. for PSC MOUs to consider the inspection of ships below convention size and to include the results thereof in the database;

.4 endorsed the opinion of the Sub-Committee relating to the outcome of the IMO

workshop referred to in .3 above;

* This item was considered under agenda item 20. See paragraph 20.17 of this report.

MEPC 46/23 - 56 -

I:\MEPC\46\23.DOC

.5 approved the draft Assembly resolution on Revised Guidelines on the implementation of the ISM Code by Administrations, subject to a decision by the MSC on whether the text in square brackets should be kept, for submission to the twenty-second session of the Assembly for adoption;

.6 approved the draft MSC/MEPC circular on Measures to improve port State

control procedures (paragraph 7.25 and annex 6); .7 approved the draft MSC/MEPC circular on Endorsement of certificates with the

date of completion of the survey on which they are based; .8 noted the outcome of the Sub-Committee’s discussion on IUU fishing and take

action as appropriate; .9 noted the Sub-Committee’s opinion with regard to measures aimed at eliminating

sub-standard oil tankers referred to it; .10 approved the draft revised work programme and agenda for FSI 10 (paragraphs

16.5 and 16.6, and annex 12). .11 noted the concern of the Sub-Committee over the fact that 75% of the Parties to

MARPOL failed in their obligation under the Convention to submit their mandatory reports;

.12 endorsed the instruction to Secretariat to prepare information, preferably in tabular

form, listing which Parties submitted their mandatory reports under MARPOL 73/78 for the last five years and which Parties failed to do so; and

.13 endorsed the decision of the Sub-Committee regarding the introduction of the

HSSC into MARPOL Annex VI on prevention of air pollution; 11.5 The German delegation made a statement on the report of FSI 9 in relation to the draft Assembly resolution on the self-assessment of flag State performance, which is set out in annex 13. Urgent matters emanating from the DE Sub-Committee 11.6 The Committee decided to postpone its consideration of issues emanating from the DE Sub-Committee following advice from Cyprus that, due to the proximity of DE 44 to MEPC 46, it had not had sufficient time to consider the report of DE 44. As MEPC 47 will be held in March 2002, this will enable the Committee to consider DE matters prior to its next meeting. 12 OUTCOME OF OTHER BODIES Outcome of C 85 12.1 The Committee noted that the Council held its eighty-fifth session from 13 to 17 November 2000 and that a summary of its decisions was issued as document C 85/D whilst those issues of importance to this Committee was reported in document MEPC 46/12.

- 57 - MEPC 46/23

I:\MEPC\46\23.DOC

12.2 The Committee noted that, as requested, the Council noted those issues put to it from MEPC 45, approved the holding of the CAS Intersessional Working Group. In addition, the Council asked MEPC to consider the development of an environmental strategy for integration with the safety strategy of the Organization, taking into account:

.1 developments within the United Nations, including the follow up of UNCED; .2 activities under the UN Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD); and .3 activities under the United Nations Framework on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

12.3 In addressing this issue, Cyprus expressed the view that the safety and environmental strategies of IMO are complementary and differed only in respect of some details. 12.4 Having noted this issue, the Committee agreed to discuss it in more detail under agenda item 20. 12.5 The Committee noted that the Council had approved the report of the twenty-eighth session of the Facilitation Committee (FAL) and noted the progress made on the harmonization of ships’ certificates and endorsed the establishment of a correspondence group on this issue. 12.6 The Committee also noted that the Council had addressed other issues concerned with the co-ordination within the United Nations system and the memorial to seafarers as described in document MEPC 46/12. Outcome of the eighty-second session of the Legal Committee 12.7 The Committee noted that the Legal Committee had held its eighty second session from 16 to 20 October 2000 and its report was issued as document LEG 82/12 whilst those issues of importance to this Committee were reported in MEPC 46/12/1. 12.8 The Committee noted that, the Legal Committee decided to delay recommending the convening of a Diplomatic Conference on the Draft Convention on Wreck Removal to the Council until 2004-2005 in order to allow time to develop a draft treaty. In addition, the Legal Committee decided to recommend to the Council that consultative status be granted to the World Liquefied Petroleum Gas Association (WLPGA). Outcome of the twenty-eighth session of the Facilitation Committee 12.9 The Committee noted that the Facilitation Committee had held its twenty-eighth session from 30 October to 3 November 2000 and its report was issued as document FAL 28/19 whilst those matters of importance to this Committee were reported in document MEPC 46/12/2. 12.10 Based on this report the Committee:

.1 considered the FAL Committee’s view and action on harmonization of ships’ certificates;

MEPC 46/23 - 58 -

I:\MEPC\46\23.DOC

.1.1 in this context, the Committee noted that document MEPC 46/12/5 which had been issued on request of the Co-ordinator of the Correspondence Group. This document reported on the progress being made by the Correspondence Group and included an example harmonized certificate for consideration by the Committee;

.1.2 the Committee noted that, whilst the Correspondence Group had originally been

charged with creating a single harmonized certificate for a ship, it was proposing a compromise based on four certificates. As a result, the Committee was being requested to provide guidance to the Group on whether it can proceed with the compromise approach or whether it is still required to try and develop a single one entitled International Pollution Prevention Certificate;

.1.3 having considered this issue, the Committee endorsed the approach being

developed by the Correspondence Group to develop four certificates and urged Member Governments and international organizations to participate in the work of the correspondence group;

.2 concurred with the FAL Committee's view and action on the issue of tug

assistance and retain the relevant item in the SPI Working Group's work programme;

.3 noted the FAL Committee’s view and action on developing guidelines for the

training of port marine personnel; and .3.1 in this context, the Committee noted that this issue had also been discussed

by MSC which agreed that the SPI Working Group should not develop such guidelines but should:

.1 identify the areas where there is a need for the training of port

marine personnel; .2 substantiate the need for such work in detail; and .3 specify the IMO bodies or international organizations which might

be capable to contribute to the development of such guidelines. .3.2 as a result, the Committee endorsed the views of MSC; and .4 agreed to consider the environment-related items of the SPI Working Group’s

work programme under agenda item 20. Outcome of MSC 73 12.11 The Committee noted that the Maritime Safety Committee held its seventy-third session from 27 November to 6 December 2000 and its report was issued under documents MSC 73/21, Add.1, Add.2 and Add 3 whilst those issues of importance to this Committee were reported in MEPC 46/12/3, some of which had already been addressed under this agenda item.

- 59 - MEPC 46/23

I:\MEPC\46\23.DOC

12.12 As a result, the Committee noted the information provided in this document, including the report of the Working Group on Oil Tanker Safety and environmental matters but addressed the following issues which required specific consideration: .1 Uniform wording for referencing IMO instruments – the Committee noted that

MSC had approved a draft Assembly resolution on Uniform wording for referencing IMO instruments (MSC 73/21, annex 32) for submission to the twenty-second session of the Assembly for adoption subject to concurrence by MEPC, LEG and FAL.

.1.1 As a result, the Committee endorsed MSC’s approval of this resolution. .2 Multiple inspections – the Committee noted that MSC had approved, subject to

concurrence by MEPC, the proposed draft MSC/MEPC circular on the beneficial impact of the ISM code and its role as an indicator of safe operation and environmental protection.

.2.1 As a result, the Committee endorsed MSC’s approval of the draft MSC/MEPC

circular. Outcome of TCC 49 12.13 The Committee noted that the Technical Co-operation Committee had held its forty-ninth session from 15 to 16 November 2000 and its report was issued as document TC 49/11 whilst those issues relevant to this Committee were reported in document MEPC 46/12/4. 12.14 The Committee noted that there were not any issues requiring its input and so noted the report. Report of the diplomatic conference to consider an international regime for liability and compensation for pollution from ships’ bunkers 12.15 The Committee noted that document MEPC 46/12/6 which reported on the successful outcome of the diplomatic conference to consider an international regime for liability and compensation for pollution from ships’ bunkers. 12.16 The Committee also noted that the Conference report indicated the need for a liability and compensation for pollution from ships’ bunkers which had originated from MEPC. Accordingly, the Committee congratulated both the Legal Committee for the development of the draft Convention, and those who participated in the Conference for its success. UN General Assembly resolution A/RES/55/7 on Oceans and the Law of the Sea 12.17 The Committee noted that the United Nations General Assembly had adopted resolution A/RES/55/7 on Oceans and the Law of the Sea on 30 October 2000, a draft text of which was shown in the annex to document MEPC 46/INF.7. 12.18 The representative of the United Nations informed the Committee that, apart from the General Assembly resolution A/RES/55/7, the General Assembly, at its fifty-fifth session under the agenda item Oceans and the Law of the Sea, adopted resolution A/RES/55/8 entitled Large

MEPC 46/23 - 60 -

I:\MEPC\46\23.DOC

Scale Pelagic Drift-Net fishing, Unauthorized Fishing in Zones of National Jurisdiction and on the High Seas, fisheries By-Catch and Discards, and other Developments. 12.19 The Committee was informed that, by operative paragraph 16 of that resolution, the General Assembly encourages IMO, and other relevant agencies, organizations and States, to continue working constructively with FAO to combat unauthorized fishing in zones of national jurisdiction and illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing on the high seas. 12.20 The Committee was also informed that, in operative paragraph 20, the General Assembly calls upon FAO, IMO, regional and sub-regional fisheries management organizations and other intergovernmental organizations to take up, as a matter of priority, the issue of marine debris as it relates to fisheries, and, where appropriate, to promote better co-ordination and help States to implement relevant international agreements, including Annex V of MARPOL 73/78 and the Guidelines for its implementation. The General Assembly will consider the implementation of resolution A/RES/55/8 at its 57th session next year. 12.21 In referring to document MEPC 46/INF.7, the Chairman of MSC invited the Committee to take particular note of paragraphs 33, 34 and 35 which addressed the issue of piracy. He emphasized the point that the resolution urged States in affected regions to take all necessary and appropriate measures to prevent and combat incidents of piracy and called upon States to co-operate with IMO in submitting reports of such incidents to the Organization. 13 PROMOTION OF IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF

MARPOL 73/78 AND RELATED CODES Second meeting of the Regional Steering Committee on Implementation of MARPOL 73/78 in the ROPME Sea Area 13.1 The Committee noted the summary of the outcome of the Second Meeting of the Regional Steering Committee on Implementation of MARPOL 73/78 in the ROPME Sea Area held in Bahrain in January 2001. Document MEPC 46/13 described the achievements of the region since the first meeting, which was reported to MEPC 45. The Committee recognized the importance and significance of the developments and reiterated its support for the countries’ intention to ratify, implement and enforce MARPOL 73/78 including the provision of reception facilities. 13.2 The Committee further noted that, in order to reach their aim of enacting the Special Area requirements for the Gulfs area as well as for the Committee to fulfil regulation 10(7)(b)(iii) of Annex I to MARPOL 73/78 from 2002, the countries bordering the ROPME sea area were expected to accede to the Convention including the provision of reception facilities, which had been contracted out to private industry, by July 2002, and to submit adequate information about the state of reception facilities in the Gulfs area in order for the Committee, at a future session, to formally establish the date from which the Special Area status shall take effect in accordance with MARPOL 73/78, Annex I regulation 10(7)(b)(iii) and Annex V regulation 5(4)(b). 13.3 In addition, the Committee noted Oman’s intention to propose an extension of the Special Area status in the Gulfs area which had also been addressed under agenda item 6. 13.4 The Committee was also informed by the delegation of Iran that: .1 MARPOL 73/78 has been approved by the Iranian Cabinet;

- 61 - MEPC 46/23

I:\MEPC\46\23.DOC

.2 it is in the process of approval by the Parliament;

.3 as soon as it is approved by the Parliament, it will be ratified by the Iranian Government;

.4 the probable date of ratification would be at the end of 2001; and

.5 at present, Iranian Maritime Authority is engaged in contract with a private

company to provide reception facilities in Iranian ports in order to implement the Special Area status and the provisions of MARPOL 73/78, when it is ratified.

MARPOL Annex V and Marine Debris 13.5 The Committee noted the information provided by the United States in document MEPC 46/INF.8 on the conference on derelict fishing gear and the ocean environment, which took place in Honolulu, Hawaii from 6 to 11 August 2000. 13.6 The Committee instructed the Secretariat to bring this issue and the information paper as well as the results of any discussions to the attention of the FAO. 13.7 The Committee thanked the United States for bringing this matter to the attention of the Committee and invited Member States to review their obligations as indicated throughout the Guidelines for the implementation of Annex V of MARPOL 73/78 and particularly in paragraphs 2.2 and 2.2.4 and to make further submissions to future sessions of the Committee in order to make an on-going assessment of the effectiveness of Annex V. Review of the Guidelines for the Implementation of Annex V and the Manual on Shipboard Waste Management 13.8 The Committee recalled that, at MEPC 45, it was decided to defer these two points to MEPC 46 in order to await further input from countries.

13.9 The Committee was informed that although these points have been under this item since MEPC 37, there have been no submissions so far. Consequently, the Committee decided to delete these two points from its agenda item until such time when submissions are made in the future. Such submissions would then be considered under this item. 14 PREPARATION OF RIO + 10 14.1 The Committee recalled that Agenda 21 was adopted by UNCED in 1992. In the same year, the UN General Assembly adopted resolution 47/191 requesting all UN Specialized Agencies, including IMO, to strengthen and adjust their activities in line with Agenda 21. The IMO Assembly, in 1995, adopted resolution A.832(19) on Follow-up to UNCED, requesting the MEPC, as the focal point in the Organization, to keep IMO's contributions to the objectives of UNCED under continuous review. The work of IMO is principally related to those management items aimed at the prevention, reduction, and control of marine pollution caused by shipping and offshore oil and gas activities. 14.2 The Committee also recalled that this item was put on its agenda in order for the Committee to discuss preparations under its area of responsibility for the RIO + 10 summit, to be

MEPC 46/23 - 62 -

I:\MEPC\46\23.DOC

held in South Africa in June 2002. The Committee further recalled that at its forty-second session it considered a draft interim report providing IMO’s major achievements in the follow-up of UNCED (MEPC 42/12/2). At that time the delegations which spoke on the draft report to the CSD appreciated the work carried out by the Secretariat and suggested some improvements to the text and items to be added in the draft text. The Secretariat prepared a set of amendments based on the comments by delegations as contained in document MEPC 42/WP.14. 14.3 The Committee was reminded that, at its forty-fourth session, it agreed to take Chapter 19 into account when considering issues of Chapter 17 under its agenda item “Follow-up action to UNCED”. The Committee also agreed that MEPC, as IMO's focal point for UNCED follow-up, should provide more extensive information in future reports to CSD on IMO's environmental and safety activities. 14.4 The Committee noted information about the preparations for the RIO +10 Conference to be held in South Africa in September 2002 (MEPC 46/INF.6). 14.5 When introducing document MEPC 46/14, it was pointed out that whilst the main areas of responsibility for IMO are contained in Chapter 17 of Agenda 21, some aspects of Chapter 19 (chemicals), Chapter 21 (transport of hazardous wastes), and Chapter 22 (radioactivity), were also relevant. The work of IMO is principally relevant to those management-related items aimed at the prevention, reduction, and control of marine pollution (including air pollution and climate change questions, anchorage, ballast water issues, ship recycling, reception facilities for ships’ waste, etc.) caused by shipping and offshore oil and gas activities. It was further pointed out that:

.1 at its forty-second session, the Committee considered a draft interim report providing IMO’s major achievements in the follow-up of UNCED under cover of document MEPC 42/12/2. The annex to document MEPC 46/14 is an updated and extended report developed for submission to the RIO +10 process; and

.2 the draft report to the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD), as

prepared by the Secretariat, provides generic information about IMO’s major developments since UNCED and the areas for further progress, including recommendations raised by CSD. Although the report mainly focuses on the developments at MEPC since 1992, it should be noted that achievements directly related to the enhancement of safety at sea, development of international law, and technical assistance (i.e. elements from MSC, LEG and TCC) were also important elements in the report.

14.6 The Committee was invited to consider the draft report and revise as necessary with the view to approval for submission to the preparatory process for RIO +10. 14.7 In the course of discussion, the delegations which spoke on the draft report expressed their appreciation for the work carried out by the Secretariat. Some editorial and substantive amendments to the report were proposed and accepted. As instructed by the Committee, the Secretariat developed some amendments based on the comments by delegations as contained in MEPC 46/WP.9. 14.8 Following discussion of MEPC 46/WP.9, the Committee approved the amended report, in principle, with the proviso that certain chapters predominantly regarding maritime safety and

- 63 - MEPC 46/23

I:\MEPC\46\23.DOC

navigation, and technical assistance, could be subject to amendments during the forthcoming sessions of the MSC and the TCC. The amendments are set out in annex 7. 14.9 The Committee requested the Secretariat to prepare the final report taking into account MEPC 46/WP.9, comments from the MSC and TCC, if any, and recent developments and to submit the report to the Rio +10 process at the appropriate time for it to be taken into consideration in the preparatory process for the Rio +10 Summit. It was also noted the Council and Assembly will be informed by way of the Committee’s report. 15 INF CODE RELATED MATTERS 15.1 The Committee recalled that the Joint IAEA/IMO Literature Survey on Potential Consequences of Severe Maritime Accidents involving the Transport of Radioactive Material had been distributed as MEPC 45/INF.2. 15.2 The Committee recalled that it had previously agreed that sufficient time was needed to give due consideration to this report and so it had been decided to defer discussion on it until this session and Members had been requested to submit their views on the report and make proposals on how to proceed with the issue. 15.3 The Committee noted the report as being a very valuable reference document that may be reverted to at a later date should it be deemed necessary. 16 THE HUMAN ELEMENT AND FORMAL SAFETY ASSESSMENT 16.1 The Committee recalled that at its last session it considered the report of the last session of the Joint MSC/MEPC Working Group, and noted that the Joint Working Group did not meet during MSC 73 in December last year, and that the Joint Working Group will meet during MSC 74 in May this year. 16.2 The Committee, noting that the Joint MEPC/MSC Working Group is making progress in particular in the field of fatigue, agreed to urge Members to include experts on protection of the marine environment in their delegation to MSC 74. 16.3 The Chairman recalled that Assembly resolution A.900(21), Objectives of the Organization in the 2000s, in its first operative paragraph states: “DIRECTS the Committees, under the co-ordination of the Council:

.1 to take measures to implement the proactive policy agreed in the 1990s more actively than in the past, so that trends which may adversely affect the safety of ships and those on board and/or the environment may be identified at the earliest feasible stage and action taken to avoid or mitigate such effects. In implementing this directive, Formal Safety Assessment should be used to the extent possible in any rule making process;

.2 to focus their attention on:

- shifting emphasis to people;

MEPC 46/23 - 64 -

I:\MEPC\46\23.DOC

- ensuring the effective uniform implementation of existing IMO standards and regulations relating to maritime safety and environmental protection, placing particular emphasis on the implementation of the revised STCW Convention and the ISM Code and on putting in place the necessary infrastructure for the implementation of the global SAR plan and the MARPOL requirements concerning reception facilities for ship-generated wastes;”

16.4 The Committee, noting that sub-paragraph 2 above, is related to the role of the Human Element, agreed that this issue should continue to have priority. 17 MATTERS RELATED TO THE 1973 INTERVENTION PROTOCOL 17.1 The Annex to the 1973 Intervention Protocol includes a list of substances, which is based on lists being compiled and maintained by other IMO instruments and codes, such as MARPOL 73/78, the IBC, IGC and IMDG Codes, as well as the GESAMP Hazard Profile. 17.2 At MEPC 41, the Committee agreed that the list of substances in the Annex to the Intervention Protocol should be updated approximately every five years. The current draft list as annexed to document MEPC 46/17, “Draft Revised List of Substances Annexed to the 1973 Intervention Protocol” contains the latest update. 17.3 In compiling the list, the Secretariat noted that many products, which should be captured by the criteria, as described in paragraph 2.1 of document MEPC 46/17, cannot be identified and so were omitted for reasons outlined in paragraph 2.2 of the same document. 17.4 The Committee took note of the list of substances as annexed to document MEPC 46/17 and, noting the problem associated with maintaining such a list, agreed to defer discussion until the next session and requested the Secretariat to consider an amendment to the 1973 Intervention Protocol to use a simple reference to the criteria and the instruments to ensure the most expeditious means of maintaining information on chemicals covered by the Intervention Protocol. 18 STATUS OF CONVENTIONS 18.1 The Committee noted the information on the status of IMO Conventions and other instruments relating to marine environment protection, especially the current status of MARPOL 73/78 and its various amendments provided in document MEPC 46/18 as follows:

- annex 1 showed the status, as at 1 February 2001, of the IMO conventions and other instruments relating to marine environment protection;

- annex 2 showed the status of MARPOL 73/78 as at 1 February 2001; and

- annex 3 showed the status of various amendments to MARPOL 73/78 as at

1 February 2001. 18.2 The Committee also noted the updated information by an informal paper on the status of conventions and other instruments relating to marine environment protection as at 25 April 2001.

- 65 - MEPC 46/23

I:\MEPC\46\23.DOC

19 APPLICATION OF THE COMMITTEES’ GUIDELINES 19.1 The Committee recalled that at its last session it had agreed minor editorial and substantial amendments to paragraphs 14, 28, and 29 of the Committees’ Guidelines. 19.2 The Committee was informed that the Maritime Safety Committee, at its seventy-third session (27 November to 6 December 2000), agreed to these draft amendments. In addition, the Maritime Safety Committee decided that these modifications and amendments together with additional amendments set out in annex 33 to the MSC report (MSC 73/22) should, for the time being, be attached to the report of the Committee for reference and application as appropriate. They should be incorporated in the Guidelines at a later stage when a sufficient number of further amendments have been approved to justify a new set of the revised Guidelines. 19.3 In connection with the aforementioned amendments to paragraphs 28 and 29 of the Guidelines, MSC 73:

.1 in the context of paragraph 28 of the Guidelines, noted that at MEPC 45, in response to the concern of some delegations that, in order to fulfil their obligations vis-à-vis paragraphs 13.1 and 13.2 of the Guidelines, subsidiary bodies may not have sufficient time to develop the required information as their work programmes are normally only discussed at the end of the session, an understanding was reached whereby interested delegations would, in consultation with the Sub-Committees’ Chairmen and the Secretariat, prepare the information which should accompany the Sub-Committees’ proposal necessary for the Committee(s) to decide whether a new item should be included in the Sub-Committees’ work programme; and, having concurred with the MEPC’s understanding, agreed that this should be reflected in the Guidelines; and

.2 in the context of paragraph 29 of the Guidelines, concurred with MEPC 45’s

confirmation that Member Governments’ right to circulate proposals to the Committee and their subsidiary bodies simultaneously are not affected by the provisions introduced by the amendments.

19.4 The Committee agreed with the decisions of MSC 73. 20 WORK PROGRAMME OF THE COMMITTEE AND SUBSIDIARY BODIES 20.1 The Committee dealt with the work programme of the Committee and its subsidiary bodies for the coming biennium. Since this is Assembly year, the Committee also dealt with its long-term programme (up to 2008). Furthermore, the Committee looked at the environmental aspects of the work plan of subsidiary bodies. This agenda item also dealt with the strategic discussion of the future sub-committee structure. 20.2 The Committee recalled that at its last session, it dealt with the work programmes of the BLG, FSI, DE and DSC Sub-Committees. 20.3 The Committee noted that, since the last MEPC meeting, the BLG, FSI, DE, DSC and SLF Sub-Committees have met and that the environmental aspects of their work programmes would be reviewed.

MEPC 46/23 - 66 -

I:\MEPC\46\23.DOC

Activities, priorities and plan of meeting weeks of the Committees and their subsidiary bodies 20.4 With regard to the activities and priorities of the Committees, the Committee noted that the Assembly, at its twenty-first session, had approved resolution A.879(21) on the Long-term work plan of the Organization (up to 2006), which, in its annex, contained an indicative list of subjects, including priorities to specific items, for consideration by the respective Committees. 20.5 In this regard, the Committee also noted the provisions of resolution A.900(21), which sets out the objectives of the Organization in the 2000s and provides specific directions as to the areas on which the Committees should focus their attention during the current decade; as well as the provisions of resolution A.901(21) – IMO and technical co-operation in the 2000s. 20.6 In the same context and with respect to the activities and priorities of the Sub-Committees, the Committee recalled that the MSC and the MEPC, at their seventy-second and forty-fifth sessions respectively, approved the work programmes of the sub-committees, including priorities for each work programme item and target completion dates or number of sessions needed to complete the items. The Sub-Committees' proposed revised work programmes are shown in the annexes to documents MEPC 46/20/2/Add.1, MEPC 46/20/2/Add.2, MEPC 46/20/3 and MEPC 46/20/3/Add.1. Plan of proposed MSC, MEPC and subsidiary body meeting weeks for the biennium 2002-2003 20.7 The Committee, taking into account the technical workload of the Organization, the priorities assigned by the Assembly to subjects for consideration by the MSC and the MEPC, and the advice provided by the Chairmen of the Sub-Committees, agreed to the following plan of meeting weeks for the MSC and the MEPC and their subsidiary bodies for the biennium 2002-2003:

Year

MSC

MEPC

BLG

DSC

FP

FSI

COMSAR

NAV

DE

SLF

STW

Total

2002

3

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

14

2003

1.5

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

11.5

Grand total (weeks)

25.5

20.8 While approving the above meeting schedule of the Committees and Sub-Committees, the Committee noted the following views expressed:

.1 in view of the increased workload of the Committee to deal with existing and new environmental programmes, MEPC should be given more meeting days taking into account that MSC would have one and a half weeks for a session. On this point, the Chairman pointed out that, except for one session, the Committee has been handling all agenda items with the co-operation of delegations and the current level of efficiency in handling the issues for these sessions and suggested to keep the suggested allocations of three weeks for MEPC; and

- 67 - MEPC 46/23

I:\MEPC\46\23.DOC

.2 a new way of scheduling the meeting weeks of the Sub-Committees should be established rather than allocating two weeks for all Sub-Committees.

20.9 The Committee considered that the above meeting week requirements represent the minimum required to maintain the efficiency and effectiveness of the Organization's technical bodies. Other meeting weeks 20.10 In view of the request of the Assembly, at its twenty-first session, that the Committee should work towards completion of legally binding provisions on ballast water management the Committee agreed to tentatively schedule a Diplomatic Conference in 2003 and proposed to allocate in the Organization's meeting weeks' plan, a five-day conference to be held in 2003. Long-term work plan of the Committee (up to 2008) 20.11 The Committee recalled that the Assembly, at its twenty-first session in 1999, approved resolutions A.900(21) on the Objectives of the Organization in the 2000s, and A.879(21) on the Long-term work plan of the Organization (up to 2008) which, in its annex, contained a list of subjects including high-priority items for consideration by the Committee. 20.12 The Committee recalled that the Assembly requested information on the subjects on which work had been completed to ascertain the performance against any previously approved plan (A 21/C.2/WP.1/Add.1). In response to this request, the Secretariat had produced a draft report (MEPC 46/WP.2) 20.13 When considering MEPC 46/WP.2, the Committee, whilst accepting the content of the progress report, agreed to request the Secretariat to submit the progress report to the Assembly in tabular form and requested the Secretariat to reformulate the report accordingly. 20.14 During the discussion on the draft long-term work plan MEPC 46/20/1, delegations raised questions on the scope of the plan, priorities allocated the need for harmonization with the work plan for MSC and the format of the plan taking into account the discussions in the last Assembly. Having exchanged views on the draft work plan, the Committee requested the Chairman and the Secretariat to revise the draft work plan in consultation with the MSC Chairman. 20.15 Having considered the revised work plan as set out in an informal document, the Committee approved it and requested the Secretariat to include the plan in an appropriate Council document with a view to its inclusion in the draft long-term work plan of the Organization up to 2008 for adoption by the Assembly. 20.16 The Long Term Work Plan of the MEPC (up to 2008), as agreed by the Committee, is set out at annex 8. Work Programme of the BLG Sub-Committee 20.17 The Committee approved the revised work programme of the BLG Sub-Committee, as contained in MEPC 46/20/2/Add.1. The work programme of the BLG Sub-Committee and the provisional agenda, as approved by the Committee, is set out at annex 9.

MEPC 46/23 - 68 -

I:\MEPC\46\23.DOC

Work Programme of the FSI Sub-Committee 20.17 The Committee approved the work programme of the FSI Sub-Committee, as contained in MEPC 46/20/2/Add.2. The work programme of the FSI Sub-Committee and the provisional agenda, as approved by the Committee, is set out at annex 9. Work Programme of the DSE, DE and SLF Sub-Committees relate to environmental issues 20.18 The Committee approved the environment-related work programmes of the DSC, DE and the SLF Sub-Committees (MEPC 46/20/3 and Add.1), including the item on “protection of fuel tanks” for the DE Sub-Committee. The working program of the three Sub-Committees which relate to environmental issues, as approved by the Committee, is set out at annex 10. Terms of reference for sub-committee restructuring 20.19 The Committee recalled that at its forty-fourth session, while noting that the organizational review of the IMO Secretariat was yet to be completed, suggested that, for the longer term, the Chairmen of the MSC and MEPC might in the future consider the matter of reviewing the sub-committees’ structure with the objective of improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the Committees and sub-committees. 20.20 The Committee was further informed that the Maritime Safety Committee, at its seventy-third session, agreed, inter alia, that:

.1 in the short term, the MSC and MEPC Chairmen should prepare, for consideration by their respective Committees at their forthcoming sessions (i.e. MEPC 46 and MSC 74), terms of reference for the consideration of a restructuring of the sub-committees; and

.2 in the long term, the two Chairmen should prepare, based on the outcome of the

discussion at MEPC 46 and MSC 74 on the terms of reference referred to above, a draft work plan to undertake a revision of the sub-committees’ structure and identify the preferred way forward, for consideration by the twenty-second session of the Assembly.

20.21 In discussing the draft terms of reference for the consideration of a possible restructuring of the Sub-Committees proposed by the Chairmen of MSC and MEPC (MEPC 46/20/4), the majority of those who spoke supported the draft terms of reference and the process as such. It was, however, pointed out that the process needed to be as open as possible, taking into account the time constraint given that the Chairmen intend to seek the Assembly’s approval of the draft work plan and the terms of reference contained in documents MEPC 46/20/4 and MSC 74/21/4. The Chairmen pointed out that there would be several opportunities to discuss the draft terms of reference further, at the first instance during MSC 74, and at the Council, where account would be taken of the organizational review of the Secretariat. It was also pointed out that based on the responses and debate the Chairmen would submit a paper to Assembly for agreement. It was also suggested that delegations provide their comments to the Chairmen, and the Chairmen should provide information on comments received in their final report. On timing it was suggested that, provided the Assembly concurs, a meeting of the Chairmen together with the Chairmen of FAL and the Sub-committees would meet in conjunction with MSC 75, after which a paper would be prepared for discussion at MSC 76 and MEPC 48.

- 69 - MEPC 46/23

I:\MEPC\46\23.DOC

20.22 The delegation of Cyprus made a statement on this matter, which is attached at annex 13. Work programme of the Committee 20.23 The Committee approved the substantive items to be included in the agenda for MEPC 47, MEPC 48 and MEPC 49, which is set out at annex 11. 20.24 The Committee agreed to provisionally delete the item “INF Code and related matters” from the agenda of its next session with the understanding that, if there is any submission on the matter, this item would be reinstalled. 20.25 The Committee took note of the progress made regarding discussions of ballast water management and agreed to provisionally propose to the Council to hold a diplomatic conference with the view to conclude an instrument on the control of ballast water and sediments in the next biennium. Working/Drafting Groups at MEPC 47 20.26 The Committee agreed, in principle, to establish the following working and drafting groups at MEPC 47: Working Groups: .1 Harmful organisms in ballast water .2 Recycling of ships; and .3 Greenhouse gases Drafting Groups: .1 OPRC manual .2 Model Survey Plan for CAS Correspondence Groups 20.27 The Committee agreed to establish the following correspondence groups which will report to MEPC 47: Correspondence Group: .1 Recycling of ships .2 Ballast water .3 OPRC manual on oil pollution Dates for MEPC 47 and MEPC 48 20.28 The Committee noted that MEPC 47 would be held from 4 to 8 March 2002 and that MEPC 48 is tentatively scheduled in October 2002.

MEPC 46/23 - 70 -

I:\MEPC\46\23.DOC

21 ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN AND VICE-CHAIRMAN FOR 2002 21.1 In accordance with Rule 17 of the Rules of Procedure, the Committee unanimously re-elected Mr. Michael Julian (Australia) as Chairman and Mr. Gabriel Fernández (Panama) as the Vice-Chairman of the Committee for 2002. 22 ANY OTHER BUSINESS The work of the maritime safety Experts Group of the Asia-Pacific region on the Advancement of safer shipping 22.1 The Committee noted the information provided by Canada in document MEPC 46/INF.12 on the work of the Experts Group on Maritime Safety (EGMS) of the Transportation Working Group of the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation [APEC(TPT-WG)]. The document gives an account of the achievements so far made by the EGMS during its four-year period of existence. The Committee also noted that the work of EGMS complements IMO’s role in maritime safety and marine environment protection in the Asia-Pacific region and does not duplicate it. New compulsory insurance requirements in Australian waters 22.2 The Committee noted the information provided by Australia in document MEPC 46/INF.14 on the introduction of new mandatory insurance requirements in Australian waters from 6 April 2001. Environmental awareness among the youth 22.3 The Committee took note of the information provided by the United States on two inter-related environmental awareness programmes targeting young individuals on the importance of water resources and pollution prevention. The Committee thanked the United States and encouraged member States to submit similar ongoing activities. The implementation of the GEF/World Bank/IMO PDF Block B Grant – Development of a Regional Marine Electronic Highway in the East Asian Seas 22.4 The Committee noted the information provided by the Secretariat, which is also contained in document MEPC 46/INF.35 on the key elements and expected outputs of the new project for the Development of a Regional Marine Electronic Highway (MEH) in the East Asian Seas. The Committee also noted that the project first phase will be in the Straits of Malacca and Singapore and started in March 2001 for one year. The project objective is to develop an Action Plan and a Project Brief for implementing the first phase regional MEH. Availability of texts in the working languages 22.5 The Spanish delegation, conscious of the efforts of the Chairman and the Secretariat to cover all the items on the agenda, supported by the relevant documentation in the Committee’s working languages, in accordance with the rules of procedure. In a spirit of co-operation, in order not to hold up the consideration of important issues, the Spanish delegation agreed to participate in the approval of certain reports of the working groups, even though they were not available in Spanish. With respect to the final report of the Committee, it nevertheless requires its presentation, as has been the rule, in the working languages of the Organization. In this

- 71 - MEPC 46/23

I:\MEPC\46\23.DOC

respect, and in the light of the lack of a Spanish version of the part of the text referring to approval of the discussion of agenda item 2, the Spanish delegation reserved the right to submit pertinent comments and observations when the relevant text is available. It is requested that this intervention should be reflected in the report of the session.

***

MEPC 46/23

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

ANNEX 1

AGENDA FOR THE FORTY-SIXTH SESSION INCLUDING LIST OF DOCUMENTS

1 Adoption of the agenda MEPC 46/1 Secretariat Provisional Agenda MEPC 46/1/1 Secretariat Annotations and provisional timetable

2 Consideration and adoption of amendments to mandatory instruments (WG) MEPC 46/2 Secretariat Amendments to regulation 13G of

Annex I to MARPOL 73/78 MEPC 46/2/1 Brazil Brazilian understanding on the

phasing-out of single hull tankers in the wake of the Erika incident

MEPC 46/2/2 Norway Amendments to regulation 13G of Annex I to MARPOL 73/78: Comments and proposals on alternative phasing-out schemes for “Category 2 oil tankers”

MEPC 46/2/3 Secretariat Report of the MEPC Intersessional Working Group on Condition Assessment Scheme under MARPOL regulation 13G

MEPC 46/2/4 France Consideration and Adoption of Amendments to Mandatory Instruments

MEPC 46/2/5 ICS, BIMCO and INTERTANKO

Amendments to regulation 13G of Annex I of MARPOL 73/78

MEPC 46/2/6 IACS Condition Assessment Scheme under MARPOL regulation 13G

MEPC 46/2/7 India Comments on the report of the MEPC Intersessional Working Group on Condition Assessment Scheme under MARPOL Regulation 13G

MEPC 46/2/8 Republic of Korea Comments on the report of the MEPC Intersessional Working Group on Condition Assessment Scheme under MARPOL regulation 13G

MEPC 46/2/9 Denmark Condition Assessment Scheme under MARPOL regulation 13G

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 1 Page 2

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

MEPC 46/2/10 IACS and INTERTANKO

Comments on Condition Assessment Scheme under MARPOL regulation 13G

MEPC 46/2/11 ICS and INTERTANKO

Comments on Condition Assessment Scheme under MARPOL regulation 13G

MEPC 46/INF.18 Japan Amendments to regulation 13G of Annex I to MARPOL 73/78 A comparison of forecasts by Japan and the Secretariat on Demolition amount of Category 1 tankers

MEPC 46/INF.25 AWES Amendments to regulation 13G of Annex I to MARPOL 73/78

3 Harmful aquatic organisms in ballast water (WG) MEPC 46/3 Report of the Ballast Water Working

Group convened during MEPC 45 MEPC 46/3/1 Greece Comments on the draft Convention MEPC 46/3/2 United States Draft Consolidated Text of an

International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments

MEPC 46/3/3 United States Standards and continued technological development

MEPC 46/3/4 Secretariat Advice concerning legal aspects of the draft International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments

MEPC 46/3/5 Australia New Ballast Water Management Arrangements for International Shipping visiting Australia

MEPC 46/3/6 Germany Proposal for a Standardized Assessment Method of Chemical Ballast Water Treatment Options

MEPC 46/3/7 Japan Comments and proposals on the report of the Ballast Water Working Group and draft text of the Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments

MEPC 46/3/8 Norway Proposal for a methodical approach for setting ballast water standards

MEPC 46/3/9 Norway “Tier 2” requirements for ballast water management

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 1

Page 3

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

MEPC 46/3/10 FOEI Outline environmental criteria for the establishment of ballast water management areas and for prior and adequate notification

MEPC 46/3/11 Japan Technical standards for the treatment of ballast water

MEPC 46/3/11/Rev.1 Japan Technical standards for the treatment of ballast water

MEPC 46/3/12 Japan Harmful aquatic organisms and pathogens from the viewpoint of aquatic biology

MEPC 46/3/13 Japan Comparison of treatment techniques of ballast water and sediments

MEPC 46/3/14 Brazil Standards for the management and control of ballast water

MEPC 46/3/15 India Comments on the draft Convention – Ballast water management for existing ships

MEPC 46/INF.13 India Development of ballast water management programme

MEPC 46/INF.17 United Kingdom Recent and current UK research into the transport of non-indigenous species by ballast water

MEPC 46/INF.19 Japan Alternative ballast water treatment method

MEPC 46/INF.22 Australia Suggested Designs to Facilitate Improved Management and Treatment of Ballast Water on New and Existing Ships

MEPC 46/INF.23 Australia Research and Development to improve Ballast Water Management in Australia – Including the use of International Shipping Levy Funds

MEPC 46/INF.24 FOEI Marine Forum “Alien Species from Ballast Water, How does it affect the North Sea Region?”

MEPC 46/INF.27 Secretariat International Ballast Water Treatment R&D Symposium (26 to 27 March 2001) and Standards Workshop (28 to 30 March 2001)

MEPC 46/INF.28 Secretariat GloBallast Programme: Progress Report to MEPC

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 1 Page 4

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

MEPC 46/INF.30 Brazil Information regarding the first Country Project Task Force Meeting in Brazil for the development of the National Workplan for the GloBallast Programme and the First Brazilian Seminar on Ballast Water

MEPC 46/INF.34 Netherlands Report: “Standards for Ballast Water Treatment”

4 Implementation of the OPRC Convention and the OPPR-HNS Protocol and relevant

conference resolutions (WG) MEPC 46/4 Report of the OPRC Working Group

at MEPC 45 MEPC 46/4/1 Secretariat Provisional Agenda for the OPRC

Working Group Meeting during MEPC 46

MEPC 46/4/2 Secretariat Guidance on Managing Seafood Safety During and After Oil Spills

MEPC 46/4/3 ISO

Development of Standards for Compatible Oil Pollution Combating Techniques and Equipment (article 8(b) of the OPRC Convention) ISO/TC8/SC2 Final Draft International Standard – Terminology Relating to Oil Spill Response

MEPC 46/4/4 France The Erika accident MEPC 46/INF.4 ISO Standards for Terminology Relating

to Oil Pollution Combating Techniques and Equipment IO/TC 8/SC 2 Final Draft Standards – Terminology Relating to Oil Spill Response

MEPC 46/INF.11 EC Decision No 2850/2000/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2000 setting up a Community Framework for Cooperation in the field of accidental and deliberate marine pollution

MEPC 46/INF.15 Australia Response to the Port Stanvac Oil Spill

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 1

Page 5

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

MEPC 46/INF.36 Secretariat Third Research and Development Forum on “high-density oil spill response”

5 Harmful effects of the use of anti-fouling paints for ships (DG) MEPC 46/5 Secretariat Draft provisional Rules of Procedure

for the International Conference on the Control of Harmful Anti-fouling Systems for Ships

MEPC 46/5/1 United States Comments and Recommended Changes to Draft Anti-fouling Treaty

MEPC 46/5/2 ISF Comments on the draft convention MEPC 46/5/3 WWF Comments on the draft text of the

proposed Convention MEPC 46/5/4 Italy Comments on the draft text of the

proposed Convention MEPC 46/5/5 Denmark Comments on the draft text of the

international convention on the control of harmful anti-fouling systems

MEPC 46/5/6 United Kingdom Comments on the draft text of the proposed Convention

MEPC 46/5/7 AWES Comments and Proposals for the draft legal instrument

MEPC 46/5/8 Denmark and Sweden

Comments on the draft text of the international convention on the control of harmful anti-fouling systems

MEPC 46/5/9 Liberia Controls on application of anti-fouling systems

MEPC 46/5/10 Liberia Risk based phase-out of TBT MEPC 46/5/11 Liberia Issues related to the testing of anti-

fouling substances on hulls MEPC 46/5/12 CEFIC Comments on draft anti-fouling

treaty as discussed at MEPC 45 MEPC 46/5/13 Brazil Proposed amendments to the draft

Convention on anti-fouling paints MEPC 46/5/14 India Comments on the draft text of the

International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-fouling Systems

MEPC 46/5/15 Japan Comments on the main body of draft text of the proposed Convention

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 1 Page 6

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

MEPC 46/5/16 Japan Comments on the annexes of draft text of the proposed Convention

MEPC 46/5/17 Japan Draft text of Guidelines on Surveys of Anti-fouling Systems

MEPC 46/INF.2 Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain

Information on TBT levels and the occurrence of imposex in certain marine species in the North Sea, the Mediterranean and the coastal waters of Portugal

MEPC 46/INF.26 Australia Harmful effects of the use of anti-fouling paints for ships

MEPC 46/INF.31 Brazil Seminar on TBT-based Anti-fouling System

6 Identification and protection of Special Areas and Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas

(DG) MEPC 46/6 Secretariat Identification and Protection of

Special Areas and Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas

MEPC 46/6/1 Secretariat Additional protection for Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas

MEPC 46/6/1/Corr.1 Secretariat Additional protection for Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas

MEPC 46/6/1/Add.1 Secretariat Additional protection for Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas

MEPC 46/6/2 United States Designation of the marine area around the Florida Keys as a Particularly Sensitive Sea Area

MEPC 46/6/3 Colombia Additional information for the designation of Malpelo Island as a “particularly sensitive sea area”

MEPC 46/INF.32 Oman Extension of the “Special Area” in the Gulf Area of Annexes I and V of MARPOL 73/78

7 Recycling of ships

MEPC 46/7 Report of the Correspondence Group MEPC 46/7/1 India Recycling of Ships MEPC 46/INF.5 Secretariat Report on the seventeenth meeting of

the Technical Working Group of the Basel Convention (TWG 17)

MEPC 46/INF.21 Greenpeace International

Environmental contamination in Alang-Sosiya Shipbreaking Yards

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 1

Page 7

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

8 Interpretation and amendments of MARPOL 73/78 and related Codes MEPC 46/8 Secretariat Reception facilities under MARPOL

Annex IV MEPC 46/8/1 Australia Interpretation and Amendments of

MARPOL 73/78 and Related Codes MEPC 46/INF.3 Secretariat Withdrawal of reservation on the

revised MARPOL Annex IV 9 Inadequacy of reception facilities MEPC 46/INF.10 Secretariat Guidelines for ensuring the

adequacy of port reception facilities MEPC 46/INF.20 Denmark Regional database regarding

reception facilities 10 Prevention of air pollution from ships MEPC 46/10 Secretariat Progress report on follow-up

activities MEPC 46/10/1 Norway Proposal for elements to be included

in an IMO strategy on greenhouse gases

MEPC 46/INF.9 Norway Information on some mechanisms to curb greenhouse gas emissions from international shipping

MEPC 46/INF.29 FOEI IMO policy on ozone-depleting substances and greenhouse gases

MEPC 46/INF.33 Japan Preliminary Study on estimation of GHG emissions other than CO2 from ocean-going vessels

11 Reports of sub-committees MEPC 46/11 Secretariat Outcome of BLG 6 MEPC 46/11/1 Secretariat Outcome of FSI 9 MEPC 46/11/1/Rev.1 Secretariat Outcome of FSI 9 MEPC 46/11/2 Secretariat Urgent items emanating from the DE

Sub-Committee 12 Work of other bodies MEPC 46/12 Secretariat Outcome of C 85 MEPC 46/12/1 Secretariat Outcome of the eighty-second

session of the Legal Committee

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 1 Page 8

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

MEPC 46/12/2 Secretariat Outcome of the twenty-eighth session of the Facilitation Committee

MEPC 46/12/3 Secretariat Outcome of MSC 73 MEPC 46/12/4 Secretariat Outcome of TCC 49 MEPC 46/12/5 Secretariat Outcome of FAL 28 on

harmonization of certificates and documents

MEPC 46/12/6 Secretariat Report of the Diplomatic Conference to consider an international regime for liability and compensation for pollution from ships’ bunkers

MEPC 46/INF.7 Secretariat UN General Assembly resolution A/RES/55/7 on Oceans and the Law of the Sea

13 Promotion of implementation and enforcement of MARPOL 73/78 and related Codes MEPC 46/13 ROPME/MEMAC Second Meeting of the Regional

Steering Committee on Implementation of MARPOL 73/78 in the ROPME Sea Area

MEPC 46/INF.8 United States MARPOL Annex V and Marine Debris

14 Preparation of RIO + 10 MEPC 46/14 Secretariat Draft report of the International

Maritime Organization to the Commission on Sustainable Development in connection to RIO +10

MEPC 46/INF.6 Secretariat The preparatory process 15 INF Code related matters

16 The role of human element with regard to pollution prevention

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 1

Page 9

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

17 Matters related to the 1973 Intervention Protocol MEPC 46/17 Secretariat Draft revised list of substances

annexed to the 1973 Intervention Protocol

18 Status of Conventions MEPC 46/18 Secretariat Status of Conventions

19 Application of the Committees’ Guidelines MEPC 46/19 Secretariat Outcome of MSC 73

20 Work programme of the Committee and subsidiary bodies MEPC 46/20 Chairmen of the

MSC and MEPC Activities, priorities and plan of meeting weeks of the Committees and their subsidiary bodies

MEPC 46/20/1 Secretariat Long-term work plan of the Committee (up to 2008)

MEPC 46/20/2 Secretariat Work programmes and provisional agendas of the BLG and FSI Sub-Committees

MEPC 46/20/2/Add.1 Secretariat Revised Work Programme and Provisional Agenda for the BLG Sub-Committee

MEPC 46/20/2/Add.2 Secretariat Revised Work Programme and Provisional Agenda of the FSI Sub-Committee

MEPC 46/20/3 Secretariat Work programmes of the DSC, DE and SLF Sub-Committees which relate to environmental issues

MEPC 46/20/3/Add.1 Secretariat Proposed revised Work Programme of the DE Sub-Committee which relates to environmental issues

MEPC 46/20/4 Chairmen of the MSC and MEPC

Sub-Committee restructuring – Proposed terms of reference

21 Election of Chairman and the Vice-Chairman for 2002

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 1 Page 10

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

22 Any other business MEPC 46/INF.12 Canada Advancing safer shipping in the

Asia-Pacific region – The work of the Experts Group on maritime safety

MEPC 46/INF.14 Australia New Compulsory Insurance Requirements in Australian Waters

MEPC 46/INF.16 United States Environmental Awareness among the youth

MEPC 46/INF.35 Secretariat The Implementation of the GEF/World Bank/IMO PDF Block B Grant, Development of a Regional Marine Electronic Highway in the East Asian Seas

23 Consideration of the report of the Committee

***

MEPC 46/23

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

ANNEX 2

RESOLUTION MEPC.94(46)

Adopted on 27 April 2001

CONDITION ASSESSMENT SCHEME

THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION COMMITTEE, RECALLING Article 38(a) of the Convention on the International Maritime Organization concerning the functions of the Marine Environment Protection Committee (the Committee) conferred upon it by international conventions for the prevention and control of marine pollution, RECALLING ALSO that, by resolution MEPC.52(32), the Committee adopted regulations 13F and 13G of Annex I to the Protocol of 1978 relating to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973 as amended (MARPOL 73/78), with a view to improving the requirements for the design and construction of oil tankers to prevent oil pollution in the event of collision or stranding, HAVING ADOPTED, at its forty-sixth session, amendments to regulation 13G of Annex I to MARPOL 73/78 by resolution MEPC.95(46) to accelerate the phase-out of single hull tankers in an effort to further enhance the protection of the marine environment, NOTING that, in accordance with the revised regulation 13G of Annex I to MARPOL 73/78, an Administration may allow a Category 1 tanker to continue operating beyond the anniversary of the date of delivery of the ship in 2005 and a Category 2 tanker beyond the anniversary of the date of delivery of the ship in 2010, provided that the requirements of a Condition Assessment Scheme adopted by the Committee are complied with, RECOGNIZING the need to provide the required Condition Assessment Scheme for the purposes of application of the revised to regulation 13G of Annex I to MARPOL 73/78, HAVING CONSIDERED the draft Condition Assessment Scheme which was prepared by the MEPC Intersessional Working Group and further amended by the Committee at its forty-sixth session, 1. ADOPTS the Condition Assessment Scheme, the text of which is set out at Annex to the present resolution, with the understanding that the Model Survey Plan will be developed at MEPC 47 and will be made mandatory; 2. REQUESTS the Secretary-General to transmit certified copies of the present resolution and the text of the Condition Assessment Scheme contained in the annex to all Parties to MARPOL 73/78; 3. FURTHER REQUESTS the Secretary-General to transmit copies of the present resolution and its annex to Members of the Organization, which are not Parties to MARPOL 73/78; 4. INVITES the Maritime Safety Committee to note the Condition Assessment Scheme;

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 2 Page 2

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

5. URGES the Maritime Safety Committee to consider introducing and incorporating relevant elements and provisions of the Condition Assessment Scheme in the Guidelines on the Enhanced Programme of Inspections During Surveys of Bulk Carriers and Oil Tankers adopted resolution A.744(18) as amended by the resolution 2 of the 1997 SOLAS Conference, by resolution MSC.49(66) and by resolution MSC.105(73)) when reviewing the Guidelines; and 6. FURTHER URGES Parties to MARPOL 73/78 to:

.1 transmit when a ship flying their flag is transferred under the flag of another Party to MARPOL 73/78, if they are requested by the latter Party to MARPOL 73/78 and for the purpose of ensuring the uniform and consistent implementation of the provisions of the Condition Assessment Scheme, copies of all documents and records relating to the assessment of the ship in question for compliance with the requirements of the Condition Assessment Scheme; and

.2 accept, in the light of the fact that certain Category 1 oil tankers have to undergo the

required CAS survey prior to 1 September 2002, valid Statements of Compliance issued pursuant to the provisions of the Condition Assessment Scheme following satisfactory completion of CAS surveys commenced prior to 1 September 2002.

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 2

Page 3

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

ANNEX

CONDITION ASSESSMENT SCHEME

1 PREAMBLE 1.1 The Condition Assessment Scheme (CAS) is intended to complement the requirements of Annex B of the Guidelines on the enhanced programme of inspections during surveys of bulk carriers and oil tankers (hereinafter called Enhanced Survey Programme), adopted by the Assembly of the International Maritime Organization by resolution A.744(18), as amended. The CAS is to verify that the structural condition of single hull oil tankers at the time of survey is acceptable and, provided subsequent periodical surveys are satisfactorily completed and effective maintenance is carried out by the ship’s operator, will continue to be acceptable for a continued period of operation, as indicated in the Statement of Compliance. 1.2 The requirements of the CAS include enhanced and transparent verification of the reported structural condition and of the ship and verification that the documentary and survey procedures have been properly carried out and completed. 1.3 The Scheme requires that compliance with the CAS is assessed during the Enhanced Survey Programme of Inspections concurrent with intermediate or renewal surveys currently required by resolution A.744(18), as amended. 1.4 The CAS does not specify structural standards in excess of the provisions of other International Maritime Organization conventions, codes and recommendations. 1.5 The CAS has been developed on the basis of the requirements of resolution A.744(18), as amended, which were known* at the time of the adoption of the CAS. It is the intention to update the CAS as and when the need arises following amendments to resolution A.744(18), as amended. 2 PURPOSE The purpose of the Condition Assessment Scheme is to provide an international standard to meet the requirements of regulation 13G(7) of Annex I of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 relating thereto, as amended by resolution MEPC.99(46).

* Assembly resolution A.744(18) as amended by resolution 2 of the 1997 SOLAS Conference, by resolution

MSC.49(66) and by resolution MSC.105(73).

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 2 Page 4

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

3 DEFINITIONS For the purpose of the CAS, unless expressly provided otherwise: 3.1 “MARPOL 73/78” means the Protocol of 1978 relating to the International Convention for the

Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as amended. 3.2 “Regulation” means the regulations contained in Annex I of MARPOL 73/78. 3.3 “Resolution A.744(18), as amended” means the Guidelines on the Enhanced Programme of

Inspections during Surveys of Bulk Carriers and Oil tankers adopted by the Assembly of the International Maritime Organization by resolution A.744(18), as amended by Resolution 2 of the 1997 SOLAS Conference and by resolutions MSC.49(66) and MSC.105(73).

3.4 “Recognised Organization (RO)” means an organization recognized by the Administration to

perform the surveys in accordance with the provisions of regulation 4(3) of Annex I of MARPOL 73/78*.

3.5 “Administration” means the Government of the State as defined in Article 2(5) of

MARPOL 73/78. 3.6 “Category 1 oil tanker” means an oil tanker of 20,000 tons deadweight and above carrying

crude oil, fuel oil, heavy diesel oil or lubricating oil as cargo, and of 30,000 tons deadweight and above carrying oil other than the above, which does not comply with the requirements for new oil tankers as defined in regulation 1(26) of Annex I of MARPOL 73/78.

3.7 “Category 2 oil tanker” means an oil tanker of 20,000 tons deadweight and above carrying

crude oil, fuel oil, heavy diesel oil or lubricating oil as cargo, and of 30,000 tons deadweight and above carrying oil other than the above, which complies with the requirements for new oil tankers as defined in regulation 1(26) of Annex I of MARPOL 73/78.

3.8 “Company” means the owner of the ship or any other organization or person such as the

manager or the bareboat charterer, who has assumed the responsibility for the operation of the ship from the owner of the ship and who, on assuming such responsibility, has agreed to take over all duties and responsibilities imposed by the International Safety Management (ISM) Code.

3.9 “Substantial corrosion” means an extent of corrosion such that the assessment of the

corrosion pattern indicates wastage in excess of 75% of the allowable margins, but within acceptable limits.

3.10 “GOOD condition” means a coating condition with only minor spot rusting.

* Under Regulation XI/1 of SOLAS 74, as amended, resolutions A.739(18) and A.789(19) are applicable to

Recognized Organizations.

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 2

Page 5

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

3.11 “Thickness Measurement (TM) Firm” means a qualified company certified by a RO in accordance with the principles stipulated in annex 7 to Annex B to resolution A.744(18), as amended.

3.12 “Critical Structural Areas” are locations which have been identified from calculations to

require monitoring or from the service history of the subject ship or from similar or sister ships to be sensitive to cracking, buckling or corrosion which would impair the structural integrity of the ship.

3.13 “Suspect Areas” are locations showing substantial corrosion and/or are considered by the

attending surveyor to be prone to rapid wastage. 3.14 Organization” means the International Maritime Organization. 4 GENERAL PROVISIONS 4.1 The Administration shall issue, or cause to be issued, detailed instructions to the RO which shall ensure that the CAS surveys are carried out in accordance with the provisions of sections 5 through 10 of this Scheme. 4.2 Nothing in this Scheme shall prevent an Administration from carrying out the CAS surveys itself, provided that such surveys are at least as effective as those prescribed in sections 5 through 10 in this Scheme. 4.3 The Administration shall require Category 1 and Category 2 oil tankers flying its flag to remain out of service during the periods referred to in paragraphs 5.1.1 and 5.1.2 respectively, until these oil tankers are issued with a valid Statement of Compliance. 5 APPLICATION, SCOPE AND TIMING 5.1 Application The requirements of the CAS apply to:

.1 Category 1 oil tankers, as defined in section 3, where authorization is requested for continued service beyond the anniversary of the date of delivery of the ship in 2005, through to the date as specified in the schedule indicated for compliance with the double hull requirements of regulation 13F, detailed in regulation 13G.

.2 Category 2 oil tankers, as defined in section 3, where authorization is requested for

continued service beyond the anniversary of the date of delivery of the ship in 2010, through to the date as specified in schedule indicated for compliance with the double hull requirements of regulation 13F, detailed in regulation 13G.

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 2 Page 6

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

5.2 Scope of the CAS

The CAS shall apply to surveys of the hull structure in way of cargo tanks, pump rooms, cofferdams, pipe tunnels, void spaces within the cargo area and all ballast tanks. 5.3 Timing 5.3.1 The first CAS survey shall be aligned to the Enhanced Survey Programme of Inspection and shall be carried out concurrent with the scheduled intermediate or renewal survey due prior to the anniversary of the date of delivery of the ship in 2005 for Category 1 oil tankers and prior to the anniversary of the date of delivery of the ship in 2010 for Category 2 oil tankers. 5.3.2 Any subsequent CAS surveys, required for the renewal of the Statement of Compliance shall be carried out concurrently with the intermediate or renewal survey which has to be completed by the date of expiry of the Statement of Compliance. 5.3.3 Notwithstanding the above, the Company may, with the agreement of the Administration, opt to carry out the first CAS survey at a different time from that of the due survey referred to above, provided that all the requirements of the CAS are complied with.

6 SURVEY PLANNING REQUIREMENTS 6.1 Preparations for the CAS survey 6.1.1 General procedures 6.1.1.1 Early and detailed planning to identify areas of potential risk is a prerequisite for the successful and timely completion of the CAS. The following sequence of events shall be observed. 6.1.1.2 Notification from the Company to the Administration and to the RO of its intention to proceed with the CAS shall be submitted not less than 8 months prior to the planned commencement of the CAS survey. 6.1.1.3 Upon receipt of such notification the RO shall: .1 issue to the Company the Survey Planning Questionnaire (see Appendix 2) not later

than 7 months prior to the planned commencement of the CAS survey; and .2 advise the Company whether there have been any changes to the maximum

acceptable structural corrosion diminution levels applicable to the ship. 6.1.1.4 The Company shall complete and return the Survey Planning Questionnaire to the RO not less than 5 months prior to the planned commencement of the CAS survey. A copy of the completed questionnaire shall be forwarded by the Company to the Administration. 6.1.1.5 The Survey Plan for the CAS shall be completed and submitted in signed order by the Company to the RO not less than 2 months prior to the planned commencement of the CAS survey. A copy of the Survey Plan for the CAS shall be forwarded by the Company to the Administration.

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 2

Page 7

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

6.1.1.6 In special circumstances, such as re-activation from lay-up or unexpected events such as an extended stoppage period for hull or machinery damage, the Administration may, on a case by case basis, relax the time frame, outlined in 6.1.1.2 to 6.1.1.5, for commencement of CAS procedures. 6.1.1.7 Such relaxation shall, at all times, be subject to the RO having sufficient time to complete the CAS survey and for the Administration to review the CAS Final Report and issue the Statement of Compliance prior to the dates referred to in 5.1. 6.1.2 Survey Plan for the CAS 6.1.2.1 The Survey Plan for the CAS shall be developed by the Company in cooperation with the RO. The Administration may participate in the development of the Survey Plan, if it deems necessary. The RO shall be fully satisfied that the Survey Plan complies with the requirements of 6.2.2 prior to the CAS survey being commenced. The CAS survey shall not commence unless and until the Survey Plan has been agreed. 6.1.2.2 The Survey Planning Questionnaire shall be drawn up based on the format set out in Appendix 2. 6.2 Survey Plan documentation 6.2.1 In developing the Survey Plan, the following documentation shall be collected and reviewed with a view to identifying tanks, areas and structural elements to be examined:

.1 basic ship information and survey status; .2 main structural plans of cargo and ballast tanks (scantling drawings), including

information regarding use of high tensile steels (HTS); .3 Condition Evaluation Report, according to Annex 9 of Annex B of resolution

A.744(18), as amended, and, where relevant, any previous CAS Final Reports; .4 thickness measurement reports; .5 relevant previous damage and repair history; .6 relevant previous survey and inspection reports from both the RO and the Company; .7 cargo and ballast history for the last 3 years, including carriage of cargo under heated

conditions; .8 details of the inert gas plant and tank cleaning procedures as indicated in the Survey

Planning Questionnaire; .9 information and other relevant data regarding conversion or modification of the ship’s

cargo and ballast tanks since the time of construction; .10 description and history of the coating and corrosion protection system (including

anodes and previous class notations), if any;

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 2 Page 8

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

.11 inspections by the Company’s personnel during the last 3 years with reference to: .1 structural deterioration in general; .2 leakages in tank boundaries and piping; .3 condition of the coating and corrosion protection system (including anodes),

if any; .12 information regarding the relevant maintenance level during operation including: .1 port State control reports of inspection containing hull related deficiencies;

.2 Safety Management System non-conformities relating to hull maintenance,

including the associated corrective action(s); and

.13 any other information that will help identify Suspect Areas and Critical Structural

Areas.

6.2.2 The Survey Plan shall include relevant information so as to enable the successful and efficient execution of the CAS survey and shall set out the requirements with respect to close-up surveys and thickness measurements. The Survey Plan shall include:

.1 basic ship information and particulars; .2 main structural plans of cargo and ballast tanks (scantling drawings), including

information regarding use of high tensile steels (HTS); .3 arrangement of tanks; .4 list of tanks with information on their use, extent of coatings and corrosion protection

systems; .5 conditions for survey (e.g. information regarding tank cleaning, gas freeing,

ventilation, lighting, etc.); .6 provisions and methods for access to structures; .7 equipment for surveys; .8 identification of tanks and areas for the close-up survey; .9 identification of tanks for tank testing, as per Annex 3 of Annex B of resolution

A.744(18), as amended; .10 identification of areas and sections for thickness measurement; .11 identification of the Thickness Measurement (TM) firm;

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 2

Page 9

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

.12 damage experience related to the ship in question; and .13 Critical Structural Areas and Suspect Areas, where relevant.

6.3 Documentation on board 6.3.1 The Company shall ensure that, in addition to the agreed Survey Plan, all other documents used in the development of the Survey Plan referred to in 6.2.1 are available on board at the time of the CAS survey. 6.3.2 Prior to the commencement of any part of the CAS survey, the attending surveyor(s) shall examine and ascertain the completeness of the on board documentation and shall review its contents with a view to ensuring that the Survey Plan remains relevant. 7 CAS SURVEY REQUIREMENTS 7.1 General 7.1.1 Prior to the commencement of any part of the CAS survey a meeting shall be held between the attending surveyor(s), the Company’s representative(s) in attendance, the TM Firm Operator (as applicable) and the master of the ship for the purpose of ascertaining that all the arrangements envisaged in the Survey Plan are in place, so as to ensure the safe and efficient execution of the survey work to be carried out. 7.1.2 The CAS survey shall be carried out by not less than two qualified exclusive surveyors of the RO. A qualified surveyor of the RO shall attend on board during the taking of the thickness measurements for the purpose of controlling the process. 7.1.3 The RO shall designate the surveyor(s) and any other personnel who will be engaged in the CAS of each vessel and shall keep records to this end. A qualified surveyor(s) shall have documented experience in carrying out intermediate or renewal surveys in accordance with the Enhanced Survey Programme of Inspection for tankers. In addition, all RO personnel to be assigned duties in connection with the CAS shall complete, prior to the assignment of such duties, an appropriate training and familiarization programme to enable the RO to ensure the consistent and uniform application of the CAS. The Administration shall require the RO to keep records of the qualifications and experience of the surveyors and of other personnel assigned to carry out work for the CAS. The Administration shall require the RO to monitor the performance of the personnel who have carried out or have been engaged in any CAS work and to keep records to this end. 7.1.4 When the CAS survey is split between survey stations, a list of the items examined and an indication of whether the CAS survey has been completed shall be made available to the attending surveyors at the next survey station prior to continuing the CAS survey.

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 2 Page 10

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

7.1.5 Whenever the attending surveyors are of the opinion that repairs are required, each item to be repaired shall be identified in a numbered list. Whenever repairs are carried out, details of the repairs effected shall be reported by making specific reference to relevant items in the numbered list. 7.1.6 Whenever the attending surveyors are of the opinion that it is acceptable to defer hull repairs beyond the due date previously assigned, such a decision shall not be left to the sole discretion of the attending surveyors. The RO Headquarters shall be consulted in such circumstances and shall give specific approval to the recommended action. 7.1.7 The CAS survey is not complete unless all recommendations/conditions of class which relate to hull structures under review by the CAS survey have been rectified to the satisfaction of the RO. 7.2 Extent of overall and close-up surveys 7.2.1 Overall survey An overall survey of all spaces set out in 5.2 shall be carried out at the CAS survey. 7.2.2 Close-up survey The requirements for close-up surveys at the CAS survey are set out in the table below.

Table 7.2.2

Close up Survey Requirements

All web frame rings, in all ballast tanks (see note 1)

All web frame rings, in a cargo wing tank (see note 1)

A minimum of 30% of all web frame rings, in each remaining cargo wing tank (see note 1)

All transverse bulkheads, in all cargo and ballast tanks (see note 2)

A minimum of 30% of deck and bottom transverses including adjacent structural members, in eaccargo centre tank

Additional complete transverse web frame rings or deck and bottom transverse including adjacentstructural members as considered necessary by the attending surveyor

Notes: 1 Complete transverse web frame ring including adjacent structural members. 2 Complete transverse bulkhead, including girder and stiffener systems and adjacent

members.

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 2

Page 11

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

7.2.3 The attending surveyors may extend the scope of the close-up survey as considered necessary, taking into account the Survey Plan, the condition of the spaces under survey, the condition of the corrosion prevention system and also the following: .1 any information that may be available on Critical Structural Areas; .2 tanks which have structures with reduced scantlings in association with a corrosion

prevention system approved by the RO.

7.2.4 For areas in tanks where coatings are found to be in GOOD condition, the extent of close-up surveys according to 7.2.2 may be specially considered by the RO. However, sufficient close-up surveys shall be carried out, in all cases, to confirm the actual average condition of the structure and to note the maximum observed diminution of the structure. 7.3 Extent of thickness measurements 7.3.1 The thickness measurements shall be recorded using the tables contained in Appendix 2 of Annex 10 of Annex B of resolution A.744(18), as amended. It is recommended that these records be kept in an electronic medium. 7.3.2 The thickness measurements shall be carried out either prior to or, to the maximum extent possible, concurrently with the close-up survey. 7.3.3 The minimum requirements for thickness measurements for the CAS surveys shall be those set out in the table below:

Table 7.3.3

Thickness Measurements Requirements

1. Within the cargo area:

.1 Each deck plate

.2 Three transverse sections

.3 Each bottom plate

2. Measurements of structural members subject to close-up survey according to 7.2.2, for general assessment and recording of corrosion pattern

3. Suspect areas 4. Selected wind and water strakes outside the cargo area. 5. All wind and water strakes within the cargo area. 6. Internal structure in the fore and aft peak tanks 7. All exposed main deck plates outside the cargo area and all exposed first tier superstructure

deck plates

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 2 Page 12

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

7.3.4 Where substantial corrosion is found, the extent of the thickness measurements shall be increased in accordance with Annex 4 of Annex B of resolution A.744(18), as amended. 7.3.5 In addition, the thickness measurements may be extended as considered necessary by the attending surveyors. 7.3.6 For areas in tanks where coatings are found to be in GOOD condition, the extent of thickness measurements, according to paragraph 7.3.3, may be specially considered by the RO. However, sufficient thickness measurements shall be taken, in all cases, to confirm the actual average condition and the maximum observed diminution of the structure. 7.3.7 The thickness measurement to be taken shall be sufficient to enable the reserve strength calculations in accordance with Annex 12 of Annex B of resolution A.744(18), as amended. 7.3.8 Transverse sections shall be chosen where the maximum diminutions are expected to occur or are revealed from deck plating thickness measurements. At least one transverse section shall include a ballast tank within 0.5L amidships. 8 ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA The acceptance criteria for the CAS shall be those set out in resolution A.744(18), as amended. 9 CAS SURVEY REPORTS 9.1 A survey report shall be completed for the CAS survey. The report shall indicate the date, location (place), and where relevant, whether or not the CAS survey was carried out in dry-dock afloat or at sea. When the CAS survey is split between different survey stations, a report shall be made for each portion of the CAS survey. 9.2 Survey records relating to the CAS survey, including actions taken, shall form an auditable documentary trail, which shall be made available to the Administration, if requested. 9.3 In addition, the following shall be included in each CAS survey report:

.1 Extent of the Survey:

.1 identification of the spaces where an overall survey has been carried out;

.2 identification of location, in each space, where a close-up survey has been carried out, together with the means of access used; and

.3 identification of the spaces, and locations in each space, where thickness

measurements have been carried out; and

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 2

Page 13

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

.2 Results of the Survey:

.1 extent and condition of coating in each space. Identification of spaces fitted with anodes and the overall condition of the anodes;

.2 structural condition reporting for each space, which shall include information

on the following, as applicable:

.1 corrosion (location and type of corrosion such as grooving, pitting, etc.);

.2 cracks (location, description and extent);

.3 buckling (location, description and extent); .4 indents (location, description and extent); and

.5 areas of substantial corrosion; and

.3 Actions taken with respect to findings:

.1 details of repairs completed on structural members in identified spaces,

including the repair method and extent; and

.2 list of items to be kept under observation for planning future inspections and surveys including any thickness measurements.

9.4 Where no defects are found, this shall be stated in the report for each space. 9.5 The narrative report shall be supplemented by photographs showing the general condition of each space, including representative photographs or sketches of any of the above reported items. 9.6 The thickness measurement report shall be verified and endorsed by the attending surveyor. 9.7 The attending surveyors shall sign the CAS survey report. 10 CAS FINAL REPORT TO THE ADMINISTRATION 10.1 Review of the CAS by the RO 10.1.1 The RO Headquarters shall carry out a verification review of the CAS survey reports, the documents, photographs and other records relating to the CAS, as specified in section 9, for the purpose of ascertaining and confirming that the requirements of the CAS have been met. 10.1.2 The RO reviewing personnel shall not be engaged in any way whatsoever with the CAS survey under review.

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 2 Page 14

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

10.2 CAS Final Report to the Administration 10.2.1 The RO shall prepare a CAS Final Report to the Administration upon completion of the CAS survey and following the review of the CAS survey reports by the RO’s Headquarters, as specified in paragraph 10.1.1. 10.2.2 The CAS Final Report shall be submitted by the RO to the Administration without delay and in any case not later than 2 months prior to the date the ship is required to be issued with a Statement of Compliance. 10.2.3 The CAS Final Report shall, at least, include: .1 the following general particulars:

Ship's name IMO number Flag State Port of registry Gross tonnage Deadweight (metric tonnes) Summer load line draught Date of delivery Category of ship Date for compliance with regulation 13F Company Report identification reference

.2 a summary as to where, when, by whom and how the CAS survey was carried out;

.3 a statement identifying all survey documentation, including the Survey Plan; .4 a statement as to the condition of the corrosion prevention system(s) applied to the

spaces; .5 a statement identifying all thickness measurement reports; .6 a summary of the findings of the overall surveys; .7 a summary of the findings of the close-up surveys;

.8 a summary of the hull repairs carried out;

.9 an identification, together with the location, the extent and the condition, of all areas

with substantial corrosion;

.10 a summary of the results of the evaluation of the thickness measurements, including identification of the areas and sections where thickness measurements were carried out;

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 2

Page 15

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

.11 an evaluation of the structural strength of the vessel and an assessment of compliance with the acceptance criteria set out in section 8;

.12 a statement as to whether all the applicable requirements of the CAS have been met; .13 a recommendation to the Administration as to whether the ship should be allowed to

continue operating until the date envisaged in regulation 13G for compliance with the requirements of regulation 13F or for the period of validity of the CAS, if earlier; and

.14 conclusions.

11 VERIFICATION OF THE CAS BY THE ADMINISTRATION 11.1 In addition to any instructions the Administration may have issued to the RO authorized to carry out surveys under the Enhance Survey Programme on its behalf, the Administration shall issue instructions to the RO and to Companies operating Category 1 and Category 2 oil tankers flying its flag, so that the Administration is able to monitor the performance of and verify compliance with the CAS. 11.2 The Administration, for the purpose of ensuring uniform and consistent implementation of the CAS, shall establish, at least, procedures through which it will:

.1 give effect to the requirements of the CAS; .2 monitor the CAS work the RO is carrying out on its behalf; .3 review the CAS Final Report; .4 review cases of ships which have been submitted for the CAS re-assessment; and .5 issue the Statement of Compliance.

11.3 The Administration shall review the CAS Final Report prior to the issue of the Statement of Compliance, shall record and document the findings and conclusions of the review and its decision as to the acceptance or rejection of the CAS Final Report and shall produce a Review Record. 11.4 The Administration shall ensure that any persons assigned to monitor the execution of the CAS or to review a CAS Final Report:

.1 are adequately qualified and experienced to the satisfaction of the Administration; .2 are under the direct control of the Administration; and .3 have no connection whatsoever with the RO which carried out the CAS survey under

review.

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 2 Page 16

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

12 RE-ASSESSMENT OF SHIPS FOLLOWING FAILURE TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CAS

12.1 A ship which, in the opinion of the Administration, has failed to meet the requirements of the CAS, may be submitted for the CAS re-assessment. In such a case the grounds on which Administration declined the issue of a Statement of Compliance to the ship shall be addressed and dealt with and the remedial actions shall, thereafter, be reviewed for the purpose of ascertaining whether the requirements of the CAS have been complied with. 12.2 Such re-assessment, as a rule, shall be carried out by the RO and by the Administration who carried out the previous CAS. 12.3 If a ship which has failed to obtain a Statement of Compliance changes flag, the new Administration shall, in accordance with the provisions of regulation 8(3), request the previous Administration to transmit to them copies of the CAS documentation relating to that ship for the purpose of ascertaining whether the grounds on the basis of which the previous Administration declined the issue to the ship of a Statement of Compliance are dealt with and that the CAS is implemented in a consistent and uniform manner. 12.4 As a rule, the CAS re-assessment shall be carried out as soon as possible and in any case, subject to the provisions of paragraph 5.3, not later than 6 months following the date on which the Administration has made the decision to decline the issue of a Statement of Compliance to the ship. 13 STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE 13.1 The Administration shall, in accordance with its procedures, issue to each ship which completes the CAS to the satisfaction of the Administration, a Statement of Compliance. 13.2 The Statement of Compliance shall be drawn up in the official language of the issuing Administration in a form corresponding to the model given in Appendix 1. If the language used is neither English, French or Spanish, the text shall include a translation into one of these languages. 13.3 The original of the Statement of Compliance shall be placed on board the ship as a supplement to the ship’s International Oil Pollution Prevention Certificate. 13.4 In addition, a copy of the CAS Final Report which was reviewed by the Administration for the issue of the Statement of Compliance and a copy of the Review Record, specified in paragraph 11.3, shall be placed on board to accompany the Statement of Compliance. 13.5 A certified copy of the Statement of Compliance and a copy of the Review Record, specified in paragraph 11.3, shall be forwarded by the Administration to the RO and shall be kept together with the CAS Final Report. 13.6 The Statement of Compliance shall be valid, following the completion of the CAS survey, until the earlier date of either:

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 2

Page 17

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

.1 the earlier date by which the ship is required to complete:

.1 an intermediate survey, in accordance with regulation 4(1)(c); or

.2 a renewal survey, in accordance with regulation 4(1)(b);

or .2 the date by which the vessel is required, in accordance with regulation 13G, to

comply with the requirements of regulation 13F.

13.7 If the Statement of Compliance expires prior to the date by which the ship is required, in accordance with regulation 13G, to comply with the requirements of regulation 13F, that ship, in order to continue operating after the expiry of its Statement of Compliance, shall carry out a renewal CAS survey in accordance with the requirements of sections 5 to 10.

13.8 The Administration may consider and declare that the Statement of Compliance of a ship remains valid and in full force and effect if:

.1 the ship is transferred to a RO other than the one that submitted the CAS Final Report that was reviewed and accepted for the issue of the Statement of Compliance; or

.2 the ship is operated by a Company other than the one that was operating the ship at

the time of the completion of the CAS survey; provided the period of validity and the terms and conditions for the issue of the Statement of Compliance in question remain those adopted by the Administration at the time of the issue of the Statement of Compliance. 13.9 If a ship with a valid Statement of Compliance is transferred to the flag of another Party, the new Administration may issue to that ship a new Statement of Compliance on the basis of the Statement of Compliance issued by the previous Administration, provided that the new Administration:

.1 requests and receives from the previous Administration, in accordance with regulation 8(3), copies of all the CAS documentation relating to that ship which the previous Administration has used for the issue or renewal and the maintenance of the validity of the Statement of Compliance the ship was issued with at the time of the transfer;

.2 establishes that the RO which submitted the CAS Final Reports to the previous

Administration is an RO authorised to act on its behalf; .3 reviews the documentation referred to in subparagraph .1 and is satisfied that the

requirements of the CAS are met; and .4 limits the period and the terms and conditions of validity of the Statement of

Compliance to be issued to those established by the previous Administration.

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 2 Page 18

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

13.10 The Administration shall:

.1 suspend and/or withdraw the Statement of Compliance of a ship if it no longer complies with the requirements of the CAS; and

.2 withdraw the Statement of Compliance of a ship if it is no longer entitled to fly its

flag. 14 COMMUNICATION OF INFORMATION TO THE ORGANIZATION 14.1 The Administration shall communicate to the Organization:

.1 particulars of the Statements of Compliance issued; .2 details of the suspension or withdrawal of the Statements of Compliance issued; and .3 particulars of the ships to which it has declined the issue of a Statement of

Compliance and reasons thereof. 14.2 The Organization shall circulate the aforementioned information to all Parties to MARPOL 73/78 and shall maintain an electronic database containing the aforesaid information, accessible only to Parties to MARPOL 73/78.

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 2

Page 19

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

Appendix 1

FORM OF STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE Issued under the provisions of the Condition Assessment Scheme (CAS) adopted by the Organization by resolution MEPC …(46) under the authority of the Government of:

………………………………………………… (full designation of the country)

Particulars of ship Name of ship ................................................................................................................................. Distinctive number or letters ......................................................................................................... Port of registry ............................................................................................................................... Gross tonnage ................................................................................................................................ Deadweight of ship (metric tons) .................................................................................................. IMO number .................................................................................................................................. Category of tanker ......................................................................................................................... THIS IS TO CERTIFY: 1 That the ship has been surveyed in accordance with the requirements of CAS (resolution

MEPC … (46); 2 That the survey showed that the structural condition of the ship is in all respects satisfactory

and the ship complied with the requirements of the CAS. This Statement of Compliance is valid until ................................................................................ Issued at ........................................................................................................................................ (Place of issue) …………………. ..................................................................................................... (Date of issue) (Signature of duly authorized official issuing the Statement)

(Seal or stamp of the authority, as appropriate)

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 2 Page 20

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

Appendix 2

SURVEY PLANNING QUESTIONNAIRE

The following information will enable the Company in co-operation with the RO to develop a Survey Plan complying with the requirements of the CAS. It is essential that the Company provides, when completing the present questionnaire, up-to-date information. The present questionnaire, when completed, shall provide all information and material required by the CAS.

Particulars

Ship's name: IMO number: Flag State: Port of registry: Gross tonnage: Deadweight (metric tonnes): Summer load line draught: Date of delivery: Category of ship: Date for compliance with regulation 13F: Company: Report identification reference:

Information on access provision for close-up surveys and thickness measurement: The Company is requested to indicate, in the table below, the means of access to the structures subject to close-up survey and thickness measurement. A Close-up survey is an examination where the details of structural components are within the close visual inspection range of the attending surveyor, i.e. preferably within reach of hand.

Space Temporary

Staging Rafts Ladders Direct Access

Other means (please specify)

Fore Peak Under deck Side shell Bottom transverse Longitudinal W

ing

Tank

s

Transverse Under deck Bottom transverse

Cen

tre

Tank

s

Transverse

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 2

Page 21

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

Tank Cleaning Procedures:

Indicate the frequency of the tank washing especially in way of uncoated tanks : Washing medium used : Crude oil : Yes/No Heated seawater : Yes/No Other medium (specify) :

Inert Gas System installed: Yes/No

Indicate average oxygen content during inerting: Details of use of the inert case plant:

Cargo history for the last 3 years together with indication as to whether cargo was heated

Ballast history for the last 3 years

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 2 Page 22

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

Inspections by the Company Using a format similar to that of the table below (which is given as an example), the Company should provide details of the results of their inspections, for the last 3 years - in accordance with the requirements of resolution A.744(18), as amended, and of the CAS - on all CARGO and BALLAST tanks and VOID spaces within the cargo area.

Spaces (include frame numbers and p or s)

Corrosion protection

(1)

Coating Extent

(2)

Coating Condition

(3)

Structural deterioration

(4)

Tank History

(5) Cargo Centre Tanks Cargo Wing Tanks Slop Ballast tanks Aft peak Fore peak Miscellaneous spaces: * Indicate tanks which are used for oil/ballast 1) HC=hard coating; SC=soft coating; A=anodes;

NP=no protection 2) U=upper part; M=middle part; L=lower part; C=complete 3) G=good; F=fair; P=poor, RC=recoated 4) N= no findings recorded Y= findings recorded, description of findings is to

be attached to the questionnaire 5) D R= Damage & Repair

L= Leakages CV= Conversion CPS= Corrosion protection system (reports to be attached)

Company: ................................................................. Name/Signature: ....................................................... Date: .........................................................................

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 2

Page 23

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

Reports of port State control inspections

List the reports of port State control of inspection containing hull related deficiencies and relevant information on the deficiencies:

Safety Management System

List non-conformities related to hull maintenance, including the associated corrective actions:

Name of the Thickness Measurement (TM) firm

***

MEPC 46/23

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

ANNEX 3

RESOLUTION MEPC.95(46)

Adopted on 27 April 2001

AMENDMENTS TO THE ANNEX OF THE PROTOCOL OF 1978 RELATING TO THE INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE PREVENTION OF POLLUTION FROM

SHIPS, 1973

(Amendments to regulation 13G of Annex I to MARPOL 73/78 and to the Supplement to the IOPP Certificate)

THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION COMMITTEE, RECALLING article 38(a) of the Convention on the International Maritime Organization concerning the functions of the Marine Environment Protection Committee (the Committee) conferred upon it by international conventions for the prevention and control of marine pollution, NOTING article 16 of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the “1973 Convention”) and article VI of the Protocol of 1978 relating to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the “1978 Protocol”) which together specify the amendment procedure of the 1978 Protocol and confer upon the appropriate body of the Organization the function of considering and adopting amendments to the 1973 Convention, as modified by the 1978 Protocol (MARPOL 73/78), HAVING CONSIDERED the proposed amendments to regulation 13G of Annex I to MARPOL 73/38, which were approved by the forty-fifth session of the Committee and circulated in accordance with article 16 (2) (a) of the 1973 Convention, HAVING ALSO CONSIDERED the proposed amendments to the Supplement to the IOPP Certificate which are consequential amendments to the proposed amendments to regulation 13G of Annex I to MARPOL 73/78, 1. ADOPTS, in accordance with article 16(2)(d) of the 1973 Convention, the amendments to regulation 13G of Annex I to MARPOL 73/78 and to the Supplement to the IOPP Certificate, the text of which is set out at annex to the present resolution; 2. DETERMINES, in accordance with article 16(2)(f)(iii) of the 1973 Convention, that the amendments shall be deemed to have been accepted on 1 March 2002, unless prior to that date, not less than one-third of the Parties or Parties the combined merchant fleets of which constitute not less than 50 per cent of the gross tonnage of the world’s merchant fleet, have communicated to the Organization their objection to the amendments; 3. INVITES the Parties to note that, in accordance with article 16(2)(g)(ii) of the 1973 Convention, the said amendments shall enter into force on 1 September 2002 upon their acceptance in accordance with paragraph 2 above;

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 3 Page 2

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

4. REQUESTS the Secretary-General, in conformity with article 16(2)(e) of the 1973 Convention, to transmit to all Parties to MARPOL 73/78 certified copies of the present resolution and the text of the amendments contained in the Annex; and 5. REQUESTS FURTHER the Secretary-General to transmit to the Members of the Organization which are not Parties to MARPOL 73/78 copies of the present resolution and its annex.

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 3

Page 3

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

ANNEX

AMENDMENTS TO ANNEX I TO MARPOL 73/78 1 The existing text of regulation 13G is replaced by the following:

“Regulation 13G

Prevention of oil pollution in the event of collision or stranding - Measures for existing tankers

(1) This regulation shall:

(a) apply to oil tankers of 5,000 tons deadweight and above, which are contracted, the keels of which are laid, or which are delivered before the dates specified in regulation 13F(1) of this Annex; and

(b) not apply to oil tankers complying with regulation 13F of this Annex, which are

contracted, the keels of which are laid, or are delivered before the dates specified in regulation 13F(1) of this Annex; and

(c) not apply to oil tankers covered by subparagraph (a) above which comply with

regulation 13F(3)(a) and (b) or 13F(4) or 13F(5) of this Annex, except that the requirement for minimum distances between the cargo tank boundaries and the ship side and bottom plating need not be met in all respects. In that event, the side protection distances shall not be less than those specified in the International Bulk Chemical Code for type 2 cargo tank location and the bottom protection distances shall comply with regulation 13E(4)(b) of this Annex.

(2) For the purpose of this regulation:

(a) “Heavy diesel oil” means diesel oil other than those distillates of which more than 50 per cent by volume distils at a temperature not exceeding 340ºC when tested by the method acceptable to the Organization1.

(b) “Fuel oil” means heavy distillates or residues from crude oil or blends of such

materials intended for use as a fuel for the production of heat or power of a quality equivalent to the specification acceptable to the Organization2.

(3) For the purpose of this regulation, oil tankers are divided into the following categories:

(a) “Category 1 oil tanker” means an oil tanker of 20,000 tons deadweight and above carrying crude oil, fuel oil, heavy diesel oil or lubricating oil as cargo, and of 30,000

1 Refer to the American Society for Testing and Material’s Standard Test Method (Designation D86). 2 Refer to the American Society for Testing and Material’s Specification for Number Four Fuel Oil (Designation

D396) or heavier.

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 3 Page 4

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

tons deadweight and above carrying oil other than the above, which does not comply with the requirements for new oil tankers as defined in regulation 1(26) of this Annex;

(b) “Category 2 oil tanker” means an oil tanker of 20,000 tons deadweight and above

carrying crude oil, fuel oil, heavy diesel oil or lubricating oil as cargo, and of 30,000 tons deadweight and above carrying oil other than the above, which complies with the requirements for new oil tankers as defined in regulation 1(26) of this Annex;

(c) “Category 3 oil tanker” means an oil tanker of 5,000 tons deadweight and above but

less than that specified in subparagraph (a) or (b) of this paragraph.

(4) An oil tanker to which this regulation applies shall comply with the requirements of regulation 13F of this Annex not later than the anniversary of the date of delivery of the ship in the year specified in the following table:

* Subject to compliance with the provisions of paragraph (7).

Category of oil tanker

Year

Category 1 2003 for ships delivered in 1973 or earlier 2004 for ships delivered in 1974 and 1975 2005* for ships delivered in 1976 and 1977 2006* for ships delivered in 1978, 1979 and 1980

2007* for ships delivered in 1981 or later Category 2 2003 for ships delivered in 1973 or earlier

2004 for ships delivered in 1974 and 1975 2005 for ships delivered in 1976 and 1977 2006 for ships delivered in 1978 and 1979 2007 for ships delivered in 1980 and 1981 2008 for ships delivered in 1982 2009 for ships delivered in 1983 2010* for ships delivered in 1984 2011* for ships delivered in 1985 2012* for ships delivered in 1986 2013* for ships delivered in 1987 2014* for ships delivered in 1988 2015* for ships delivered in 1989 or later

Category 3 2003 for ships delivered in 1973 or earlier 2004 for ships delivered in 1974 and 1975

2005 for ships delivered in 1976 and 1977 2006 for ships delivered in 1978 and 1979 2007 for ships delivered in 1980 and 1981 2008 for ships delivered in 1982

2009 for ships delivered in 1983 2010 for ships delivered in 1984 2011 for ships delivered in 1985 2012 for ships delivered in 1986 2013 for ships delivered in 1987 2014 for ships delivered in 1988 2015 for ships delivered in 1989 or later

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 3

Page 5

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

(5) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (4) of this regulation:

(a) in the case of a Category 2 or 3 oil tanker fitted with only double bottoms or double sides not used for the carriage of oil and extending to the entire cargo tank length or double hull spaces which are not used for the carriage of oil and extend to the entire cargo tank length, but does not fulfil conditions for being exempted from the provisions of paragraph (1)(c) of this regulation, the Administration may allow continued operation of such a ship beyond the date specified in paragraph (4) of this regulation, provided that:

(i) the ship was in service on 1 July 2001; (ii) the Administration is satisfied by verification of the official records that the

ship complied with the conditions specified above; (iii) the conditions of the ship specified above remain unchanged; and (iv) such continued operation does not go beyond the date on which the ship

reaches 25 years after the date of its delivery; (b) in the case of a Category 2 or 3 oil tanker other than that referred to in sub- paragraph (a)

of this paragraph which complies with the provisions of paragraph (6)(a) or (b) of this regulation, the Administration may allow continued operation of such a ship beyond the date specified in paragraph (4) of this regulation, provided that such continued operation shall not go beyond the anniversary of the date of delivery of the ship in 2017 or the date on which the ship reaches 25 years after the date of its delivery, whichever is the earlier date.

(6) A Category 1 oil tanker of 25 years and over after the date of its delivery shall comply with either of the following provisions:

(a) wing tanks or double bottom spaces, not used for the carriage of oil and meeting the width and height requirements of regulation 13E(4), cover at least 30% of Lt, for the full depth of the ship on each side or at least 30% or the projected bottom shell area within the length Lt, where Lt is as defined in regulation 13E(2); or

(b) the tanker operates with hydrostatically balanced loading, taking into account the

guidelines developed by the Organization3. (7) The Administration may allow continued operation of a Category 1 oil tanker beyond the anniversary of the date of delivery of the ship in 2005, and of a Category 2 oil tanker beyond the anniversary of the date of delivery of the ship in 2010, subject to compliance with the Condition Assessment Scheme adopted by the Marine Environment Protection Committee by resolution MEPC.94(46), as may be amended, provided that such amendments shall be adopted, brought into force and take effect in accordance with the provisions of article 16 of the present Convention relating to amendment procedures applicable to an appendix to an Annex. 3 Refer to the Guidelines for Approval of Alternative Structural or Operational Arrangements adopted by resolution

MEPC.64(36).

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 3 Page 6

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

(8) (a) The Administration of a State which allows the application of paragraph (5) of this

regulation, or allows, suspends, withdraws or declines the application of paragraph (7) of this regulation, to a ship entitled to fly its flag shall forthwith communicate to the Organization for circulation to the Parties to the present Convention particulars thereof, for their information and appropriate action, if any.

(b) A Party to the present Convention shall be entitled to deny entry of oil tankers operating

in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (5) of this regulation into the ports or offshore terminals under its jurisdiction. In such cases, that Party shall communicate to the Organization for circulation to the Parties to the present Convention particulars thereof for their information.”

AMENDMENTS TO APPENDIX II TO ANNEX I TO MARPOL 73/78 Amendments to the Supplement to the IOPP Certificate (Form B) 2 The existing paragraph 5.8.4 is replaced by the following: “5.8.4 The ship is subject to regulation 13G and: .1 is required to comply with regulation 13F not later than ..................................□ .2 is so arranged that the following tanks or spaces are not used for the carriage of oil ......................................................................................................□ .3 is provided with the operational manual approved on ……. in accordance

with resolution MEPC.64(36) ...........................................................................□ .4 is allowed to continue operation in accordance with regulation 13G(5)(a) ......□ .5 is allowed to continue operation in accordance with regulation 13G(5)(b) .......□ .6 is allowed to continue operation in accordance with regulation 13G(7) ...........□”

***

MEPC 46/23

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

ANNEX 4

PROVISION OF SHELTERED WATERS FOR SHIPS IN DISTRESS FROM THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION PERSPECTIVE

A proposed set of issues from which criteria would be developed as guidance to Member States

1 In light of the speech of the Secretary-General during the opening session at MEPC 46 on the Castor incident, which highlighted the issue of the provisions of sheltered waters/safe havens for ships in distress, and the subsequent request by the Chairman of the Committee, the OPRC Working Group considered the issue of sheltered waters/safe havens by looking into various issues from the perspective of marine environmental protection, in order to assist this discussion. 2 The OPRC Working Group recognized the merit for such an exercise, but at the same time noted that without preparation, the task was challenging and to give the matter full consideration would call for a substantial amount of time. Attention was drawn to the fact that a number of countries have already established in their national contingency plans and port emergency plans, issues that would need consideration in the selection of sheltered waters/safe havens. There is, therefore, merit in learning from the experience already available in the field. 3 During the exchange of views on the matter, the OPRC Working Group also noted that principles that might be used for the identification of sheltered waters/safe havens and for decision-making procedures should be developed in the spirit of relevant existing IMO resolutions. 4 The terms of reference used by the OPRC Working Group were:

“To establish a set of issues from which criteria would need to be developed as guidance to Member States when considering sheltered waters/safe havens from a marine environmental response perspective.”

5 It was noted that the environmental response obligations of some Member States encompass emergency ship towage, lightering and salvage. 6 The issues identified by the OPRC Working Group were as follows:

.1 Alerting and situation analysis

a) Vessel status (vessel and crew capability, immediate threat)

b) Materials onboard (cargo, bunkers, hazardous materials, risks associated with these materials)

c) Risk Assessment (fire/explosion, loss of cargo and bunkers, etc.) .2 Area environmental analysis

a) Resources (threat to public safety, designated environmental areas, sensitive habitats and species, fisheries, economic/industrial facilities, amenity resources)

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 4 Page 2

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

b) Weather conditions/modelling (weather and sea conditions, bathymetry, seasonal effects, etc.)

.3 Contingency planning

a) Roles and responsibilities of authorities and responders

b) Response equipment needs and availability

c) Response techniques

d) International co-operation .4 Response

a) Oil, hazardous and noxious substances, fire, etc.

b) Emergency lightering

c) Emergency stowage

d) Emergency towage

e) Emergency salvage

f) Emergency storage

***

MEPC 46/23

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

ANNEX 5

DRAFT TEXT OF THE INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION ON THE CONTROL OF HARMFUL ANTI-FOULING SYSTEMS

(AS MODIFIED BY MEPC 46)

THE PARTIES TO THIS CONVENTION, NOTING that scientific studies and investigations by Governments and competent international organizations have shown that certain anti-fouling systems used on ships pose a substantial risk of toxicity and other chronic impacts to ecologically and economically important marine organisms and also that human health may be harmed as a result of the consumption of seafood;

NOTING IN PARTICULAR the serious concern regarding anti-fouling systems that use organotins acting as biocides and being convinced that the introduction of such organotins into the environment must be phased-out; RECALLING that Agenda 21 Chapter 17 of Agenda 21, the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development calls upon States to take measures to reduce pollution caused by organotin compounds used in anti-fouling systems; RECALLING ALSO that resolution A.895(21), adopted by the Assembly of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) on 25 November 1999, urges the Organization's Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) to work towards the expeditious development of a global legally binding instrument to address the harmful effects of anti-fouling systems used on ships as a matter of urgency; NOTING the precautionary approach set out in Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration and referred to in resolution MEPC.67(37) adopted by MEPC on 15 September 1995; RECOGNIZING the importance of protecting the marine environment from adverse effects of anti-fouling systems used on ships;

RECOGNIZING ALSO that the use of anti-fouling systems to prevent the build-up of organisms on the surface of ships is of critical importance to efficient commerce;

RECOGNIZING FURTHER the need to continue to develop anti-fouling systems which are effective and environmentally safe and to promote the substitution of harmful systems by less harmful systems or preferably harmless systems; HAVE AGREED as follows:

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 5 Page 2

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

ARTICLE 1 General Obligations

1 Each Party to this Convention undertakes to give full and complete effect to the provisions of this Convention and the Annexes thereto, in order to reduce or eliminate adverse effects on the marine environment and human health caused by anti-fouling systems. 2 The Annexes form an integral part of this Convention. Unless expressly provided otherwise, a reference to this Convention constitutes at the same time a reference to its Annexes. 3 No provision of this Convention shall be interpreted as preventing a Party from taking, individually or jointly, more stringent measures with respect to the reduction or elimination of adverse effects of anti-fouling systems on the environment, consistent with international law. 4 Parties shall endeavour to co-operate for the purpose of effective implementation, compliance and enforcement of this Convention. 5 The Parties undertake to encourage the continued development of anti-fouling systems that are effective and environmentally safe.

ARTICLE 2 Application

1 Unless otherwise specified in this Convention, this Convention shall apply to: (a) all ships that are entitled to fly the flag of a Party;

(b) all ships not entitled to fly the flag of a Party but which operate under the authority of a Party; and

(c) all ships that enter a port, shipyard, or offshore terminal of a Party, but do not fall within paragraphs (a) or (b).

2 This Convention shall not apply to any warships, naval auxiliary or other ships owned or operated by a Party and used, for the time being, only on government non-commercial service. However, each Party shall ensure, by the adoption of appropriate measures not impairing operations or operational capabilities of such ships owned or operated by it, that such ships act in a manner consistent, so far as is reasonable and practicable, with this Convention. 3 With respect to the ships of non-Parties to this Convention, Parties shall apply the requirements of the present Convention as may be necessary to ensure that no more favourable treatment is given to such ships.

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 5

Page 3

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

ARTICLE 3 Definitions

For the purposes of this Convention, unless expressly provided otherwise: 1 “Administration” means the Government of the State under whose authority the ship is operating. With respect to a ship entitled to fly a flag of a State, the Administration is the Government of that State. With respect to fixed or floating platforms engaged in exploration and exploitation of the sea-bed and subsoil thereof adjacent to the coast over which the coastal state exercises sovereign rights for the purposes of exploration and exploitation of their natural resources, the Administration is the Government of the coastal State concerned. 2 “Anti-fouling system” means a coating, paint, surface treatment, surface, or device that is used on a ship to control or prevent attachment of unwanted organisms. 3 "Committee" means the Marine Environment Protection Committee of the Organization.

4 "Gross tonnage" means the gross tonnage calculated in accordance with the tonnage measurement regulations contained in Annex I of the International Convention on Tonnage Measurement of Ships, 1969 or any successor Convention. 5 “International voyage” means a voyage by a ship entitled to fly the flag of one State to a port or offshore terminal under the jurisdiction of another State. 6 "Member State" means a State that is a member of the Organization.

7 “Organization” means the International Maritime Organization. 8 “Secretary-General” means the Secretary-General of the Organization. 9 “Ship” means a vessel of any type whatsoever operating in the marine environment and includes hydrofoil boats, air-cushion vehicles, submersibles, floating craft, and fixed or floating platforms, floating storage units (FSUs), and floating production storage and off-loading units (FPSOs).

ARTICLE 4 Controls on Anti-Fouling Systems

1 In accordance with the requirements specified in Annex 1, each Party shall prohibit and/or restrict: the use of harmful anti-fouling systems on ships that are entitled to fly its flag and to which this Convention applies, and shall take effective measures to ensure that such ships comply with those requirements.

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 5 Page 4

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

2 Each Party, within its territory, shall prohibit and/or restrict the: (a) the application, re-application, installation or use of harmful anti-fouling systems on ships as specified in Annex 1.]referred to in Article 2(1)(a) or (b); and

(b) the application, re-application, or use of such systems, whilst in a Party’s port, shipyard or offshore terminal, on ships referred to in Article 2(1)(c),

and shall take effective measures to ensure that such ships comply with those requirements.

ARTICLE 4(BIS) Controls of Annex 1 Waste Materials

Taking into account international rules, standards and requirements, a Party shall take appropriate measures in its territory to require that wastes from the application or removal of anti-fouling system controlled in Annex 1 are collected, handled, treated, and disposed of in a safe and environmentally sound manner to protect human health and the environment.

ARTICLE 5 Process for Proposing Amendments to Controls on Anti-Fouling Systems

1 Any Party may propose an amendment to Annex 1 in accordance with this article. 2 An initial proposal shall contain the information required in Annex 2, and shall be submitted to the Organization. When the Organization receives a proposal, it shall bring the proposal to the attention of the Parties, member States and intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations in consultative status with the Organization and shall make it available to them. 3 The Committee shall decide whether the anti-fouling system in question warrants a more in-depth review based on the contention of risk presented in the initial proposal. If the Committee decides that further review is warranted, it shall require the proposing Party to submit to the Committee a comprehensive proposal containing the information required in Annex 3, except where the initial proposal also includes all the information required in Annex 3. The Committee shall establish an expert a technical group in accordance with article 6 when the comprehensive proposal has been received. 4 The expert technical group shall review the comprehensive proposal along with any additional data submitted by any interested party and shall evaluate and report to the Committee whether the proposal has demonstrated a potential for unreasonable risk of adverse effects on non-target organisms or human health such that the amendment of Annex 1 is warranted. In this regard:

(a) The expert technical group’s review shall consist of include:

(i) an evaluation of the association between the anti-fouling system in question and the related adverse effects observed either in the environment or on human health (including but not limited to the consumption of seafood), or through controlled studies based on the data described in the proposal Annex 3 and any other relevant data which come to light;

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 5

Page 5

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

(ii) an evaluation of the potential risk reduction attributable to the proposed control measures and any other control measures that may be considered by the expert technical group;

(iii) consideration of available information on the technical feasibility of control measures and the cost-effectiveness of the proposal;

(iv) consideration of available information on other effects from the introduction of such control measures relating to:

- the environment (including the cost of inaction, air quality); - shipyard health and safety concerns (effects on shipyard workers); - the cost to international shipping and other relevant sectors; and

(v) consideration of the availability of suitable alternatives.

(b) The expert technical group’s report shall be in writing and shall take into account each of the evaluations and considerations referred to in subparagraph (a), except that the expert technical group may decide not to proceed with the evaluations and considerations described in subparagraph (a)(ii) through (a)(v) if it determines after the evaluation in subparagraph (a)(i) that the proposal does not warrant further consideration. (c) The expert technical group's report shall include, inter alia, a recommendation on whether international controls pursuant to this Convention are warranted on the anti-fouling system in question, on the suitability of the specific control measures suggested in the comprehensive proposal, or on other control measures which it believes to be more suitable.

5 The technical group’s report shall be circulated to all Members of the Organization, organizations in consultative status to the Organization, and all Parties at least six months prior to its consideration by the Committee acting as a meeting of the Parties. The Committee shall as provided in paragraph 2 of Article 18, decide whether to approve adopt and, if appropriate, modify any proposal to amend Annex 1 taking into account the expert technical group's report. A decision not to approve the proposal shall not preclude future submission of a new proposal with respect to a particular anti-fouling system if new [information] [evidence] comes to light. 6 Only Parties may participate in decisions taken by the Committee described in paragraphs 3 and 5 of this article.

ARTICLE 6 ExpertTechnical Groups

1 The Committee shall establish an ad hoc ad hoc expert technical group to perform the review functions for each comprehensive proposal submitted pursuant to article 5 of this Convention. A new expert technical group shall be established for each new comprehensive proposal received, except, as appropriate, in those circumstances where proposals are received concurrently or where an existing review is already under way. 2. Any Party may participate in the deliberations of an expert a technical group. Expert Technical groups shall be composed of technicals with assemble expertise in environmental fate and

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 5 Page 6

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

toxicity, effects, toxicological effects, marine biology, human health, economic analysis, risk management, international shipping, or other fields of expertise necessary to objectively review the technical merits of a proposal. Any Party participating in the expert technical group should draw on the technical relevant expertise available to it in its departments or ministries. 3. The Committee shall decide on the terms of reference, organization and operation of the expert technical groups. Such terms shall provide for participation by interested Parties, member States as well as intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations as observers. Such terms shall also provide for protection of any confidential information that may be submitted. Expert Technical groups may hold such meetings as required, but shall endeavour to conduct their work through written or electronic correspondence or other mediums media as appropriate. 4. Only the representatives of Parties may participate in formulating any recommendation to the Committee pursuant to article 5 of this Convention. An expert A technical group shall endeavour to achieve unanimity among the representatives of the Parties. If unanimity is not possible, the expert technical group shall communicate any minority views of such representatives.

ARTICLE 7 Scientific and Technical Research and Monitoring

1. The Parties shall take appropriate measures to promote and facilitate scientific and technical research on the effects of anti-fouling systems as well as monitoring of such effects. In particular, such research should include observation, measurement, sampling, evaluation and analysis of the effects of anti-fouling systems. 2. Each Party shall, to further the objectives of this Convention, promote the availability of relevant information to other Parties who request it on:

(a) scientific and technical activities undertaken in accordance with this Convention;

(b) marine scientific and technological programs and their objectives; and

(c) the effects observed from any monitoring and assessment programs relating to anti-fouling systems.

ARTICLE 8

Communication of Information 1 The Parties to the Convention undertake to communicate to the Organization a list of nominated surveyors or recognized organizations which are authorized to act on their behalf in the administration of matters relating to the control of anti-fouling systems in accordance with the provisions of this article Convention for circulation to the Parties for information of their officers. The Administration shall therefore notify the Organization of the specific responsibilities and conditions of the authority delegated to nominated surveyors or recognized organizations. 2 The Organization shall make available electronically or through other means as appropriate any information communicated to it under paragraph 1 of this article.

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 5

Page 7

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

ARTICLES 9 THROUGH 13 [Note: Articles 9 through 13 have been rewritten as Regulations 1 through 5 of Annex 4.]

ARTICLE 15 14 Inspections of Ships and Detection of Violations

1 A ship to which this Convention applies may, in any port, shipyard, or offshore terminal of a Party, be subject to inspection inspected by officers appointed or authorized by that Party for the purpose of determining whether the ship is in compliance with the applicable provisions of this Convention. Unless there are clear grounds for believing that a ship is in violation of the applicable provisions of this Convention, any such inspection shall be limited to:

(a) verifying that there is onboard a valid Certificate [or Placard] (in the case of a ship referred to in Article 2(1)(a)) or a Declaration; and/or

(b) a brief sampling of the ship’s anti-fouling system that does not affect the integrity, structure, or operation of the anti-fouling system in accordance with the guidelines to be developed by the Organization. However, the time required to process the results of such sampling shall not be used as a basis for preventing the movement and departure of the ship1.

[1bis Where it is determined by the master of the ship that the integrity, structure, or operation of the anti-fouling system has been affected as a result of sampling by a Party, that Party shall restore the integrity, structure, or operation of the anti-fouling system and/or compensate the ship for any delay or damage arising therefrom.]2 2. If there are clear grounds to believe that the ship is in violation of the applicable provisions of this Convention, a thorough inspection may be carried out taking into account the guidelines to be developed by the Organization. 3 If the ship is detected to be in violation of this Convention, the Party carrying out the inspection may take steps to warn, detain, dismiss or exclude the ship from its ports. A Party taking such action against a ship for the reason that the ship does not comply with the provisions of this Convention, shall immediately inform the Administration of the State whose flag the ship is entitled to fly ship concerned. 4. Parties shall co-operate in the detection of violations and the enforcement of the provisions of this Convention. A Party may also inspect a ship when it enters the ports, shipyards, or offshore terminals under its jurisdiction, if a request for an investigation is received from any Party, together with sufficient evidence that a ship is operating or has operated in violation of a provision in this Convention. The report of such investigation shall be sent to the Party requesting it and to the

1 It has been suggested that guidelines could be developed in the course of our negotiation that would set the permissible parameters for sampling of the ships anti-fouling systems and the need to prevent undue delay to ships. 2 Paragraph 1bis of Article 14 and selected text of Article 16 as prepared by the United Kingdom is in square brackets recognizing that the Conference will need to decide whether to include a damage clause in the text of the instrument. Should a decision be taken to include a damage provision in the treaty, then a decision will be needed to determine whether the provisions should be placed into Article 14 or 16 and what the appropriate wording should be.

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 5 Page 8

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

competent authority of the Administration of the ship concerned so that the appropriate action may be taken under this Convention.

ARTICLE 14 15 Violations

1. Any violation of the requirements of this Convention shall be prohibited and sanctions shall be established therefore under the law of the Administration of the ship concerned wherever the violation occurs. If the Administration is informed of such a violation, it shall investigate the matter, and may request the reporting Party to furnish additional evidence of the alleged violation. If the Administration is satisfied that sufficient evidence is available to enable proceedings to be brought in respect of the alleged violation, it shall cause such proceedings to be taken as soon as possible, in accordance with its laws. The Administration shall promptly inform the Party that reported the alleged violation, as well as the Organization, of any action taken. If the Administration has not taken any action within 1 year after receiving the information, it shall so inform the Party which reported the alleged violation. 2. Any violation of the requirements of the present this Convention within the jurisdiction of any Party shall be prohibited and sanctions shall be established therefore under the law of that Party. Whenever such a violation occurs, that Party shall either:

(a) cause proceedings to be taken in accordance with its law; or

(b) furnish to the Administration of the ship concerned such information and evidence as may be in its possession that a violation has occurred.

3. The penalties provided for by the laws of a Party pursuant to this article shall be adequate in severity to discourage violations of this Convention wherever they occur.

ARTICLE 16 Undue Delay or Detention of or Damage to Ships

1. All possible efforts shall be made to avoid a ship being unduly detained or delayed [or damaged] under articles 14 and 15 of this Convention. 2 When a ship is unduly detained or delayed under articles 14 and 15 of this Convention, it shall be entitled to compensation for any loss or damage suffered. [Alternative paragraph 2. When under articles 14 or 15 of this Convention, a ship is unduly detained, delayed, or undue damage is caused to its anti-fouling system, it shall be entitled to compensation for any loss or damage suffered.]3

ARTICLE 17

Dispute Settlement [1. Parties shall settle any dispute between them concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention by any peaceful means of their own choice.]

3 See previous footnote

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 5

Page 9

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

ARTICLE 18 Amendments

[To be developed. Consistent with article 5, this article would contain a provision stating that the proposal and adoption of amendments to Annex 1 would be in accordance with article 5.]

1 Any Party may propose amendments to this Convention. The text of a proposed amendment shall be submitted to the Organization and circulated by the Organization to all members of the Organization and all Parties at least six months prior to its consideration by the Committee acting as a meeting of the Parties. 2 Amendments shall be adopted by a two-thirds majority vote of the Parties that are present and voting. 3 Parties to the Convention, whether or not members of the Organization, shall be entitled to participate in the proceedings of the Committee acting as a meeting of the Parties. 4 If adopted, amendments shall be communicated by the Organization to all members of the Organization and all Parties. 5 An amendment so adopted shall enter into force for Parties that have ratified, accepted or approved it on the ninetieth day after the date on which [ ]4 of the Parties have deposited an instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession of the amendment with the Organization. Thereafter, the amendment shall enter into force for any other Party on the ninetieth day after the date on which that Party has deposited its instrument of ratification, acceptance, or approval of the amendment. 6 The Organization shall inform all members of the Organization and all Parties of any amendments that enter into force and the date on which such amendments enter into force generally and for each Party. 7 Annexes adopted after the entry into force of this Convention shall be restricted to procedural, scientific, technical, or administrative matters and shall be proposed and adopted, and shall enter into force, in accordance with this Article.

Article 18bis - Amendment of Annex 1 1 Amendments to Annex 1 shall be proposed and considered in accordance with paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Article 5 and adopted in accordance with paragraphs 5 and 6 of Article 5 and paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of Article 18. 2 An amendment to Annex 1 shall enter into force twelve months after its communication to the Parties by the Organization for all Parties, except those that:

(a) within twelve months from the date of the adoption of the amendment have submitted a notification of non-acceptance to the Organization; or

4 To be determined.

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 5 Page 10

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

(b) have made a relevant declaration in accordance with paragraph 3bis of Article 19. 3 A Party that has submitted a notification of non-acceptance as provided in paragraph 2(a) of this Article may subsequently notify the Organization that it accepts the amendment. Such amendment shall enter into force for such Party on the ninetieth day after the date of its notification of acceptance, or such date as the amendment enters into force generally, whichever is later. 4 If a Party that has made a declaration in accordance with paragraph 4 of Article 19 deposits an instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval, or accession with respect to an amendment, such amendment shall enter into force for such Party on the ninetieth day after the date of its deposit of its instrument with respect to such amendment, or such date as the amendment enters into force generally, whichever is later.

Article 18ter – Amendment of Annexes other than Annex 1 1 Amendments to annexes other than Annex 1 shall be proposed and adopted in accordance with paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Article 18. 2 An amendment to an annex other than Annex 1 shall enter into force twelve months after its communication to the Parties by the Organization for all Parties, except those that within twelve months from the date of the adoption of the amendment have submitted a notification of non-acceptance to the Organization. 3 A Party that has submitted a notification of non-acceptance as provided in paragraph 2 of this Article may subsequently notify the Organization that it accepts the amendment. Such amendment shall enter into force for such Party on the ninetieth day after the date of its notification of acceptance, or such date as the amendment enters into force generally, whichever is later.

ARTICLE 19 Signature, Ratification, Acceptance, Approval, and Accession

1. This Convention shall be open for signature by any State at the Headquarters of the Organization from __ to __ and shall thereafter remain open for accession by any State. 2. States may become Parties to this Convention by:

(a) signature not subject to ratification, acceptance, or approval; or

(b) signature subject to ratification, acceptance, or approval, followed by ratification, acceptance, or approval; or

(c) accession.

3. Ratification, acceptance, approval, or accession shall be effected by the deposit of an instrument to that effect with the Secretary-General. 3bis In its instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval, or accession, a State may declare that amendments to Annex 1 to the Convention shall enter into force for it only after the deposit with the

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 5

Page 11

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

Secretary-General of its instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval, or accession with respect to such amendment. 4. If a State comprises two or more territorial units in which different systems of law are applicable in relation to matters dealt with in this Convention, it may at the time of signature, ratification, acceptance, approval or accession declare that this Convention shall extend to all its territorial units or only to one or more of them and may modify this declaration by submitting another declaration at any time. 5. Any such declaration shall be notified to the depositary and shall state expressly the territorial units to which this Convention applies.

ARTICLE 20 Entry Into Force

[To be developed.]

ARTICLE 21 Denunciation

1. This Convention may be denounced by any Party at any time after the expiry of two years from the date on which this Convention enters into force for that Party. 2. Denunciation shall be effected by the written notification to the Depositary, to take effect one year after receipt or such longer period as may be specified in that notification.

ARTICLE 22 Depositary

1. This Convention shall be deposited with the Secretary-General, who shall transmit certified copies of this Convention to all States which have signed this Convention or acceded thereto. 2. In addition to the functions specified elsewhere in this Convention, the Secretary-General shall:

(a) inform all States which have signed this Convention or acceded thereto of:

(i) each new signature or deposit of an instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession, together with the date thereof;

(ii) the date of entry into force of the this Convention; and

(iii) the deposit of any instrument of denunciation from of this Convention, together with the date on which it was received and the date on which the denunciation takes effect.; and

(b) as soon as this Convention enters into force, transmit the text thereof to the Secretariat of the United Nations for registration and publication in accordance with Article 102 of the Charter of the United Nations.

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 5 Page 12

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

[ARTICLE 23

Relationship to International Law and Other Agreements of the Sea Nothing in this Convention shall prejudice the rights and obligations of any State under customary international law as reflected in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. or under any existing international agreement]

ARTICLE 24 Languages

This Convention is established in a single original in the Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian, and Spanish languages, each text being equally authentic. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the undersigned being duly authorized by their respective Governments for that purpose have signed this Convention. DONE AT LONDON, this ... day of ..., two thousand and one.

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 5

Page 13

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

ANNEX 1

CONTROLS ON ANTI-FOULING SYSTEMS

Anti-fouling system Control measures

Application Effective date

Organotin compounds which act as biocides in anti-fouling systems

Ships shall not apply or re-apply such compounds1)

All ships 1 January 2003 [or entry into force of this Convention, whichever is later]

OPTION A Organotin compounds which act as biocides in anti-fouling systems

Ships shall not bear such compounds on their hulls or external parts or surfaces

All ships (except fixed and floating platforms, FSUs, and FPSOs that have been constructed prior to 1 January 2003 and that have not been in dry-dock on or after 1 January 2003 [or entry into force of the this Convention, which ever is later])

1 January 2008, [or entry into force of this Convention whichever is later]

OPTION B Organotin compounds which act as biocides in anti-fouling systems

Ships either (1) shall not bear such compounds as an active anti-fouling substance on their hulls or external parts or surfaces or (2) shall bear a coating that forms a barrier to such compounds leaching from the underlying non-compliant anti-fouling systems.1)

All ships (except fixed and floating platforms, FSUs, and FPSOs that have been constructed prior to 1 January 2003 and that have not been in dry-dock on or after 1 January 2003 [or entry into force of the this Convention, which ever is later])

1 January 2008 [or entry onto force of the this Convention, which ever is later]

1) This requirement is considered fulfilled provided the ship has only been coated with an anti-fouling system not in violation of this annex subsequent to the effective date.

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 5 Page 14

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

ANNEX 2

REQUIRED ELEMENTS FOR AN INITIAL PROPOSAL 1. An initial proposal shall include adequate documentation containing at least the

following information:

(a) identification of the anti-fouling system addressed in the proposal: name of the anti-fouling system; of the system which is name of active ingredients and CAS number, if applicable, or components subcategory of the system which is are suspected of causing the adverse effects of concern;

(b) characterization of the information which suggests that the anti-fouling system or its degradation products may pose a risk to human health or may cause adverse effects in non-target organisms or bioaccumulate significantly in organisms at concentrations likely to be found in the environment, (e.g., the results of toxicity studies on representative species or and bioaccumulation data);

(c) material supporting the potential of the toxic components in the anti-fouling system or its degradation products to occur in the environment at concentrations which could result in adverse effects to non-target organisms human health or the water quality, e.g., data on persistence in the water column, sediments and biota; and the release rate of toxic components from treated surfaces in studies or under actual use conditions, or monitoring data (if available);

(d) an analysis of the association between the anti-fouling system, the related adverse effects, bioaccumulation, and the environmental concentrations observed or anticipated; and

(e) a preliminary recommendation on the type of restrictions that could be effective in reducing the risks associated with the anti-fouling system.

2. An initial proposal shall be submitted in accordance with rules and procedures of the Organization.

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 5

Page 15

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

ANNEX 3

REQUIRED ELEMENTS OF A COMPREHENSIVE PROPOSAL

1. A comprehensive proposal shall include adequate documentation containing the following information:

(a) any developments in the data cited in the initial proposal;

(b) findings from the categories of data set out in subparagraphs 3(a), 3(b) and 3(c) as appropriate applicable depending on the subject of the proposal and the identification or description of the methodologies under which the data were developed;

(c) a summary of the results of studies conducted on the adverse effects of the anti-fouling system;

(d) if any monitoring has been conducted, a summary of the results of that monitoring, including information on ship traffic and a general description of the area monitored;

(e) a summary of the available data on environmental or ecological exposure and any estimates of environmental concentrations developed from environmental fate parameters through the application of mathematical models using all available environmental fate parameters, preferably those which were determined experimentally along with an identification or description of the modelling methodology;

(f) an evaluation of the association between the anti-fouling system in question, the related adverse effects, bioaccumulation, and the environmental concentrations, either observed or expected;

(g) a qualitative statement of the level of uncertainty in the evaluation referred to in subparagraph (f) above;

(h) a recommendation of specific control measures to reduce the risks associated with the anti-fouling system; and

(i) a summary of the results of any available studies on available information specifying the potential effects of the recommended control measures relating to air quality, shipyard conditions, international shipping, and other relevant sectors as well as the availability of suitable alternatives.

2. If appropriate to the anti-fouling system under consideration the A comprehensive proposal shall also include information on each of the following physical and chemical properties of the component(s) of concern, if applicable:

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 5 Page 16

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

- melting point; - boiling point; - density (relative density); - vapour pressure; - partition coefficient (octanol/water coefficient); - water solubility / (pH, /pKa); - oxidation/reduction potential; - molecular mass; - molecular structure; and - impurities; - by-products. - other physical and chemical properties identified in the initial proposal.

3. For the purposes of subparagraph 1(b) above, the relevant categories of data are may include, as appropriate: (a) Data on environmental fate and effect:

- modes of degradation/dissipation (e.g., hydrolysis/ photodegradation/ biodegradation);

- persistence in the relevant media (e.g., freshwater/saltwater/water column/sediments/biota);

- sediments/water partitioning; - leaching rates of biocides or active ingredients; - mass balance; and - bioaccumulation, partition coefficient, octanol/water coefficient;. - modelling with appropriate/representative site/environmental conditions; - validation of models with field data; - hydrolysis; - photodegradation; - biodegradation.

(b) Data on unintended effects in aquatic plants, invertebrates, fish, seabirds, marine

mammals, endangered species, other biota, the quality of water, the seabed or habitat of non-target organisms, including sensitive and representative organisms:

- acute and chronic toxicity to sensitive/representative organisms; - chronic toxicity; - developmental and reproductive toxicity to sensitive/representative organisms; - endocrine disruption; - sediment toxicity; - bioavailability/biomagnification/bioconcentration; - food chainweb/population effects;

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 5

Page 17

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

- incidentsobservations of adverse effects in the field/fish kills/ strandings/ tissue analysis; and

- residues in seafood.

These data shall relate to one or more types of non-target organisms such as aquatic plants, invertebrates, fish, birds, mammals, and endangered species.

(c) Data on chronic the potential for human health effects (including, but not limited to,

toxicity through seafood intake consumption).

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 5 Page 18

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

ANNEX 4 SURVEYS AND ANTI-FOULING SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS

REGULATION 1 –Surveys 1 Ships of 400 gross tonnage and above referred to in article 2(1)(a) engaged in international voyages, excluding fixed or floating platforms, FSUs, and FPSOs, shall be subject to surveys specified below:

(a) An initial survey before the ship is put into service or before the international Anti-fouling System Certificate required under regulation 2 or 3 of this Annex is issued for the first time, and

(b) A survey when the anti-fouling systems are changed or replaced. Such surveys shall

be endorsed on the International Anti-fouling System Certificate issued under regulation 2 or 3 of this Annex.

2 The survey shall be such as to ensure that the ship's anti-fouling system fully complies with the applicable requirements of this Convention. 3 The Administration shall establish appropriate measures for ships that are not subject to the provisions of paragraph 1 of this regulation in order to ensure that applicable provisions of this Convention are complied with. 4 (a) As regards the enforcement of this Convention, surveys of ships shall be carried out

by officers duly authorized by the Administration or as provided in paragraph 1 of regulation 3 of this Annex, based on the Guidelines for surveys to be developed by the Organization. Alternatively, the Administration may entrust surveys required by this Convention either to surveyors nominated for that purpose or to organizations recognized by it.

(b) An Administration nominating surveyors or recognizing organizations to conduct

surveys shall, as a minimum, empower any nominated surveyor or recognized organization to:

(i) require a ship that it surveys to comply with the provisions of Annex 1 of this

Convention; and

(ii) carry out surveys and inspections if requested by the appropriate authorities of a port State that is a Party to this Convention.

(c) When the Administration, a nominated surveyor, or a recognized organization

determines that the ship's anti-fouling system does not conform either to the particulars of an International Anti-fouling System Certificate required under regulation 2 or 3 of this Annex or to the requirements of this Convention, such Administration, surveyor or organization shall immediately ensure that corrective action is taken to bring the ship into compliance. A surveyor or organization shall also in due course notify the Administration of any such determination. If the required

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 5

Page 19

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

corrective action is not taken, the Administration shall be notified forthwith, and it shall ensure that the Certificate is not issued or is withdrawn as appropriate.

(d) In the situation described in subparagraph (c), if the ship is in the port of another

Party, the appropriate authorities of the port State shall be notified forthwith. When the Administration, a nominated surveyor, or a recognized organization has notified the appropriate authorities of the port State, the Government of the port State concerned shall give such Administration surveyor or organization any necessary assistance to carry out their obligations under this regulation, including any action described in article 15 of this Convention.

REGULATION 2 - Declarations and Issue or Endorsement of International Anti-fouling

Certificates 1 The Administration shall require a ship of 25 meters or more in overall length and less than 400 gross tonnage engaged in international voyages and to which paragraph 2(1)(a) applies (excluding fixed or floating platforms, FSUS, and FPSOS) carry a declaration signed by the master or owner indicating the anti-fouling system employed on the ship. Such declaration shall be accompanied by appropriate documentation (such as a paint receipt or a contractor invoice). 2 The Administration shall require that a ship to which regulation 1 of this Annex applies is issued with an International Anti-fouling System Certificate after successful completion of a survey in accordance with regulation 1 of this Annex. A Certificate issued under the authority of a party to this Convention shall be accepted by the other Parties and regarded for all purposes covered by this Convention as having the same validity as a Certificate issued by them. 3 Certificates shall be issued or endorsed either by the Administration or by any person or organization duly authorized by it. In every case, the Administration assumes full responsibility for the Certificate. REGULATION 3 - Issue or Endorsement of an International Anti-fouling System Certificate

by Another Party 1 At the request of the Administration, another Party may cause a ship to be surveyed and, if satisfied that the provisions of the Convention have been complied with, shall issue or authorize the issue of an International Anti-fouling System Certificate to the ship, and where appropriate, endorse or authorize the endorsement of that Certificate for the ship, in accordance with this Convention. 2 A copy of the Certificate and a copy of the survey report shall be transmitted as soon as possible to the requesting Administration. 3 A Certificate so issued shall contain a statement that it has been issued at the request of the Administration referred to in paragraph 1 of this Regulation and it shall have the same force and receive the same recognition as a Certificate issued by the Administration. 4 No International Anti-fouling System Certificate shall be issued to a ship which is entitled to fly the flag of a State which is not a Party.

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 5 Page 20

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

REGULATION 4 - Form of International Anti-fouling System Certificate 1 The International Anti-fouling System Certificate shall be drawn up in the official language of the issuing Party, in the form set forth in the Appendix to this Annex. If the language used is not English, French or Spanish, the text shall include a translation into one of these languages. REGULATION 5 - Validity of International Anti-fouling System Certificates 1 An International Anti-fouling System Certificate issued under regulation 2 or 3 of this Annex shall cease to be valid in either of the following cases:

(a) if the anti-fouling system is changed or replaced and the Certificate is not endorsed in accordance with this Convention;

(b) upon transfer of the ship to the flag of another State. A new Certificate shall only be

issued when the Party issuing the new Certificate is fully satisfied that the ship is in compliance with the requirements of this Convention. In the case of a transfer between Parties, if requested within three months after the transfer has taken place, the Party whose flag the ship was formally entitled to fly shall, as soon as possible, transmit to the Administration a copy of the International Anti-fouling System Certificates carried by the ship before the transfer and, if available, a copy of the relevant survey reports.

2 The issue by a Party of a new Certificate to a ship transferred from another Party may be based a new surveyor on a valid Certificate issued by the previous Party whose flag the ship was entitled to fly.

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 5

Page 21

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

APPENDIX

FORM OF INTERNATIONAL ANTI-FOULING SYSTEM CERTIFICATE

INTERNATIONAL ANTI-FOULING SYSTEM CERTIFICATE (Official seal) (State)

Issued under the provisions of the

International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-Fouling Systems (hereinafter referred to as "the Convention")

under the authority of the Government of

……………………………………..

(name of the State)

by ……………………………………….

(person or organization authorized ) When a Certificate has been previously issued, this Certificate replaces the certificate dated ……....….. Particulars of ship5 Name of ship ........................................................................................................................................ Distinctive number or letters ................................................................................................................ Port of registry ...................................................................................................................................... Gross Tonnage ...................................................................................................................................... IMO number6 ........................................................................................................................................

Anti-fouling system prohibited under Annex 1 has never been applied on this ship7 …………….…ٱ

An anti-fouling system prohibited under Annex 1 has been applied on this ship…………….…ٱ previously, but is now removed8

5 Alternatively, the particulars of the ship may be placed horizontally in boxes. 6 In accordance with resolution A.600(15) – IMO ship identification number scheme, this

information may be included voluntarily. 7 Norway has noted that Guidelines would need to be developed on how to document this situation. 8 Should the Conference decide to permit over-coating with a sealer (option B/Annex 1)

Another entry showing the fact that it has been over-coated with a sealer coat and where it was done would need to be added to the certificate (see MEPC 46/5/16).

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 5 Page 22

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

Details of anti-fouling system(s) applied

Types of anti-fouling system(s) used and Date(s) of Application ......................................................... ............................................................................................................................................................... Name of Company(ies) and facility(ies)/location(s) where applied ...................................................... Date it was applied .........................................................................................................................

Name(s) of anti-fouling system manufacturer(s)................................................................................... ............................................................................................................................................................... [If applicable, indicate if any anti-fouling system prohibited under Annex 1 has been removed (√) or over-coated with a sealer coat (√)] Name(s) of anti-fouling system(s) ......................................................................................................... ............................................................................................................................................................... Active ingredient(s) and their CAS number(s) ............................................................................................................................................................... THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT: 1 the ship has been surveyed in accordance with Regulation 1 of Annex 4 article 9 of the Convention; and 2 the survey shows that the anti-fouling system on the ship complies with the applicable requirements of Annex 1 of the Convention. Issued at ................................................................................................................................................. (Place of issue of certificate) ………………………… ................................................................................................ (Date of issue) (Signature of duly authorized official issuing the certificate)

(Seal or stamp of the authority, as appropriate)

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 5

Page 23

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

Endorsement of survey(s) THIS IS TO CERTIFY that a survey required accordance with paragraph 1 (b) of Regulation 1 of Annex 4 of the article 9 of the Convention found that the ship was in compliance with the relevant provisions of the Convention: Survey required in accordance with paragraph 1 (b) of Regulation 1 of Annex 4article 9 Details of anti-fouling system(s) applied

Type of anti-fouling systems used ......................................................................................................... ............................................................................................................................................................... Date(s) applied ...............................................................................................................................

Name(s) of Company(ies) and facility(ies) location(s) where applied .................................................. ............................................................................................................................................................... Name(s) of anti-fouling system manufacturer(s)................................................................................... ............................................................................................................................................................... Name(s) of anti-fouling system(s) ......................................................................................................... ............................................................................................................................................................... Active ingredient(s) and their CAS number(s).................................................................................. Signed:........................................................................ (Signature of authorized official) Place: ......................................................................... Date: ..........................................................................

(Seal or stamp of the authority, as appropriate) Survey required in accordance with paragraph 1 (b) of article 9 Regulation 1 of Annex 4

Details of anti-fouling system(s) applied

Type(s) of anti-fouling system(s) used ................................................................................................. ............................................................................................................................................................... Date(s) it was applied.....................................................................................................................

Name(s) of anti-fouling system manufacturer(s)................................................................................... ............................................................................................................................................................... Name(s) of anti-fouling system(s) ........................................................................................................ ...............................................................................................................................................................

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 5 Page 24

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

Active ingredient(s) and their CAS number(s) ...................................................................................... Signed: ................................................................................ (Signature of authorized official) Place: ................................................................................. Date: ..................................................................................

***

MEPC 46/23

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

ANNEX 6

DRAFT ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION

GUIDELINES FOR THE DESIGNATION OF SPECIAL AREAS UNDER MARPOL 73/78 AND GUIDELINES FOR THE IDENTIFICATION AND

DESIGNATION OF PARTICULARLY SENSITIVE SEA AREAS THE ASSEMBLY, RECALLING Article 15(j) of the Convention on the International Maritime Organization concerning the functions of the Assembly in relation to regulations and guidelines concerning maritime safety, the prevention and control of marine pollution from ships and other matters concerning the effect of shipping on the marine environment, RECALLING ALSO resolution A.720(17) by which the Assembly adopted the Guidelines for the Designation of Special Areas and the Identification of Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas and requested the Marine Environment Protection Committee and the Maritime Safety Committee to keep the Guidelines under review, RECALLING FURTHER resolution A.885(21) by which the Assembly adopted Procedures for the Identification of Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas, and the Adoption of Associated Protective Measures and Amendments to the Guidelines contained in resolution A.720(17), and also requested the Marine Environment Protection Committee and the Maritime Safety Committee to keep these Guidelines under review, RECOGNIZING the need to update and simplify the Guidelines in order to clarify the procedures for the designation of Special Areas under MARPOL 73/78 and for identification and subsequent designation of Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas and the adoption of associated protective measures, HAVING CONSIDERED the recommendations made by the Marine Environment Protection Committee at its forty-sixth session: 1. ADOPTS:

(a) new Guidelines for the Designation of Special Areas under MARPOL 73/78 as set out in annex 1, which supersede chapter 2 of the Annex to Assembly resolution A.720(17); and

(b) new Guidelines for the Identification and Designation of Particularly Sensitive Sea

Areas as set out in annex 2, which supersede chapter 3 of the Annex to Assembly resolutions A.720(17) and A.885(21);

2. INVITES Governments to apply the new Guidelines when proposing the designation of a Special Area under MARPOL 73/78 or a Particularly Sensitive Sea Area;

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 6 Page 2

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

3. REQUESTS the Marine Environment Protection Committee and the Maritime Safety Committee to keep the Guidelines under review; and 4. REVOKES resolutions A.720(17) and A.885(21).

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 6

Page 3

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

ANNEX 1

GUIDELINES FOR THE DESIGNATION OF SPECIAL AREAS UNDER MARPOL 73/78

1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 The purpose of these Guidelines is to provide guidance to Contracting Parties to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL 73/78) in the formulation and submission of applications for the designation of Special Areas under Annexes I, II, and V to the Convention. These Guidelines also ensure that all interests - those of the coastal State, flag State, and the environmental and shipping communities - are thoroughly considered on the basis of relevant scientific, technical, economic, and environmental information and provide for the assessment of such applications by IMO. Contracting Parties should also review and comply with the applicable provisions of Annexes I, II, and V to the Convention in addition to these Guidelines. 2 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION FOR SPECIAL AREAS UNDER

MARPOL 73/78 General 2.1 MARPOL 73/78, in Annexes I, II and V, defines certain sea areas as Special Areas in relation to the type of pollution covered by each Annex. A Special Area is defined as "a sea area where for recognised technical reasons in relation to its oceanographical and ecological conditions and to the particular character of its traffic, the adoption of special mandatory methods for the prevention of sea pollution by oil, noxious liquid substances, or garbage, as applicable, is required." Under the Convention, these Special Areas are provided with a higher level of protection than other areas of the sea. 2.2 A Special Area may encompass the maritime zones of several States, or even an entire enclosed or semi-enclosed area. Special Area designation should be made on the basis of the criteria and characteristics listed in paragraphs 2.3 to 2.6 to avoid the proliferation of such areas. Criteria for the designation of a Special Area 2.3 The criteria which must be satisfied for an area to be given Special Area status are grouped into the following categories:

- oceanographic conditions; - ecological conditions; and - vessel traffic characteristics.

Generally, information on each category should be provided in a proposal for designation. Additional information that does not fall within these categories may also be considered. Oceanographic conditions 2.4 The area possesses oceanographic conditions which may cause the concentration or retention of harmful substances in the waters or sediments of the area, including:

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 6 Page 4

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

1 particular circulation patterns (e.g. convergence zones and gyres) or temperature and salinity stratification;

2 long residence time caused by low flushing rates; 3 extreme ice state; and

4 adverse wind conditions.

Ecological conditions 2.5 Conditions indicating that protection of the area from harmful substances is needed to preserve:

1 depleted, threatened or endangered marine species;

2 areas of high natural productivity (such as fronts, upwelling areas, gyres);

3 spawning, breeding and nursery areas for important marine species and areas representing migratory routes for sea-birds and marine mammals;

4 rare or fragile ecosystems such as coral reefs, mangroves, seagrass beds and wetlands;

and

5 critical habitats for marine resources including fish stocks and/or areas of critical importance for the support of large marine ecosystems.

Vessel traffic characteristics 2.6 The sea area is used by ships to an extent that the discharge of harmful substances by ships when operating in accordance with the requirements of MARPOL 73/78 for areas other than Special Areas would be unacceptable in the light of the existing oceanographic and ecological conditions in the area. Implementation 2.7 The requirements of a Special Area designation can only become effective when adequate reception facilities are provided for ships in accordance with the provisions of MARPOL 73/78.

Other considerations 2.8 The threat to amenities posed by the discharge of harmful substances from ships operating in accordance with the MARPOL 73/78 requirements for areas other than Special Areas may strengthen the argument for designating an area a Special Area. 2.9 The extent to which the condition of a sea area is influenced by other sources of pollution such as pollution from land-based sources, dumping of wastes and dredged materials, as well as atmospheric deposition should be taken into account. Proposals would be strengthened if measures

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 6

Page 5

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

are being, or will be, taken to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment by these sources of pollution. 2.10 Consideration should be given to the extent to which a management regime is used in managing the area. Proposals for designation of a Special Area would be strengthened if measures are being taken to manage the area's resources. 3 PROCEDURES FOR THE DESIGNATION OF A SPECIAL AREA 3.1 A proposal to designate a given sea area as a Special Area should be submitted to the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) for its consideration in accordance with the rules adopted by the IMO for submission of papers. 3.2 A proposal to designate a sea area as a Special Area should contain:

1 a draft amendment to MARPOL 73/78 as the formal basis for the designation; and

2 a background document setting forth all the relevant information to explain the need

for the designation. 3.3 The background document should contain the following information:

1 a definition of the area proposed for designation, including its precise geographical co-ordinates. A reference chart is essential.

2 an indication of the type of Special Area proposed. Proposals may be made

simultaneously with respect to Annexes I, II and V of MARPOL 73/78, but proposals for each Annex should be presented and evaluated separately.

3 a general description of the area, including information regarding:

- oceanography - ecological characteristics - social and economic value - scientific and cultural significance - environmental pressures from ship-generated pollution - other environmental pressures - measures already taken to protect the area.

This general description may be supported by annexes containing more detailed material, or by references to readily available documentation.

4 an analysis of how the sea area in question fulfils the criteria for the designation of

Special Areas set out in paragraphs 2.3 to 2.6.

5 information on the availability of adequate reception facilities in the proposed Special Area.

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 6 Page 6

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

3.4 The formal amendment procedure applicable to proposals for the designation of Special Areas is set out in article 16 of MARPOL 73/78. Detailed discharge requirements 3.5 For detailed requirements relating to discharges under Annexes I, II and V to MARPOL 73/78, please refer to the latest version of the Convention in force.

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 6

Page 7

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

ANNEX 2

GUIDELINES FOR THE IDENTIFICATION AND DESIGNATION OF PARTICULARLY SENSITIVE SEA AREAS

1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 The Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) began its study of the question of Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas (PSSAs) in response to a resolution of the International Conference on Tanker Safety and Pollution Prevention of 1978. The discussions of this concept from 1986 to 1991 culminated in the adoption of Guidelines for the Designation of Special Areas and the Identification of Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas by Assembly resolution A.720(17) in 1991. The procedures contained in this document were further elaborated upon by Assembly resolution A.885(21), adopted in 1999. In a continuing effort to provide a clearer understanding of the concepts set forth in the Guidelines, the MEPC decided to separate the issues of the designation of Special Areas and the identification of Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas into two documents. This document sets forth the Guidelines for the Identification and Designation of PSSAs. 1.2 A PSSA is an area that needs special protection through action by IMO because of its significance for recognized ecological, socio-economic, or scientific reasons and which may be vulnerable to damage by international shipping activities. In order for the area to be identified as a PSSA, it must meet one of the criteria listed below in section 4. As of 2001, two particularly sensitive sea areas have been designated by IMO: the Great Barrier Reef (MEPC.44(30)) and the Archipelago of Sabana-Camaguey (MEPC.74(40)). Details of designated areas are provided in the Appendix. 1.3 Many international and regional instruments encourage the protection of areas important for the conservation of biological diversity as well as other areas with high ecological, cultural, historical/archaeological, socio-economic or scientific significance. They further call on their Parties to protect such areas from activities, including shipping operations that may undermine their values. 1.4 The purpose of these Guidelines is to:

(a) provide guidance to IMO Member Governments in the formulation and submission of applications for designation of PSSAs;

(b) ensure that in that process all interests - those of the coastal State, flag State, and the

environmental and shipping communities - are thoroughly considered on the basis of relevant scientific, technical, economic, and environmental information regarding the area at risk of damage from international shipping activities and the protective measures to minimize that risk; and

(c) provide for the assessment of such applications by the IMO.

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 6 Page 8

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

1.5 Identification of any PSSA and the adoption of associated protective measures requires consideration of three integral components: the particular environmental conditions of the area to be identified, the vulnerability of such area to damage by international maritime activities, and the availability of associated protective measures within the competence of IMO to address risks from these shipping activities. 2 INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING ACTIVITIES AND THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT 2.1 Shipping activity can constitute an environmental hazard to the marine environment in general and consequently even more so to environmentally and/or ecologically sensitive areas. Environmental hazards associated with shipping include:

(a) operational discharges;

(b) accidental or intentional pollution; and (c) physical damage to marine habitats or organisms.

2.2 In the course of routine operations and accidents, ships may release a wide variety of substances either directly into the marine environment or indirectly through the atmosphere. Such pollutants include oil and oily mixture, noxious liquid substances, sewage, garbage, noxious solid substances, anti-fouling paints, foreign organisms and even noise. Many of these substances can adversely affect the marine environment and the living resources of the sea. Pollutants may also damage the environment as a consequence of shipping accidents. In addition, ships may cause harm to marine organisms and their habitats through physical impact. Habitats may be smothered through grounding and ships have been known to strike large marine mammals such as whales.

3 PROCESS FOR THE DESIGNATION OF PARTICULARLY SENSITIVE SEA AREAS

3.1 The IMO is the only international body responsible for designating areas as Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas and adopting associated protective measures. An application to IMO for designation of a PSSA and the adoption of associated protective measures, or an amendment thereto, may be submitted only by a proposing Member Government. Where two or more Governments have a common interest in a particular area, they should formulate a co-ordinated proposal. The proposal should contain integrated measures and procedures for co-operation between the jurisdictions of the proposing Member Governments. 3.2 Member Governments wishing to have the IMO designate a PSSA should submit an application to the MEPC based on the criteria outlined in section 4 and proposed associated protective measures as outlined in section 6. Applications should be submitted in accordance with the procedures set forth in section 7 and the rules adopted by the IMO for submission of papers.

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 6

Page 9

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

4 ECOLOGICAL, SOCIO-ECONOMIC, OR SCIENTIFIC CRITERIA FOR THE IDENTIFICATION OF A PARTICULARLY SENSITIVE SEA AREA

4.1 The following criteria apply to the identification of PSSAs only with respect to the adoption of measures to protect such areas against damage from international shipping activities. 4.2 These criteria do not, therefore, apply to the identification of such areas for the purpose of establishing whether they should be protected from dumping activities, since that is implicitly covered by the London Convention 1972 (the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter, 1972) and the 1996 Protocol to that Convention. 4.3 The criteria relate to PSSAs within and beyond the limits of the territorial sea. They can be used by IMO to designate PSSAs beyond the territorial sea with a view to the adoption of international protective measures regarding pollution and other damage caused by ships. They may also be used by national administrations to identify Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas within their territorial seas. 4.4 In order to be identified as a PSSA, the area should meet at least one of the criteria listed below and should be at risk from international shipping activities, taking into consideration the factors listed in section 5. Ecological criteria

4.4.1 Uniqueness or rarity - An ecosystem can be unique or rare. An area or ecosystem is unique if

it is "the only one of its kind". Habitats of rare, threatened, or endangered species that occur only in one area are an example. An area or ecosystem is rare if it only occurs in a few locations or has been seriously depleted across its range. An ecosystem may extend beyond country borders, assuming regional or international significance. Nurseries or certain feeding areas may also be rare or unique.

4.4.2 Critical habitat - A sea area may be a critical habitat for fish stocks or rare or endangered

marine species, or an area of critical importance for the support of large marine ecosystems.

4.4.3 Dependency - Ecological processes of such areas are highly dependent on biotically structured systems (e.g. coral reefs, kelp forests, mangrove forests, seagrass beds). Such biotically structured ecosystems often have high diversity, which is dependent on the structuring organisms. Dependency also embraces areas representing the migratory routes of marine fish, reptiles, birds and mammals.

4.4.4 Representativeness - These areas have highly representative ecological processes, or

community or habitat types or other natural characteristics. Representativeness is the degree to which an area represents a habitat type, ecological process, biological community, physiographic feature or other natural characteristic.

4.4.5 Diversity - These areas have a high variety of species or genetic diversity or include highly varied ecosystems, habitats, and communities. However, this criterion may not apply to some simplified ecosystems, such as pioneer or climax communities, or areas subject to disruptive forces, such as shores exposed to high-energy wave action.

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 6 Page 10

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

4.4.6 Productivity - The area has a high natural biological productivity. Production is the net result of biological and physical processes which result in an increase in biomass in areas of high natural productivity such as oceanic fronts, upwelling areas and some gyres.

4.4.7 Spawning or breeding grounds - The area may be a critical spawning or breeding ground or

nursery area for marine species which may spend the rest of their life-cycle elsewhere, or may be a migratory route for sea birds or marine mammals.

4.4.8 Naturalness - The area has a high degree of naturalness, as a result of the lack of human-

induced disturbance or degradation. 4.4.9 Integrity - The area is a biologically functional unit, an effective, self-sustaining ecological

entity. The more ecologically self-contained the area is the more likely it is that its values can be effectively protected.

4.4.10 Vulnerability - The area is highly susceptible to degradation by natural events or the activities

of people. Biotic communities associated with coastal habitats may have a low tolerance to changes in environmental conditions, or they may exist close to the limits of their tolerance (defined by water temperature, salinity, turbidity or depth). They may suffer such natural stresses as storms or prolonged emersion that determine the extent of their development. Additional stress (such as domestic or industrial pollution, excessive reduction in salinity, and increases in turbidity from watershed mismanagement) may determine whether there is total, partial, or no recovery from natural stress, or the area is totally destroyed. Certain oceanographic and meteorological factors could cause an area to be vulnerable or increase its vulnerability, for example by causing the concentration or retention of harmful substances in the waters or in the sediment of the area, or by otherwise exposing the area to harmful substances. These conditions include circulation patterns such as convergence zones, oceanic fronts and gyres, long residence times caused by low flushing rates, the occurrence of seasonal or permanent density stratification which can result in oxygen depletion in the bottom layer, as well as adverse ice states and wind conditions. An area already subject to environmental stresses owing to human activities or natural phenomena (e.g. natural oil seepage) may be in need of special protection from further stress, including stress arising from international shipping activities.

4.4.11 Bio-geographic importance - An area that either: contains rare biogeographic qualities or is representative of a biogeographic “type” or types, or contains unique or unusual geological features.

Social, cultural and economic criteria 4.4.12 Economic benefit - The area is of particular importance to utilization of living marine resources. 4.4.13 Recreation - The area has special significance for recreation and tourism.

4.4.14 Human dependency - The area is of particular importance for the support of traditional

subsistence and/or cultural needs of the local human population.

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 6

Page 11

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

Scientific and educational criteria

4.4.15 Research - The area has high scientific interest. 4.4.16 Baseline and monitoring studies - The area provides suitable baseline conditions with regard

to biota or environmental characteristics.

4.4.17 Education - The area offers opportunity to demonstrate particular natural phenomena.

4.5 In many cases a PSSA may be identified within a Special Area and vice versa. It should be noted that the criteria with respect to the identification of PSSAs and the criteria for the designation of Special Areas are not mutually exclusive. 5 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE IDENTIFICATION OF A PARTICULARLY

SENSITIVE SEA AREA 5.1 In addition to meeting at least one of the criteria listed in 4.4, the area should be at risk from international shipping activities. This involves consideration of the following factors: Vessel traffic characteristics 5.1.1 Operational factors - Types of maritime activities (e.g. small fishing boats, small pleasure

craft, oil and gas rigs) in the proposed area that may increase risk to the safety of navigation.

5.1.2 Vessel types - Types of vessels passing through or adjacent to the area (e.g. high-speed vessels, large tankers, or bulk carriers with small under-keel clearance).

5.1.3 Traffic characteristics - Volume or concentration of traffic, vessel interaction, distance

offshore or other dangers to navigation, are such as to involve greater risk of collision or grounding.

5.1.4 Harmful substances carried - Type and quantity of substances on board, whether cargo, fuel

or stores, that would be harmful if released into the sea. Natural factors

5.1.5 Hydrographical - Water depth, bottom and coastline topography, lack of proximate safe

anchorages and other factors which call for increased navigational caution.

5.1.6 Meteorological - Prevailing weather, wind strength and direction, atmospheric visibility and other factors which increase the risk of collision and grounding and also the risk of damage to the sea area from discharges.

5.1.7 Oceanographic - Tidal streams, ocean currents, ice, and other factors which increase the risk

of collision and grounding and also the risk of damage to the sea area from discharges.

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 6 Page 12

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

5.2 In proposing an area as a PSSA and in considering what associated protective measures should be taken, other information that might be helpful includes the following:

• any evidence that international shipping activities are causing damage and whether

damage is of a recurring or cumulative nature; • any history of groundings, collisions, or spills in the area and any consequences of

such incident; • any foreseeable circumstances or scenarios under which significant damage could

occur; • stresses from other environmental sources; and • any measures already in effect and their actual or anticipated beneficial impact.

6 ASSOCIATED PROTECTIVE MEASURES 6.1 In the context of these Guidelines, associated protective measures for PSSAs are limited to actions within the purview of IMO and include the following options:

6.1.1 designation of an area as a Special Area under Annexes I, II or V, or a SOx emission control area under Annex VI of MARPOL 73/78 or to apply special discharge restrictions to vessels operating in a PSSA. Procedures and criteria for the designation of Special Areas are contained in the Guidelines for the Designation of Special Areas. Criteria and procedures for the designation of SOx emission control areas maybe found in Annex VI to MARPOL 73/78;

6.1.2 adoption of ships’ routeing and reporting systems near or in the area, under the

International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) and in accordance with the General Provisions on Ships Routeing and the Guidelines and Criteria for Ship Reporting Systems. For example, a PSSA may be designated as an area to be avoided or it may be protected by other ships' routeing or reporting systems;

6.1.3 development and adoption of other measures aimed at protecting specific sea areas

against environmental damage from ships, such as compulsory pilotage schemes or vessel traffic management systems.

6.2 Consideration should also be given to the potential for the area to be listed on the World Heritage List, declared a Biosphere Reserve, or included on a list of areas of international, regional, or national importance, or if the area is already the subject of such international, regional, or national conservation action or agreements. 6.3 In some circumstances, a proposed PSSA may include within its boundaries a buffer zone, in other words, an area contiguous to the site-specific feature (core area) for which specific protection from shipping is sought. However, the need for such a buffer zone should be justified in terms of how it would contribute to the adequate protection of the core area.

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 6

Page 13

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

7 PROCEDURE FOR THE DESIGNATION OF PARTICULARLY SENSITIVE SEA

AREAS AND THE ADOPTION OF ASSOCIATED PROTECTIVE MEASURES 7.1 If an application for PSSA designation is submitted which does not contain a proposal for an associated protective measure or measures, the proposing Member Government should submit the types of measures it is considering. A proposal for at least one associated protective measure shall be submitted within two years of the approval in principle of the PSSA. 7.2 Alternatively, if no associated protective measure is being proposed because IMO measures already exist to protect the area, then the application should show how the area is already being protected by such measures. 7.3 The application should first clearly set forth a summary of the objectives of the proposed PSSA designation, the location of the area, the need for protection and the proposal for associated protective measures. The summary should include the reasons why the proposed associated protective measures are the preferred method for providing protection for the area to be identified as a PSSA. 7.4 Each application should then consist of two parts. 7.4.1 Part I - Description, significance of the area and vulnerability

.1 Description - a detailed description of the location of the proposed area, along with a chart on which the location of area is clearly marked, should be submitted with the application.

.2 Significance of the area - the application should state the significance of the area on

the basis of recognized ecological, socio-economic, or scientific reasons and should explicitly refer to the criteria listed above in section 4.

.3 Vulnerability of the area to damage by international shipping activities - the

application should provide an explanation of the nature and extent of risk that international shipping activities pose to the environment of the proposed area, noting the factors listed in Section 5. The application should explain the effects of the damage on the environmental characteristics of the proposed area and indicate any potential economic harm that may result from such damage.

7.4.2 Part II - Appropriate associated protective measures and IMO’s competence to adopt such

measures

.1 The application should propose the associated protective measures which are available through IMO and show how they provide the needed protection from the threats of damage posed by international maritime activities occurring in and around the area.

(a) The application should identify the proposed measures which may include: (i) any measure that is already available in an existing instrument; or

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 6 Page 14

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

(ii) any measure that does not yet exist but that should be available as a generally applicable measure and that falls within the competence of IMO; or

(iii) any measure proposed for adoption in the territorial sea∗ or pursuant

to Article 211(6) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

(b) These measures may include ships' routeing measures; discharge restrictions;

operational criteria; and prohibited activities, and should be specifically tailored to meet the need of the area at risk.

.2 The application should clearly specify the category or categories of ships to which the

proposed associated protective measures would apply, consistent with the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, including those related to vessels entitled to sovereign immunity

.3 The application should include the steps that the proposing Member Government has

taken or will take to pursue the adoption of a generally applicable measure or the recognition of the proposed measure by IMO.

.4 The application should indicate the possible impact of any proposed measures on the

safety and efficiency of navigation, taking into account the area of the ocean in which the proposed measures are to be implemented. The application should set forth such information as:

(a) consistency with the General Provisions on Ships' Routeing; (b) implications for vessel safety; and (c) impact on vessel operations.

7.5 An application for PSSA designation should address all relevant considerations and criteria in these Guidelines, and should include relevant supporting information for each such item. 7.6 The application should contain a summary of steps taken, if any, by the proposing Member Government to date to protect the proposed area. 7.7 The proposing Member Government should also include in the application the details of action to be taken pursuant to domestic law for the failure of a ship to comply with the requirements of the associated protective measures. Any action taken should be consistent with international law as reflected in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

∗ This provision does not derogate from the rights and duties of coastal States in the territorial sea as provided for in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 6

Page 15

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

8 CRITERIA FOR ASSESSMENT OF APPLICATIONS FOR DESIGNATION OF

PARTICULARLY SENSITIVE SEA AREAS AND THE ADOPTION OF ASSOCIATED PROTECTIVE MEASURES

8.1 IMO should consider each application, or amendment thereto, submitted to it by a proposing Member Government on a case-by-case basis to determine whether identification of the area as a PSSA and the adoption of associated protective measures are warranted. 8.2 In assessing each proposal, IMO should take into account the criteria which are to be included in each application as set forth above in section 4 of these Guidelines. In particular, IMO should consider:

.1 the full range of protective measures available and determine whether the proposed associated protective measures are appropriate to address effectively the assessed risk of damage to the proposed area by identified international shipping activities;

.2 whether such measures might result in increased potential for significant adverse

effects by international shipping activities on the environment outside the proposed PSSA; and

.3 whether the size of the area is commensurate with that necessary to address the

identified need. 8.3 The procedure for considering a PSSA application by IMO is as follows:

.1 the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) should bear primary responsibility within IMO for considering PSSA applications and all applications should first be submitted to the MEPC;

.2 MEPC should initially review the application to determine whether it addresses the

provisions of the Guidelines. If it does, the MEPC may approve in principle the PSSA, and should refer the application, with its associated protective measures, to the appropriate Sub-Committee or Committee (which could be the MEPC itself) that is responsible for addressing the particular associated protective measures proposed for the area. The Sub-Committee may seek the advice of the MEPC on issues pertinent to the application. The MEPC should make no final determination to designate the PSSA until after the associated protective measures are considered by the pertinent Sub-Committee or Committee;

.3 for measures that require approval by the Maritime Safety Committee (MSC), the

Sub-Committee should forward its recommendation for approval of the associated protective measures to the MSC or, if the Sub-Committee rejects the measures, it should inform the MSC and MEPC and provide a statement of reasons for its decision. The MSC should consider any such recommendations and, if the measures are to be adopted, it should notify the MEPC of its decision;

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 6 Page 16

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

.4 if an application is submitted without proposed associated protective measures,

except as noted in 7.2, the MEPC may approve in principle the identification of the area as a PSSA, pending submission of at least one proposed associated protective measure within two years of such approval and subsequent adoption of at least one associated protective measure;

.5 if the application is rejected, the MEPC shall notify the proposing Member

Government and provide a statement of reasons for its decision; and

.6 after approval by the appropriate Sub-Committee or Committee of the associated protective measures, the MEPC may designate the area as a PSSA.

8.4 IMO should provide a forum for the review and re-evaluation of any associated protective measure adopted, as necessary, taking into account pertinent comments, reports, and observations of the measures. Member Governments which have ships operating in the area of the designated PSSA are encouraged to bring any concerns with the associated protective measures to IMO so that any necessary adjustments may be made. Member Governments that originally submitted the application for identification with the associated protective measures, should also bring any concerns and proposals for additional measures or modifications to any associated protective measure or the PSSA itself to IMO. 8.5 After the designation of a PSSA and its associated protective measures, IMO should ensure that the effective date of implementation is as soon as possible based on the rules of IMO and consistent with international law. 8.6 IMO should, in assessing applications for designation of PSSAs and their associated protective measures, take into account the technical and financial resources available to developing Member Governments and those with economies in transition. 9 IMPLEMENTATION OF DESIGNATED PSSAs AND THE ASSOCIATED

PROTECTIVE MEASURES 9.1 When a PSSA is finally designated, all associated protective measures should be identified on charts in accordance with symbols and methods of the International Hydrographic Organization (IHO). Proposing Member Governments may also chart designated PSSAs in accordance with appropriate national symbols; however, if an international symbol is adopted by the IHO, proposing Member Governments should mark PSSAs in accordance with such symbol and other IHO recommended methods. 9.2 Proposing Member Governments should ensure that any associated protective measure is implemented in accordance with international law as reflected in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. 9.3 Member Governments should take all appropriate steps to ensure that ships flying their flag comply with the associated protective measures adopted to protect the designated PSSA. Those Member Governments which have received information of an alleged violation of an associated protective measure by a ship flying their flag should provide the Government which has reported the offence with the details of any appropriate action taken.

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 6

Page 17

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

APPENDIX SUMMARIES OF EXISTING PSSAs 1. Great Barrier Reef - Australia The Great Barrier Reef region was designated as a Particularly Sensitive Sea Area in November 1990 (MEPC 44(30)). The Great Barrier Reef is the largest system of corals and associated life forms anywhere in the world. The area extends approximately 2,300 km along the eastern coast of Queensland, Australia from just north of Fraser Island in the south (24 30'S) to the latitude of Cape York in the north (10 41'S), and covers an area of 348,000 sq. km on the continental shelf of Australia. It is acknowledged as an area of great natural beauty and is listed on the World Heritage List. Characteristics which contribute to giving this area special significance: Ecological criteria Uniqueness: largest single collection of coral reefs in the world and biologically supports the most diverse ecosystem known to man. Dependency: outstanding example of a biotic structured ecosystem of high diversity dependent on the structuring organisms. Representativeness: largest and most complex example of a coral reef ecosystem in the world. Diversity: the most diverse ecosystem known to man. Productivity: numerous areas of high biological productivity. Naturalness: apart from some very small areas, is still in pristine condition and has not been unduly effected by human activity. Integrity: contains all ecosystem components required for the continued existence of the species within that system. It may be regarded as a biologically functional unit. Vulnerability: coral reefs are susceptible to various forms of contaminants in seawater. In addition, physical destruction of reef structures through vessel impacts, anchors, etc. can take many years to be repaired. Various sectors of the region have relatively low flushing rates due to the blocking effect of the reefs. Contaminants in such sectors can persist for lengthy periods of time. Social, cultural and economic criteria Economic benefit: commercial fishing and tourism, recreational pursuits including fishing, diving and camping, traditional fishing, scientific research and shipping all occur in the region. It is also a significant shipping route with around 2000 ships passing through each year.

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 6 Page 18

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

Recreation: commercial tourism is provided by commercial passenger boats which carry around 1.2 million visitors days per annum. The trips range from day trips to extended cruises. Human dependency: the degree of dependence of the Australian community on the Reef is high. The economic value of the Reef is approximately $1,000 million per annum. Historic shipwrecks: the register of the National Estate indicates that the Great Barrier Reef region contains some thirty known shipwrecks of historic importance. Scientific and educational criteria Research: an area of high scientific interest. Research within the region is focussed at the four island research stations. Baseline and monitoring studies: areas significant in terms of their potential for scientific research are protected by zoning plans which allow research to be conducted while protecting the areas from other disturbing influences. Education: the broad range of natural phenomena which may be observed in the region make it an area of the highest educational value. Historical value: the northern sector is particularly important in the history and culture of the indigenous Aboriginal groups of the coastal areas of north-east Australia. The hazards of navigation resulted in the construction of a large number of lighthouses, some of which have particular historical importance. Protective Measures Compulsory Pilotage: On 1 October 1991, the Australian government declared compulsory pilotage areas for the Inner Route between about Cairns (latitude 16° 40' S) and Cape York (latitude 10° 41' S) and for Hydrographers Passage. All vessels of 70 metres or more in length and all loaded oil tankers, chemical carriers and gas carriers of any length, must use the services of a pilot licensed by the Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA). IMO-recommended Pilotage: The International Maritime Organization (IMO) has recommended under resolution A710(17) that vessels of 70 metres in length and over and all loaded oil tankers, chemical tankers or liquefied gas carriers, irrespective of size, use the pilotage services licensed under Australian Commonwealth, State or Territory law when navigating the Torres Strait and the Great North East channel. Mandatory reporting: in 1997 Australia introduced a mandatory ship reporting system for all ships 50 metres or more in length, all tankers and INF Code ships, and vessels towing where the ship and tow exceed 150 metres.

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 6

Page 19

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 6 Page 20

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

2. Archipelago of Sabana-Camaguey - Cuba

The Sabana-Camaguey Archipelago was designated as a PSSA in September 1997 (MEPC.74(40)). It is located in the north-central portion of the Republic of Cuba, extending for 465 kilometres between the Hicacos Peninsula and the Bay of Nuevitas. It is the most extensive island sub-group of the Cuban Archipelago, comprising more than 2,515 islands and small keys. Within this zone, consideration must be given to the coral reef that borders the archipelago to the North, which gives it good protection and a high conservation value, particularly in view of its good state of preservation and the ecological functions it fulfils. Along its outer edge there is a coral reef 400 kilometres long, considered as one of the most notable of the Wider Caribbean Region on account of its size and the diversity of its species. Characteristics which contribute to giving this area special significance: Ecological criteria The Archipelago is a highly singular and unique territory particularly on account of its natural scenery and associated biodiversity. Its singularity derives from the predominance of cumulative carbonaceous island complexes which have features not found in the rest of the Cuban sub-archipelagos. This group of islands presents highly significant features, particularly in terms of its biotic resources, on account of which it has been categorised as an independent and clearly defined bio-geographical, ecological and scenic unit. Its importance in this connection is not only national but also regional, since within this area almost all the habitats, ecosystems and biocenosis found in the different Caribbean islands are represented. The particular ecological sensitivity of this territory has in its high degree of interdependency, both internal and external. Internally, there is a high degree of interaction and interdependence between the coastal and marine ecosystems, specially in the sequence of coastal lagoons/dune/systems/beaches/algae/coral reefs; and similarly in the combination of mangrove swamps/coastal lagoons/algae/coral reefs, which occurs most often, and most extensively, in the island group. Social, cultural and economic criteria The Archipelago is one of the country's three most productive fishery zones. If productivity is to be maintained, a priority requirement is the conservation of natural habitats and ecosystems. The area is also of great significance for its fish farming producing large quantities of fish and shellfish to supply both the domestic and international markets and the tourist industry. Additionally, the tourist potential of the hundreds of kilometres of beaches of the highest quality, both aesthetically and environmentally, constitute a feature of significant importance. An extensive development programme for tourism is being implemented on a short-term, medium-term and long-term basis, promoting not only the "sea, sun and sand" type of tourism but also "ecological" tourism, which explores the wide range of existing natural resources.

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 6

Page 21

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

Scientific and educational criteria A Coastal Ecosystems Research Centre based in Cayo Coco, collects and processes data on the area and develops new lines of research and monitoring, providing basic information for the wide range of environmental studies needed to support the longer term development of the territory. The Centre is also involved in developing studies related to the monitoring of the effects of global climate changes, epidemics and mortality in marine organisms, bird and turtle migration; and genetic interchange between marine organism. It is also responsible for environmental monitoring, particularly, in regard to the impact of tourism. The Centre's activities make an important contribution to education and to a better understanding of the environment. The many ecosystems, biotic communities and characteristic natural processes that exist in the area provide ideal subjects for study, not only by experts and specialists, but also by local people, and by Cuban visitors and tourists who come for purposes of recreation. Protective Measures The Traffic Separation Schemes in the territorial waters of the North coast, including those at the latitude of the Costa de Matanzas and in the Canal Viejo de Bahamas, within the territorial waters of the Archipelago Sabana-Camaguey, were approved at the 48th MSC's session.

MSC at its 72nd session adopted an area to be avoided in the access routes to the ports ofMatanzas and Cardenas Reference chart: ICH 11425 (Edition of 01/08/1998) Note: This chart is based on North American Datum (27). Description of the area to be avoided The area described below should be avoided by all ships over 150 gross tonnage, for reasons of conservation of unique biodiversity, nature and beautiful scenery. The area to be avoided lies within the coastline of the province of Matanzas and a line connecting the following geographical points: (1) 23°05'.60 N, 081°28'.50 W Punta Maya Lighthouse (2) 23°10'.60 N, 081°28'.50 W (3) 23°19'.50 N, 081°11'.50 W (4) 23°14'.60 N, 081°07'.20 W Cayo Piedras del Norte (5) 23°11'.50 N, 081°07'.20 W Punta Las Morlas

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 6 Page 22

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

Regulations relating to discharges in inland and territorial waters under the jurisdiction of the Sabana-Camaguey Archipelago. Prohibitions: Any discharge into the sea, of oil, oily mixtures, noxious liquid substances, garbage or harmful substances from vessels of any type or size. Any discharge of oil or oily mixtures from cargo tanks, including cargo pumps, from petrol tankers and from engine-room bilge areas, mixed with cargo waste. Dumping at sea of the following types of garbage from ships of any type of size: 1) Plastics, synthetic fishing lines and nets, plastic garbage bags; 2) loose stowage materials, packing materials and coverings; 3) paper, rags, glass, metal, bottles, ceramics or similar materials. Ships should avoid discharging ballast water or discharging and reloading while transiting waters under the jurisdiction of the Sabana-Camaguey Archipelago (regulation A.774(18): Guidelines for preventing the introduction of unwanted aquatic organisms and pathogens from ships ballast water and sediment discharges).

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 6

Page 23

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

***

MEPC 46/23

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

ANNEX 7

AMENDMENTS TO THE DRAFT REPORT OF THE INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION TO THE COMMISSION ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

IN CONNECTION WITH RIO + 10 (MEPC 46/14) 1.2 With regard to the follow-up to UNCED, the main areas of responsibility for IMO are contained in Chapter 17 of Agenda 21. Some aspects of Chapter 19 (chemicals), Chapter 21 (transport of hazardous wastes), and Chapter 22 (radioactivity), are also relevant. The work of IMO is principally relevant to those management related items aimed at the prevention, reduction and control of marine pollution (including air pollution and climate change questions, ballast water issues, ship scrapping, reception facilities for ships’ waste, etc.) caused by shipping and offshore oil and gas activities. 1.5 This report is the third report on IMO activities, and is submitted in connection with Rio +10. In addition to achievements in this period, this report will look ahead and discuss new items not explicitly mentioned in this context before, i.e. navigational measures as no anchoring areas and areas to be avoided, shipwreck removal; ship recycling and future waste management policies integrating ships’ waste into national waste strategies as well as, achievements not directly related to the protection of the environment, i.e. related to the enhancement of safety at sea, development of international law and technical assistance, (i.e. elements from MSC, LEG and TC). Application of the precautionary approach MEPC 37 adopted resolution MEPC.67(37) Guidelines on incorporation of the precautionary approach in the context of specific IMO activities. Since then the precautionary approach has been an underlying principle in MEPC activities. The human element IMO has increasingly prioritised the human element factor in its activities. Assembly resolution A.900(21) directs the Committees, inter alia, to focus their attention on:

- shifting emphasis onto people;

- ensuring the effective uniform implementation of existing IMO standards and regulations relating to maritime safety and environmental protection, placing particular emphasis on the implementation of the revised STCW Convention and the ISM Code and on putting in place the necessary infrastructure for the implementation of the global SAR plan and the MARPOL requirements concerning reception facilities for ship-generated waste.

The 1995 amendments to the STCW Convention constitute a major shift towards including the human element as an underlying principle in all IMO activities. Note: To be edited into the report by the Secretariat pending approval by the Committee. 2.3 It may be noted that the most important treaty instruments relating to maritime safety and prevention of marine pollution, SOLAS and MARPOL, have been ratified by 144 and 114 States respectively, as at 31 March 2001 (see Table 1).

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 7 Page 2

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

2.5 Add new last sentence to paragraph 2.5.2 to read as follows: As at 15 April 2001, 37 States have submitted Self-Assessment Forms to IMO. 2.20 MEPC 46 approved new guidelines for the identification and designation of "special areas" and "particularly sensitive sea areas". These were submitted to the Assembly at its 22nd session for their adoption in the form of a draft Assembly resolution 2.20bis MEPC 46 approved in principle two new Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas, around the Malpelo Islands off Colombia, and the marine area around the Florida Keys of the United States. 2.27 Since 1994, the MEPC has been developing mandatory regulations for the control and management of ships’ ballast water and sediments. The discussions are far-reaching and technically complicated and a Diplomatic Conference to adopt an instrument is tentatively planned for the biennium 2002-2003. Navigational safety and management of international straits 2.31 Since 1994, a further number of routeing systems have been adopted by IMO, including new and amended traffic separation schemes, two-way routes, recommended tracks, areas to be avoided, inshore traffic zones, roundabouts, precautionary areas, deep-water routes including a mandatory routeing system. There have been several navigational measures established for environmental reasons, i.e. the Area To Be Avoided to protect the Sabana-Camaguey PSSA off Cuba, the Routing System in the German Bight and the No Anchoring Areas to protect the three coral reef banks of the Flower Garden Banks in the Gulf of Mexico. In addition, amendments to the rules for vessels navigating through the Straits of Malacca and Singapore, new rules and recommendations on navigation through the Strait of Istanbul, the Strait of Canacale and the Marmara Sea, new rules for navigation of laden tankers off the South African coast and a partial system of archipelagic sea lanes in Indonesian archipelagic waters have also been adopted. 2.32 A new regulation 8-1 on ship reporting systems in chapter V of the SOLAS Convention entered into force on 1 January 1996. Since then, taking into account the density of traffic, navigational hazards and the vulnerable and sensitive environmental nature of the areas concerned, a number of mandatory ship reporting systems have been adopted by IMO, including "In the Straits of Malacca and Singapore", "In the Torres Strait and the Inner Route of the Great Barrier Reef", “In the Strait of Gibraltar”, “In the Strait of Bonifacio”, “In the Dover Strait/Pas de Calais”, “In the Great Belt Traffic area”, and two systems in sea areas off the north-eastern and south-eastern coasts of the United States” to reduce the threat of ship strikes of right whales. 2.33 A new regulation 8-2 on vessel traffic services in chapter V of the SOLAS Convention, which was adopted in 1997, entered into force on 1 July 1999. The IMO Assembly adopted a resolution on guidelines for vessel traffic services at its twentieth session in 1997. A voluntary vessel traffic information service (VTIS) in the Singapore Strait has been in operation since 1 October 1990, and became part of a mandatory ship reporting system as of 1 December 1998. 2.34 A resolution on performance standards for electronic chart display and information systems (ECDIS) was adopted by the IMO Assembly in 1995. Production of electronic navigational charts (ENCs) for such systems by various national hydrographic offices is in progress and the overseeing of this is a task for the International Hydrographic Organization.

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 7

Page 3

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

Stricter pollution prevention from cargo ships (including bulk carriers) 2.35 Paragraph 17.30(a)(viii) calls for stricter pollution prevention measures for cargo ships, including bulk carriers. Bulk carrier safety has been a major issue for the Maritime Safety Committee (MSC). Safety measures for bulk carriers, in the form of a new chapter XII of the SOLAS Convention, as well as amendments to resolution A.744 (18) to amplify the enhanced programme of inspection, were adopted by the 1997 SOLAS Conference. The aforementioned enhanced programme of inspections for tankers and bulk carriers (resolution A.744(18) as amended) was developed to reduce accidents and pollution. IMO is currently considering stricter age limits for all single-hull oil tankers above 5,000 tonnes. A new global timetable for accelerating the phase-out of single-hull oil tankers was established by the 46th session of MEPC (April 2001), including revised legislation that will have a major impact in minimizing pollution by oil tankers. It will see single-hull tankers scrapped several years earlier than previously required and the phase-out years for single-hull oil tankers terminate at 2015. Tankers complying with relevant requirements of the revised regulation 13G of MARPOL Annex I may be allowed to continue operation until their anniversary date in 2017 or they reach 25 years of age, whichever is the earlier date. Safe carriage of irradiated nuclear fuel by sea 2.39 Pursuant to resolution A.790(19), MEPC 40 approved and the twentieth regular session of the IMO Assembly adopted resolution A.852(20) on Guidelines for a structure of an integrated system of contingency planning for shipboard emergencies to be annexed to the INF Code and resolution A.853(20) on Amendments to the INF Code which require the carriage of ship board emergency plans and the notification in the event of an incident involving materials subject to the INF Code. 2.40 In the process of review, the matter of mandatory application of the INF Code was raised. As a result of intensive considerations, the MSC and the MEPC decided that the INF Code, together with subsequent amendments, should be made mandatory. At its sixty-ninth session in May 1998, the MSC approved and, following the MEPC’s concurrence, MSC 71, adopted the proposed amendments to chapter VII of the SOLAS Convention to make the INF Code mandatory and the draft revised text of the INF Code in 1999. These amendments entered into force on 1 January 2001. Prevention of air pollution from ships 2.44 The adoption of the 1997 Protocol and the new Annex VI to MARPOL 73/78 was not an end in itself. The MEPC has kept the matter under review and has started follow-up actions with the aim of facilitating the entry into force of the Protocol. To this end, the MEPC has established an action programme, including development of relevant implementation guidelines. It is also the intention of the MEPC to deal with matters relating to CO2 emissions (greenhouse gases) and it therefore invited Member Governments to submit proposals to its future sessions on technical and operational options for CO2 emission control. This led to the commission of an IMO climate gas study reporting in 2000, making it possible for the Committee to discuss technical measures as from 2001. In addition, the Organization decided in May 2000 to prohibit the use of perfluoro Carbons (PFCs) onboard ships. PFCs have extremely long atmospheric lifetimes (in excess of 5000 years) and possess high global warming potential.

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 7 Page 4

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

Facilities in ports for the reception of wastes from ships 2.49 MARPOL 73/78 sets out requirements for port reception facilities and all Parties to the Convention are obliged to provide adequate reception facilities for ships calling at their ports. The requirement for such reception facilities is especially necessary in "special areas" where, because of the vulnerability of these areas to pollution, more stringent discharge restrictions have been imposed. MARPOL 73/78 also provides that these reception facilities should, in each case, be "adequate" for the reception of wastes from ships without causing undue delay to the ships using them. 2.50 However, unlike ships which are subject to survey and certification by the flag State Administration and port State control, the responsibility for providing reception facilities is a matter for individual Governments, and progress in this regard has not been satisfactory. In order to address the matter, IMO has developed a number of guidelines, the most recent of which have been published as a "Comprehensive Manual on Port Reception Facilities". The Manual provides guidance on many issues including waste management strategy, type and quantity of ship-generated wastes, planning, choice of location, collection and treatment, financing and cost recovery, and co-operation of port and ship requirements. IMO has also provided technical assistance over many years to a large number of countries in the form of seminars, symposia and workshops, mostly at the regional level. Progress has been made in certain parts of the world. It is apparent, however, that, the general situation with regard to the provision of reception facilities is not improving. Revision of the MARPOL Annexes concerning carriage of chemicals in bulk (Annex II) and in packaged form (Annex III) of MARPOL 73/78 2.59 Regarding MARPOL Annex II the revision process aims at being finalized in 2003. In particular, the classification of substances will be co-ordinated in the revised Annex II to take into account the Global Harmonization System (GHS). Harmful effects of the use of anti-fouling paints for ships 2.63 In order to further the development of international measures to reduce the harmful effects of the use of TBT anti-fouling paints for ships, the thirty-eighth session of the MEPC, held in July 1996, established a Correspondence Group on this issue, and the final conclusions of the Group were presented to the forty-first session of the MEPC in March 1998. After an extensive exchange of views, the MEPC agreed that there was a need to expedite the process in IMO to phase out the use of organotin-based anti-fouling paints worldwide by introducing measures aimed at a total ban of organotin-based anti-fouling paints on ships and established a Working Group in October 1998 dedicated to the development of a global treaty addressing Harmful Anti-fouling Systems. The Working Group has subsequently developed a draft treaty instrument that will prohibit the use of organotin-based paints on ships and will establish a framework for taking international action on other anti-fouling systems determined to pose unacceptable risk of adverse effects in the environment or on human health. 2.64 A Diplomatic Conference with the aim to conclude an instrument with a view to banning the application of TBT on ships’ hulls from 2003 and the presence of TBT on ships’ hulls from 2008 will be held in October 2001.

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 7

Page 5

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

IMO’s Technical Co-operation Programme 2.68 The IMO Technical Co-operation Programme aims at helping developing countries improve their ability to implement international rules and standards relating to maritime safety and the prevention and control of marine pollution. The technical co-operation activities should complement the regulatory function of the Organization. The development of new instruments and amendments to existing ones have an impact on the needs of developing countries for technical assistance and the priorities of IMO’s Technical Co-operation Programme. In the field of maritime legislation, model anti-pollution legislation for English and Spanish speaking countries were developed in the 1990s within the framework of comprehensive IMO technical co-operation projects for the Central American Countries and the Wider Caribbean Area. 3 AREAS FOR FURTHER PROGRESS 3.1 As reported in the above, IMO has made significant progress in many areas, while recognizing that further work is needed in some areas, such as the development of new international legislation on ballast water management, finalising an instrument on TBT etc. However, there are also several other areas which may need the particular attention of CSD and RIO + 10. Prevention of marine pollution from offshore oil and gas activities 3.6 Although the scope of application of MARPOL regulations to offshore installations is currently limited as described above, there are no other mandatory regulations relating to offshore operational discharges at global level. There are, however, a number of regional agreements covering the matter, such as the Protocol to the 1976 Barcelona Convention and the Protocol to the 1978 Kuwait Convention, the 1992 Helsinki Convention and the OSPAR Convention 1992.

Other achievements (including new requests from CSD 7) Illegal and unregulated or unreported (IUU) fishing 3.12 CSD 7 (CSD 7, Report, (III), paragraph 18) encouraged IMO to look into the matter of IUU fishing in co-operation with FAO on a global basis. Based on an initiative from FAO, IMO and FAO have established a joint working group on IUU fishing. 3.13 The first meeting of the Joint Working Group took place at FAO Headquarters in Rome, Italy, from 9 to 11 October 2000. [More to come on the outcome of the Joint FAO/IMO Working Group.] Bunker Convention 3.14 A Diplomatic Conference was held in IMO in March 2001 adopting the International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage, which provides for a strict liability and compensation regime for pollution damage including the cost of preventive measures, and for compulsory insurance or financial security. Ship recycling 3.17 MEPC 43 and 44 discussed the inclusion of recycling of ships on the IMO agenda and agreed to take the item on board as a lead agency, in co-operation with the Basel Convention, ILO and other

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 7 Page 6

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

stakeholders. The MEPC has established a Correspondence Group under the leadership of Bangladesh to look into the matter and report to MEPC 46.1 Implications arising when a vessel loses the right to fly the flag of a State 3.18 CSD 7 invited IMO as a matter of urgency to develop measures, in binding form where IMO Members consider it appropriate, to ensure that ships of all flag States meet international rules and standards so as to give full and complete effect to UNCLOS, especially article 91 (Nationality of ships), as well as provisions of other relevant conventions. In this context, the Commission emphasizes the importance of further development of effective port State control. This matter is under extensive discussion in the IMO Sub-Committee on Flag State Implementation. 4 SUMMARY 4.1 UNCED +10 is invited to take note of the following major achievements by IMO since UNCED: .2 measures have been taken, including adoption of guidelines and conduct of technical

co-operation projects, to minimize the adverse effects of the introduction of harmful aquatic organisms through ships' ballast water, and the preparation of globally mandatory regulations is in progress for tentative adoption in 2002-2003;

.10 with a view to enhancing maritime safety and preventing marine pollution, more

measures have been taken, including adoption of new and amended traffic separation schemes, areas to be avoided, rules for navigating through the Straits of Malacca and Singapore and a partial system of archipelagic sea lanes in Indonesian archipelagic waters; a number of mandatory ship reporting systems have also been adopted, including in the Straits of Malacca and Singapore, the Torres Strait and the Inner Route of the Great Barrier Reef and the Systems for protecting North Atlantic right whales in sea areas off the north-eastern and south-eastern coasts of the United States;

.12 a draft instrument with a view to banning the application of TBT from 2003 and the

use of TBT on ships’ hulls has been drafted and a Diplomatic Conference will be held with the aim to adopt the instrument will be held in October 2001.

.2.4 A Diplomatic Conference was held in IMO in March 2001 adopting the International

Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage, which provides for strict liability and compensation regime for pollution damage including the cost of preventive measures, and for compulsory insurance or financial security.

***

1 To be updated after MEPC 46

MEPC 46/23

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

ANNEX 8

LONG-TERM WORK PLAN OF THE MEPC

(up to 2008)

The following is an indicative list of subjects approved by the Marine Environment Protection Committee for the period up to 2008. This list is not exhaustive and the subjects are not listed in order of priority. I Objectives 1 Pursuant to the provisions of Articles 1 and 38 of the Convention on the International Maritime Organization, to encourage adoption of the highest practicable standards in matters concerning the prevention and control of marine pollution from ships with due regard to the context of resolutions A.500(XII), A.777(18) and A.900(21). More immediately to promote world-wide acceptance, implementation and uniform interpretation of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 relating thereto (MARPOL 73/78) as well as the International Convention for Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Co-operation, 1990 (OPRC 1990) and the Protocol on Preparedness, Response and Co-operation to Pollution Incidents by Hazardous and Noxious Substances (OPRC-HNS Protocol). 2 To adhere to the principles and declaration adopted by UNCED in the field of marine environment protection and response to pollution incidents, including the principle of precautionary approach. 3 To provide the necessary machinery for performing any duties assigned to it and to maintain such close relationship with other bodies as may further the purposes of the Organization. 4 To promote, in co-operation with UNDP, UNEP, the World Bank, in particular the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and national development agencies, IMO's programmes of technical co-operation in the field of marine environmental protection, including the management and execution of large scale projects. II Specific subjects 1 Implementation, enforcement, amendment and uniform interpretation of the provisions of

MARPOL 73/78 and related Codes, recommendations and guidelines, and monitoring of the effectiveness with which the Convention is implemented.

2 Reports regarding casualty investigations by Member States in relation to marine pollution

incidents. 3 Reports by Parties regarding implementation of MARPOL 73/78, which is mandatory under

the Convention (MEPC/Circ.318). 4 Follow-up action to UNCED and the World Summit on Sustainable Development and

Environment, including prevention of marine pollution from offshore oil and gas activities.

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 8 Page 2

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

5 Review of the standards for the design, construction and operation of oil and chemical tankers, including those for pollution prevention equipment taking into account recommendations resulting from recent accidents.

6 Prevention of air pollution from ships, including measures to promote the entry into force and implementation of MARPOL Annex VI.

7 Evaluation of chemicals under the provisions of Annex II to MARPOL 73/78 as contained in

the IBC Code. 8 Implementation of the Harmonized System of Survey and Certification under

MARPOL 73/78 and implementation of the Condition Assessment Scheme (CAS). 9 Identification and protection of special areas and particularly sensitive sea areas (PSSAs). 10 Implementation of the ISM Code with regard to effective management for the prevention and

control of marine pollution. 11 Implementation of the INF Code and related matters, including environmental impact

assessment. 12 Consideration of measures to minimize the risks of introducing harmful aquatic organisms

and pathogens through discharges from ships' ballast water and associated sediments. 13 Matters relating to harmful anti-fouling systems. 14 Matters relating to reception facilities in ports. 15 Development of Formal Safety Assessment (FSA) procedures as well as addressing

environmental indexing of ships. 16 Development of measures to prevent and control marine pollution from small craft. 17 Development of measures for the prevention of marine pollution by noxious solid substances

carried in bulk. 18 Development of measures to prevent and control marine pollution from ship recycling and

measures to reduce human health hazards, in co-operation with UNEP, ILO and other stakeholders.

19 Implementation, enforcement, amendment and uniform interpretation of the provisions of the

OPRC Convention and the OPRC-HNS Protocol, and implementation of the relevant Conference resolutions.

20 Matters related to the 1973 Intervention Protocol. 21 Principles for ports of refuge or shelter for ships in distress.

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 8

Page 3

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

22 Co-operation with the United Nations and other international bodies on matters of mutual interest.

23 Review of the Sub-Committee’s structure with a view to increase the efficiency and

effectiveness of the Committee and the Sub-Committees. 24 Development of an environmental strategy integrated with the overall safety strategy of the

Organization. 25 Review of the Committee’s guidelines.

***

MEPC 46/23

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

ANNEX 9

WORK PROGRAMMES OF THE BLG AND FSI SUB-COMMITTEES AND PROVISIONAL AGENDAS FOR THEIR FORTHCOMING SESSIONS

BLG Sub-Committee

Target Reference completion date/number of sessions needed for completion

1 Evaluation of safety and pollution hazards Continuous BLG 1/20, section 3; of chemicals and preparation of BLG 6/16, section 7 consequential amendments

2 Casualty analysis (co-ordinated by FSI) Continuous MSC 70/23,

paragraphs 9.17 and 20.4 H.1 Matters related to the probabilistic 2002 BLG 1/20, section 8; methodology for oil outflow analysis BLG 6/16, section 4 H.2 Review of Annex I of MARPOL 73/78 2003 BLG 1/20, section 9; BLG 6/16, section 5

H.3 Review of Annex II of MARPOL 73/78 2003 BLG 1/20, section 9; BLG 6/16, section 6

H.4 Environmental and safety aspects of alternative BLG 3/18, tanker designs under MARPOL 73/78 paragraph 15.7 regulation I/13F

.1 development of the final guidelines 2 sessions BLG 1/20, paragraph 8.15

.2 assessment of alternative tanker Continuous BLG 1/20, section 16;

designs, if any (as necessary) BLG 4/18, paragraph 15.3

__________ Note: "H" means a high priority item and "L" means a low priority item. However, within the high

and low priority groups, items have not been listed in any order of priority.

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 9 Page 2

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

Target Reference completion date/number of sessions needed for completion

H.5 Requirements for personnel protection 2002 BLG 1/20, section 12; involved in the transportation of cargoes BLG 6/16, section 10 containing toxic substances in all types of tankers H.6 Oil tagging systems 2003 MEPC 45/20, paragraph 17.4 L.1 Development of guidelines for ships 2003 DE 43/18, section 12; operating in ice-covered waters MSC 71/23, (co-ordinated by DE) paragraph 20.43; BLG 6/16, paragraph 13.4 L.2 Application of MARPOL requirements to 2002 MEPC 41/20, FPSOs and FSUs paragraph 7.7; MSC 69/22, paragraph 20.8.1; BLG 6/16, section 9 L.3 Amendments to requirements on electrical 2002 MSC 71/23,

installations in the IBC and IGC Codes paragraph 20.3; BLG 6/16, section 8

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 9

Page 3

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

Provisional agenda for BLG 7 Opening of the session 1 Adoption of the agenda 2 Decisions of other IMO bodies 3 Matters related to the probabilistic methodology for oil outflow analysis 4 Review of Annex I of MARPOL 73/78 5 Review of Annex II of MARPOL 73/78 6 Evaluation of safety and pollution hazards of chemicals and preparation of consequential

amendments 7 Amendments to requirements on electrical installations in the IBC and IGC Codes 8 Application of MARPOL requirements to FPSOs and FSUs 9 Requirements for personnel protection involved in the transportation of cargoes containing

toxic substances in all types of tankers 10 Oil tagging systems 11 Development of guidelines for ships operating in ice-covered waters 12 Work programme and agenda for BLG 8 13 Election of Chairman and Vice-Chairman for 2003 14 Any other business 15 Report to the Committees

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 9 Page 4

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

FSI Sub-Committee

Target Reference

completion date/number of sessions needed for completion

1 Mandatory reports under MARPOL Continuous MSC 70/23, MARPOL 73/78 paragraph 20.12.1;

FSI 9/19, section 8 2 Casualty statistics and investigations Continuous MSC 68/23,

paragraphs 7.16 to 7.24; FSI 9/19, section 10

3 Regional co-operation on port Continuous FSI 9/19, section 6 State control 4 Reporting procedures on port Continuous MSC 71/23,

State control detentions and paragraph 20.16; analysis and evaluation of FSI 9/19, section 7, reports

5 PSC on seafarers’ working hours 2 sessions MSC 70/23, paragraph 20.12.3; FSI 7/14, paragraphs 7.11 to 7.13; MSC 71/23,

paragraph 13.13 6 Review of resolutions 2004 MSC 69/22,

A.744(18) and A.746(18) paragraph 10.9; FSI 9/19, section 12 MSC 72/23, paragraph 21.27

_______ Note: "H" means a high priority item and "L" means a low priority item. However, within the high

and low priority groups, items have not been listed in any order of priority.

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 9

Page 5

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

Target Reference

completion date/number of sessions needed for completion

7(L) Introduction of the HSSC into 2003 MEPC 41/20, MARPOL Annex VI on prevention paragraph 8.22.1; of air pollution MSC 69/22,

paragraph 20.28; FSI 9/19, section 9

8(H) Responsibilities of Governments Continuous MSC 68/23, and measures to encourage flag paragraphs 7.2 to 7.8; State compliance FSI 9/19, section 3 9 Issues related to the outcome of the MSC 73/21, seventh session of the United Nations paragraph 8.12 Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD 7) 10 Comprehensive analysis of difficulties Continuous MSC 69/22, encountered in the implementation paragraph 20.28; of IMO instruments FSI 9/19, section 4

11 Self-assessment of flag State 2003 MSC 70/23, performance paragraphs 9.2 to 9.14 ; MSC 71/23, paragraph 20.15; FSI 9/19, section 4 12(H) Implications arising when a vessel loses 2002 MSC 68/23,

the right to fly the flag of a State paragraph 7.7; MSC 70/23, paragraph 22.12.4;

FSI 9/19, section 5 13(H) Revision of the SOLAS expression "ships 2002 MSC 71/23,

constructed" paragraph 20.19; FSI 9/19, section 11

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 9 Page 6

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

Target Reference completion date/number of sessions needed for completion

14(H) Illegal, unreported and unregulated 2002 MSC 72/23, fishing (IUU) and related matters paragraph 21.28, FSI 9/19, section 15 15(H) Development of guidelines for survey 2 sessions MEPC 45/20, and certification for anti-fouling paints paragraph 17.1

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 9

Page 7

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

Provisional agenda for FSI 10*

Opening of the session 1 Adoption of the agenda 2 Decisions of other IMO bodies 3 Responsibilities of Governments and measures to encourage flag State compliance

4 Self-assessment of flag State performance 5 Implications arising when a vessel loses the right to fly the flag of a State 6 Issues related to the outcome of the seventh session of the United Nations Commission on

Sustainable Development (CSD 7) 7 Regional co-operation on port State control

8 Reporting procedures on port State control detentions and analysis and evaluation of reports 9 Mandatory reports under MARPOL 73/78 10 Casualty statistics and investigations 11 Review of resolutions A.744(18) and A.746(18) 12 Illegal, unregulated and unreported (IUU) fishing and related matters 13 Work programme and agenda for FSI 1111 14 Election of Chairman and Vice-Chairman for 22000033 15 Any other business 16 Report to the Committees

***

* The order of the agenda items does not necessarily indicate any priorities.

MEPC 46/23

I:\MEPC\46\23-annexes.doc

ANNEX 10

ITEMS OF THE WORK PROGRAMMES OF THE DSC, DE, AND SLF SUB-COMMITTEES RELEVANT TO THE MEPC

DSC Sub-Committee Target completion

date/number of sessions needed for completion

Reference

2 Reports on incidents involving dangerous goods or marine pollutants in packaged form on board ships or in port areas

Continuous CDG 45/22, section 11 and paragraph 20.2

H.2 Implementation of Annex III of MARPOL 73/78

2002 DSC 3/15, paragraph 12.6; DSC 5/13, paragraph 10.4

H.7 Amendments to SOLAS chapters VI and VII and MARPOL Annex III to make the IMDG Code mandatory

2001 MSC 70/23, paragraph 20.6; MSC 71/23, paragraph 20.7; MSC 73/21, paragraph 18.11; MEPC 43/21, paragraph 8.49

L.1 Guidelines for the development of shipboard emergency plans for marine pollutants

1 session CDG 42/22, section 9 and paragraph 20.2; DSC 2/16, paragraph 16.2.5.3 MEPC 46/23, Paragraph 20.18

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 10 Page 2

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

DE Sub-Committee Target Reference

completion date/number of sessions needed for completion

H.3 Guidelines under MARPOL Annex VI on 2003 MEPC 41/20, prevention of air pollution from ships paragraph 8.22.1; .1 guidelines for on-board NOx DE 44/19, monitoring and recording devices section 10 H.4 Revision of resolutions MEPC.60(33) 2002 MEPC 42/22, and A.586(14) paragraph 15.7; DE 44/19, section 11 H.7 Safety aspects of water ballast 1 session MSC 71/23, management paragraph 9.11 H.8 Matters related to incinerators 2002 MEPC 45/20, paragraph 17; DE 44/19, section 15 H.11 Protection of fuel tanks (in co-operation with [ ]* DE 44/19, paragraph BLG, and SLF) 2.7.2 L.2 Guidelines under MARPOL Annex VI on 2003 MEPC 41/20, prevention of air pollution from ships paragraph 8.22.1; DE 42/15,

.1 guidelines on equivalent methods paragraphs 10.2 to 10.4 to reduce on-board NOx emission

.2 guidelines on on-board exhaust gas cleaning systems

.3 guidelines on other technological

methods verifiable or enforceable to limit SOx emission _________ Note: "H" means a high priority item and "L" a low priority one. However, within the high and low

priority groups, items have not been listed in any order of priority. * MEPC 46 decided to include this work programme item (see paragraph 20.18).

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 10

Page 3

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

SLF Sub-Committee

Target completion date/number of sessions needed for completion

Reference

H.5 Safety aspects of ballast water 1 session MSC 71/23, management paragraph 9.11; MEPC 41/20, paragraph 9.12

***

MEPC 46/23

I:\MEPC\46\23-annexes.doc

ANNEX 11

SUBSTANTIVE ITEMS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE AGENDAS FOR MEPC 47, MEPC 48 AND MEPC 49

No. Item MEPC 47 March 2002

MEPC 48 October 2002

MEPC 49

1

Implementation of the OPRC Convention and the OPRC-HNS Protocol and relevant Conference resolutions

X

X

X

2

Harmful aquatic organisms in ballast water

X

X

X

3

Harmful effects of the use of anti-fouling paints for ships (follow up to the Conference and the Conference resolutions)

X

X

X

4

Consideration and adoption of amendments to mandatory instruments

X

X

5

Recycling of ships

X

X

X

6 .1 .2

Identification and protection of special areas and PSSAs Completion of review of the procedure for PSSAs Proposals for PSSAs

X

X

X

X 7

Inadequacy of reception facilities

X

X

8

Reports of sub-committees (DSC, DE, etc.)

X

X

X

9

Work of other bodies (Assembly, Council, MSC, FAL/SPI, TCC, etc.)

X

X

X

10

Status of Conventions

X

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 11 Page 2

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

No. Item MEPC 47 March 2002

MEPC 48 October 2002

MEPC 49

11 .1 .2

.3

Prevention of air pollution from ships IMO policy on greenhouse gasses Follow-up to the Conference Implementation of Conference resolution 1

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

12

Interpretation and amendments of MARPOL 73/78 and related Codes

X

X

X

13

Follow-up to UNCED (Preparation for RIO + 10)

X

X

X

14

Promotion of implementation and enforcement of MARPOL and related Codes

X

X

X

15

Future role of formal safety assessment and human element issues

X

X

16

Application of the Committees' Guidelines

X

X

X

17 .1 .2 .3

Work programme of the Committee and subsidiary bodies Structural review

Work programme for 2004/2005 Work plan up to 2010

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 11

Page 3

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

No. Item MEPC 47 March 2002

MEPC 48 October 2002

MEPC 49

19

Matters related to the 1973 Intervention Protocol

X

20

Technical Co-operation Programme

X

X

21

Any other business

X

X

X

***

MEPC 46/23

I:\MEPC\46\23-annexes.doc

ANNEX 12

TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE CORRESPONDENCE GROUPS

1 Correspondence Group on Recycling of Ships

(1) To identify all stakeholders and their perceived roles during the life-cycle of a ship;

(2) to identify and elaborate on the perceived role of IMO in ship recycling;

(3) to identify the existing international, national and additional industry and/or other relevant standards/guidelines, possibly applicable to ship recycling within the perceived role of IMO as indicated in paragraph 2;

(4) to recommend possible courses of action for further consideration by the Committee,

and to identify the pros and cons associated with each option; (5) to prepare a report for consideration at MEPC 47.

2 Correspondence Group on Ballast Water Treatment Standard To work towards developing a Ballast Water Treatment (BWT) Standard and to submit a report of its work and findings to MEPC 47, taking into account: (1) the outcome of the GloBallast Standards Workshop held in March 2001;

(2) any other issues related to developing such a standard. These would include, among others, those aspects outlined in document MEPC 46/3/3, paragraphs 2 and 3.

(3) the role that sampling may play in verifying compliance with any standard

developed; and (4) comment upon the availability of treatment technologies.

3 Correspondence Group on the Review of the Manual on Oil Pollution To prepare a final draft document for submission at MEPC 47 for comments and review with a view to its approval for publication at MEPC 48 (updated from annex 20 of document MEPC 43/21):

Activity Target date (1) Initiate any further revision of the chapters deemed

appropriate following comments arising from the review of the draft document at MEPC 46.

End of June 2001

(2) Preparation of a chapter on bioremediation based on the draft working document submitted by France.

End of July 2001

(3) Preparation of a consolidated draft revised Section IV, except for bioremediation.

End of July 2001

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 12 Page 2

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

(4) Submission of a draft chapter on bioremediation for inclusion into the revised draft Section IV.

End of August 2001

(5) Editorial work on the consolidated draft revised Section IV (14 chapters, preface, bibliography, tables and figures).

End of September 2001

(6) Circulation of a consolidated draft revised Section IV to the members of the Correspondence Group for review and final comments.

End of September 2001

(7) Finalized draft revised Section IV for submission at MEPC 47.

End of October 2001

(8) Submission of the consolidated draft revised Section IV to the Secretariat.

End of November 2001

***

MEPC 46/23

I:\MEPC\46\23-annexes.doc

ANNEX 13

STATEMENTS BY DELEGATIONS

1 Statement by the delegation of Cyprus after the adoption of the revised regulation 13G Cyprus, a small island State in the eastern Mediterranean Sea, whose economy depends to a large extent on the survivability of its tourist industry, having reviewed the text of regulation 13G of Annex I of MARPOL 73/78 which the Committee has now adopted wishes to advise Parties to MARPOL 73/78 and the Members of the International Maritime Organization the following: Cyprus complements and congratulates the Parties to MARPOL 73/78 and the International Maritime Organization for the speedy and efficient manner in which the proposals to revise regulation 13G have been dealt with. Cyprus is thankful and grateful to Parties to MARPOL 73/78 for the spirit and willingness exhibited during the consideration of the matter and for the responsible manner the issues under discussion were approached and dealt with. The Government of the Republic of Cyprus, mindful of its obligations towards its own citizens, the citizens of other States visiting Cyprus every year, its marine environment, the wildlife along its shores and the resource living in the sea surrounding Cyprus, has decided that:

(1) Cyprus will refrain from making use of the provisions of either paragraph (5)(a) or paragraph (5)(b) of the adopted regulation 13G and thus it will not allow ships entitled to fly its flag to which paragraph (5)(a) and (5)(b) may be applied to continue operating beyond the date specified in regulation 13G(4);

(2) Cyprus will amend the conditions under which ships are permitted to fly its flag so as

not to allow the registration, in Cyprus, of ships which may not comply with the requirements of regulation 13F in accordance with regulation 13G(4);

(3) Cyprus will require all importers of oil in its territory, who are in fact public utilities, to

engage, for the purpose of transporting and discharging oil in Cyprus, only oil tankers which either have been built to comply with the requirements of regulation 13F or have been modified, in accordance with the schedule of regulation 13G(4), to comply with the requirements of regulation 13F; and

(4) Cyprus will make use, as from 1 January 2015, when necessary, of the provisions of

paragraph 8(b) of regulation 13G for the purpose of denying entry into its ports or offshore terminals of ships which have been permitted, on the basis of the provisions of paragraph (5)(a) or (5)(b) of regulation 13G, to continue operating beyond the anniversary of the date of their delivery in 2015, except when such ships are in search of a safe haven or of a port of refuge.

Cyprus believes that the aforesaid contribute towards the efforts of the International Maritime Organization to enhance the protection of the marine environment and have been designed to indicate to the shipping industry that Cyprus considers that Category 2 and Category 3 oil tankers must comply

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 13 Page 2

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

with the requirements of regulation 13F as set out in regulation 13G(4) or if they fail to do so must be taken out of service. 2 Statement by the delegation of Malta after the adoption of the revised regulation 13G Malta compliments and congratulates the Parties to MARPOL 73/78 and the International Maritime Organization for the speedy and efficient manner in which the proposals to revise regulation 13G have been addressed. The responsible approach shown during the discussions on this very important issue has been indeed admirable. Malta, an island sovereign State at the centre of the Mediterranean is very conscious of the vital need there is to ensure the protection of the marine environment for the benefit of all mankind. The Government of Malta, fully conscious of its responsibilities both as a flag State and as a port State, has decided the following:

(a) Malta will refrain from making use of the provisions of either paragraph (5)(a) or paragraph (5)(b) of the adopted regulation 13G and thus it will not allow ships entitled to fly its flag to which paragraph (5)(a) or (5)(b) may be applied to continue operating beyond the date specified in regulation 13G;

(b) Malta will not allow the registration under its flag of ships not complying with the

requirements of regulation 13F in accordance with regulation 13G(4); (c) Malta will require all importers of oil in its territory to engage, for the purpose of

transporting and discharging oil in Malta, only oil tankers either built in compliance with the requirements of regulation 13F or that have been modified in accordance with the schedule of regulation 13G(4) to comply with the requirements of regulation 13F; and

(d) Malta, as from 1 January 2015, will, when necessary, make use of the provisions of

paragraph 8(b) of regulation 13G, for the purpose of denying entry into its ports or offshore terminals of oil carrying ships that have been permitted, on the basis of the provisions of paragraph (5)(a) or (5)(b) of regulation 13G, to continue operating beyond the anniversary of the date of their delivery in 2015, except when such ships are in search of a safe haven or of a port of refuge.

Malta firmly believes that these measures will contribute further towards the realization of one of the main objectives of the International Maritime Organization, that is the protection of the marine environment. These measures will also serve as a clear indication to the shipping industry that Malta considers that oil tankers in Category 2 and Category 3 must comply with the requirements of regulation 13F as set out in paragraph (4) of regulation 13G and that if they fail to do so they must be taken out of service.

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 13

Page 3

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

3 Statement by the delegation of Colombia on the Malpelo Island area as a PSSA Mr Chairman and distinguished delegates RESOLUTION NUMBER 1292 OF 31 OCTOBER 1995 Of the Ministry of the Environment "Malpelo Fauna and Flora Sanctuary" System of National Natural Parks Naval advance post This document, MEPC 46/6/3, contains the information requested by MEPC 44. The area surrounding Malpelo Island, is under pressure from both national and international fishing boats and regional tourist ships with groups of divers engaging in recreational activities, at present unregulated and with an adverse impact on the ecosystem. This has led us to introduce further surveillance and control measures at national level, such as increased patrols in the area by naval units, installation of a mooring buoy for control and surveillance in the area, to allow our naval units to maintain a more constant presence to control maritime activities in the area and to try and protect the coral ecosystem which is vital to fish conservation. For offences against merchant marine law and national legislation on natural reserves, naval ships has arrested fishing boats (7N-2E) in the area for catching fish within a radius of six miles. The requested measure of designation as a particularly sensitive sea area, an area to be avoided, with an area of 16 square miles, is not only a benefit to my country but a regional benefit, since Malpelo Island provides a marine habitat for the passage, migration and spawning of many species. Studies being carried out by the competent authority, INPA, on board naval oceanographic vessels such as ARC MALPELO, specializing in evaluating the biomass, is providing data that, once finalized, will tell us whether the measures taken will require further strengthening in support of conservation. It is a site of great scientific and strategic interest for fish stocks and must be protected so that these species have a place to reproduce, grow and pursue their normal life cycles and may be caught in accordance with the International Code on Responsible Fishing. The effect of these fishing boats is of great concern to my country, since they have detected night fishing without the appropriate lights, placing ocean-going vessels heading for our ports of Buenaventura and Turnaco and passing at a certain distance from Malpelo Island in possible danger. It is an area with normal conditions of visibility for most of the year. The discovery of an area rich in living resources and the practice of trawling damages the coral ecosystem and increases the danger to navigation on the high seas. In the event of an accident, God forbid that one should happen, rescue operations would be very difficult for my country, because of the island's remote position and its huge distance from the continent. My country, by seeking its designation as a particularly sensitive sea area, and area to be avoided, is not impeding free navigation, and is not preventing fishing, with the appropriate permits, but is seeking to preserve an area that is vital from an ecological point of view for the regional economy and ultimately to increase the safety of human life at sea, through responsible fishing and requiring certain fishing-boat crews to be more aware of the need to preserve natural environments in line with both national and international codes of conduct. Navigation on the high sea does not cause problems. The effects of the pressure of fishing and secondly leisure craft means the impact of operational pollution (waste water, garbage, noise)

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 13 Page 4

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

and physical damage to the ecosystem (destruction of habitat, asphyxiation of habitats, change of species feeding patterns). My country's action is consistent with the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). It will undertake experimental management programmes to conserve the magnificent natural settings of the coral reefs, which have been subject to various threats such as excessive water pollution and the pressure of fishing fleets for a period of four years. Distinguished delegates, my country needs international support to complement the efforts made by my country, and I ask you to consider our proposal favourably and I reiterate that the benefit of having natural reserves of coral ecosystems and living resources in the Colombian Pacific is regional and global. In conclusion: My country proposes the creation of a correspondence group to examine the possibility of making amendments to the STCW (F) Convention to cover vessels below the thresholds of that Convention and prepare a draft Convention regulating training for crews of vessels not covered by that Convention for consideration by MEPC 47. My country is ready to co-ordinate this work. Observations From a study of this summary and document MEPC 46/6/3, it is clear that there is a gap in international law concerning sanctions under the framework of international legislation against offenders against national laws on protection of marine wildlife, especially fishing boats and those not covered by the Torremolinos Convention because of considerations of size and safety. A further observation is the low level of application of the STCW-F Convention, which, if applied, would allow crews of fishing boats covered by that Convention to be more aware of the need to preserve the current level of stocks of marine wildlife, especially fish, for present and future generations. The non-application of the International Code on Responsible Fishing is also noted, which, if conscientiously applied, would by extension force crews of fishing vessels under any flag to avoid damaging particularly sensitive sea areas such as the area around Malpelo Island because of the sensitivity of its marine ecosystems and its exclusive nature and its variety and unique character in the world. Actions requested of the Committee To examine the possibility of creating a correspondence group to examine the possibility of drafting amendments to the STCW-F Code to cover vessels below the thresholds contained in that Convention or prepare a draft Convention to regulate the training of crews of vessels not covered by STCW-F which at present are those which cause the most damage to fish stocks, breach maritime law, commercial law and laws on conservation of living resources in national and international contexts. That the same correspondence group should have a second mandate to examine the possibility of amending the Torremolinos Convention to apply it to fishing boats below the thresholds or prepare a draft Convention to regulate the activities and safety of fishing boats below the Torremolinos thresholds.

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 13

Page 5

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

That the correspondence group should have a third mandate to examine whether it would be appropriate to elaborate an article in the form of a Protocol to fill the gaps in the Convention on an International Code of Responsible Fishing on the High Seas for vessels not covered which engage in excessive fishing and cause pollution by their depredations. The delegation of Colombia is very keen to offer its services to co-ordinate the work of the correspondence group with a view to fulfilling the mandates set out in the three paragraphs above. Given the current international legislation aimed at preserving the marine environment, albeit with large gaps which allow excessive action by offending fishing boats, and that developing and approving new legislation to fill the existing gaps, despite every effort, will require months or years and that it is necessary to preserve a sanctuary for flora and fauna. 4 Statement by the delegation of Cuba on the Sabana-Camaguey PSSA In the light of my delegation's identification with "Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas", allow me, Mr. Chairman, to inform this Committee that the Government of Cuba is working to complete a programme of measures to preserve and protect the beautiful and productive ecosystem of Sabana-Camaguey, designated by IMO resolution as a "Particularly Sensitive Sea Area". These measures can be summarized as follows:

• Improvements in the collection of MARPOL waste in the main ports; • Acquisition of equipment for the early detection of illegal discharges close to our

territorial waters; • The application, among other laboratory techniques, of high resolution gas

chromatography and nuclear magnetic resonance to identify the source of the spill using the fingerprint method; and

• Progressive allocation of state-of-the-art equipment and other support measures to

provide rapid logistical support in response to any spill.

This, Mr. Chairman, without detracting from the promulgation of laws to underpin measures to protect marine and tourist resources in which we are engaged. In the light of the foregoing and in the context of this intervention, we are formulating our request to the IMO for assistance and co-operation to improve our response plans to illegal discharges and possible spills in our maritime waters. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, we would be grateful if this text could be included in the report of this forty-sixth session of the Marine Environment Protection Committee.

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 13 Page 6

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

5 Statement by the delegation of Australia on the Great Barrier Reef - Review of measures to promote ship safety and pollution prevention

The delegation of Australia informed MSC 73 about the grounding of an overseas registered container ship within the area of Australia's Great Barrier Reef. The ship was carrying a considerable quantity of heavy fuel oil bunkers together with dangerous goods in some of the containers on board. The ship was eventually refloated, there was no oil pollution or loss of cargo, although some damage had occurred to part of the reef. During the incident, a wide-ranging review of measures to promote ship safety and pollution prevention in the waters of the Great Barrier Reef was announced, aiming at providing strategies to address the legal, technical, operational, commercial and indigenous issues involved with implementing the following initiatives:

.1 extending the compulsory pilotage area along the Inner Shipping Route to improve ship safety and reduce the risk of ship-sourced pollution taking into account the availability of skilled pilots and the possible impact of any changes on fatigue management;

.2 advancing the introduction of technological developments to track and monitor

shipping operations in the Reef; .3 enhancing existing ship routeing, traffic management and emergency response

arrangements; .4 constraining certain types of ships from operation in the inner Reef, or adjacent to the

Reef, having regard to the ship's condition, operational status and nature of its cargo; and

.5 improving legislative powers of intervention and enforcement, increasing the level of

offences and penalties and ordering restitution, to the maximum extent possible under international law.

The outcome of this review might require Australia to make future submissions to this Committee on matters relating to a number of issues, some of which are under consideration by the NAV Sub-Committee. 6 Statement by the German delegation on the report of FSI 9 in relation to self-assessment

of flag State performance The German delegation congratulates the FSI Sub-Committee on its achievements made at FSI 9. We are particularly grateful that a revised draft Assembly resolution on self-assessment of flag State performance incorporating criteria and performance indicators could be finalized for adoption by the forthcoming Assembly. We strongly hope that many more Member States will submit their completed forms to the Organization with a view to establishing an efficient database. However recent accidents around European waters - to name the Erika off the French coast or the Baltic Carrier in waters between Germany and Denmark - have created great concern. Governments are faced with an enhanced demand by public opinion to intensify their efforts to ensure that flag States meet their obligations. A pure self-evaluation of performance on a voluntary basis is in the view of this delegation certainly not the only solution which IMO can provide. We strongly recommend that

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 13

Page 7

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

other measures necessary to ensure the effective and consistent global implementation of IMO-instruments are considered by FSI upon guidance by its parent-committees MSC and MEPC. This mandate is already included in the aforesaid resolution.

- We welcome in this respect the decision of MSC 73 to instruct FSI to consider further the request of CSD 7 to IMO to develop measures in binding form to ensure that ships of all States meet international standards. We strongly believe that necessary steps must be taken to establish or make use of safeguards ensuring compliance with basic IMO-instruments. The idea of an external evaluation of the performance of administrations, based on agreed criteria, should not be excluded from the discussion.

- We recall further our proposal in FSI 4 to exhaust existing legal possibilities provided

by UNCLOS such as Article 228 and Article 94 paragraph 6 for strengthening the flag State responsibility and enhancing their self-discipline.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, we fully endorse the decision of FSI 9 to establish principles for the transfer of ships. As various provisions in UNCLOS differ between flag States and "States of registry" we believe that the special requirements of bare-boat-charter registration must be taken into account. Germany offers its willingness for a constructive co-operation on this issue. 7 Statement by the delegation of Cyprus on the proposed restructuring of Sub-Committees The distinguished delegates present today must be very aware that the matter at hand is of deep concern to the delegation of Cyprus from the time of its inception by your good self Mr. Chairman.

Unfortunately, as you all know, Cyprus does not agree with this proposal, not because it is felt that our interests are threaten but because we do not feel that restructuring of Sub-Committees in one form or another is the panacea of all ills, not to mention that the results of the Secretary-General's review are not yet known.

During our deliberations this week we found out that documents submitted to this session could not be discussed because the documents containing the substance of the items under discussion has not been posted to the Member States, or that sentiments expressed by the Secretary-General in his opening statement became work programme item for the OPRC Working Group, depriving one of the major stakeholders of the specific issue of the right to participate.

If our genuine interest is to improve efficiency and effectiveness these are the first items that common sense would have dictated as the issues to be tackled from the early beginning and not the merging of Sub-Committees, which has happened in the past, and did not offer any benefit at all since they all continue to operate as multiple bodies. The case of COMSAR and DSC are the ultimate examples where in the case of the former, the SAR Group is operating like a Search and Rescue Sub-Committee and the E&T Working Group is not far behind.

In the annex of this document you, Sir, and the Chairman of the MSC are using the provisions of paragraph 22 of the guidelines on the organization and method of work of the two Committees as the driving force behind this exercise, and it is deeply unfortunate that such a provision has been used since all the documents at hand in which the history behind this item can be traced show that it was an initiative by the Chairman of the MEPC, that is you, Sir, in order to accommodate the work of the

MEPC 46/23 ANNEX 13 Page 8

I:\MEPC\46\23-ANNEXES.DOC

OPRC Working Group, especially after Cyprus insisted that not more than 3 working groups can be formed during a session. Therefore, when reference is made to the past, history should be remembered correctly. It is the firm belief of this delegation that if the provisions of paragraph 22 had been invoked on time and properly we would not be here making this statement today.

Your proposed terms of reference call for review on the experience gained by the application of the Guidelines and the first thing that does is to call for flexibility; secondly asks to look on the agenda management procedure as a tool to control the work load of the subsidiaries bodies, something that really never seems to happen since we have never seen items taken off from the agendas of these bodies, but on the contrary, always a new item will be inserted into them.

Concluding Mr. Chairman I would like to point out that the content of paragraph 2.5 of the annex to this document is disrespectful.

___________