I:\MEPC\44\20.doc

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

INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION

IMO

E

MARINE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTIONCOMMITTEE44th session6 to 8, 10 and 13 March 2000Agenda item 20

MEPC 44/2012 April 2000

Original: ENGLISH

REPORT OF THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION COMMITTEEON ITS FORTY-FOURTH SESSION

SectionParagraph Nos. Page No.

1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 - 1.18 4

2 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE OPRCCONVENTION AND THE OPPRCONFERENCE RESOLUTIONS

2.1 - 2.21 9

3 HARMFUL EFFECTS OF THE USE OFANTI-FOULING PAINTS FOR SHIPS

3.1 - 3.21 12

4 HARMFUL AQUATIC ORGANISMSIN BALLAST WATER

4.1 - 4.42 17

5 INADEQUACY OF RECEPTIONFACILITIES

5.1 - 5.8 24

6 CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTIONOF AMENDMENTS TO MANDATORYINSTRUMENTS

6.1 - 6.7 26

7 IDENTIFICATION AND PROTECTIONOF SPECIAL AREAS AND PARTICULARLYSENSITIVE SEA AREAS

7.1 - 7.22 27

8 REPORTS OF SUB-COMMITTEES 8.1 - 8.13 31

9 WORK OF OTHER BODIES 9.1 - 9.24 33

10 STATUS OF CONVENTIONS 10.1 - 10.3 37

MEPC 44/20 - -

I:\MEPC\44\20.doc

2

SectionParagraph Nos. Page No.

11 PREVENTION OF AIR POLLUTIONFROM SHIPS

11.1 - 11.31 38

12 INTERPRETATION AND AMENDMENTSOF MARPOL 73/78 AND RELATED CODES

12.1 - 12.42 44

13 FOLLOW-UP TO UNCED 13.1 - 13.13 52

14 PROMOTION OF IMPLEMENTATIONAND ENFORCEMENT OF MARPOL 73/78AND RELATED CODES

14.1 - 14.13 54

15 INF CODE RELATED MATTERS 15.1 - 15.2 57

16 RECYCLING OF SHIPS 16.1 - 16.21 58

17 APPLICATION OF THE COMMITTEES’GUIDELINES

17.1 - 17.4 62

18 WORK PROGRAMME OF THE COMMITTEEAND SUBSIDIARY BODIES

18.1 - 18.19 62

19 ANY OTHER BUSINESS 19.1 - 19.17 65

ANNEXES

ANNEX 1 AGENDA FOR THE FORTY-FOURTH SESSION INCLUDING LIST OFDOCUMENTS

ANNEX 2 RESOLUTION MEPC.83(44) - GUIDELINES FOR ENSURING THEADEQUACY OF PORT WASTE RECEPTION FACILITIES

ANNEX 3 RESOLUTION MEPC.84(44) - AMENDMENTS TO THE ANNEX OF THEPROTOCOL OF 1978 RELATING TO THE INTERNATIONALCONVENTION FOR THE PREVENTION OF MARINE POLLUTION FROMSHIPS, 1973

ANNEX 4 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE NOx TECHNICAL CODE

ANNEX 5 PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO REGULATION 14(3)(a) OF ANNEX VI OFMARPOL 73/78

- - MEPC 44/20

I:\MEPC\44\20.doc

3

ANNEX 6 DRAFT ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION - AVAILABILITY AND USE OF LOWSUPLHUR BUNKER FUEL OILS IN SOx EMISSION CONTROL AREASDESIGNATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH REGULATION 14(3) OFANNEX VI OF MARPOL 73/78

ANNEX 7 RESOLUTION MEPC.85(44) - GUIDELINES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OFSHIPBOARD MARINE POLLUTION EMERGENCY PLANS FOR OILAND/OR NOXIOUS LIQUID SUBSTANCES

ANNEX 8 RESOLUTION MEPC.86(44) - AMENDMENTS TO THE GUIDELINES FORTHE DEVELOPMENT OF SHIPBOARD OIL POLLUTION EMERGENCYPLANS

ANNEX 9 RESOLUTION MEPC.87(44) - USE OF SPANISH UNDER IMOCONVENTIONS RELATING TO POLLUTION PREVENTION

ANNEX 10 TEXT OF THE REVISED ANNEX IV OF MARPOL 73/78

ANNEX 11 RESOLUTION MEPC.88(44) - IMPLEMENTATION OF ANNEX IV OFMARPOL 73/78

ANNEX 12 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ANNEX V OF MARPOL 73/78

ANNEX 13 SUBSTANTIVE ITEMS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE AGENDAS OF MEPC 45,MEPC 46 AND MEPC 47

ANNEX 14 TERMS OF REFERENCE OF THE CORRESPONDENCE GROUPS

MEPC 44/20 - -

I:\MEPC\44\20.doc

4

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 The forty-fourth session of the Marine Environment Protection Committee was held atIMO Headquarters from 6 to 8, 10 and 13 March 2000 under the chairmanship of Mr. MichaelJulian (Australia). It was held in conjunction with the Diplomatic Conference to adopt theOPRC-HNS Protocol, which was held on 9, 14 and 15 March 2000.

1.2 The session was attended by delegations from:

ALGERIAANGOLAANTIGUA AND BARBUDAARGENTINAAUSTRALIAAUSTRIABAHAMASBAHRAINBANGLADESHBARBADOSBELGIUMBRAZILBULGARIACANADACHILECHINACOLOMBIACONGOCÔTE D’IVOIRECROATIACUBACYPRUSDEMOCRATIC PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF KOREADENMARKDOMINICAECUADOREGYPTEL SALVADORESTONIAFINLANDFRANCEGABONGERMANYGREECEHONDURASINDIAINDONESIAIRAN (ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF)IRELANDISRAELITALY

JAMAICAJAPANLATVIALIBERIALITHUANIAMALAYSIAMALTAMARSHALL ISLANDSMEXICOMOROCCONAMIBIANETHERLANDSNEW ZEALANDNIGERIANORWAYPANAMAPERUPHILIPPINESPOLANDPORTUGALREPUBLIC OF KOREAROMANIARUSSIAN FEDERATIONSAINT VINCENT AND THE GRENADINESSAUDI ARABIASINGAPORESOUTH AFRICASPAINSWEDENSYRIATHAILANDTRINIDAD AND TOBAGOTUNISIATURKEYUKRAINEUNITED KINGDOMUNITED STATESURUGUAYVANUATUVENEZUELA

- 5 - MEPC 44/20

I:\MEPC\44\20.doc

by representatives from the following Associate Member of IMO:

HONG KONG, CHINA

by representatives from the following United Nations and Specialized Agencies:

UNITED NATIONS (UN)UNITED NATIONS FRAME WORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE (UNFCCC)UN ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME (UNEP)FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION (FAO)

by observers from the following intergovernmental organizations:

ORGANIZATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT (OECD)EUROPEAN COMMISSION (EC)INTERNATIONAL OIL POLLUTION COMPENSATION FUNDS (IOPC FUNDS)ARAB FEDERATION OF SHIPPING (AFS)LEAGUE OF ARAB STATESINTERNATIONAL 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)EUROPEAN CHEMICAL INDUSTRY COUNCIL (CEFIC)OIL COMPANIES INTERNATIONAL MARINE FORUM (OCIMF)FRIENDS OF THE EARTH INTERNATIONAL (FOEI)INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL OF MARINE INDUSTRY ASSOCIATIONS (ICOMIA)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)SOCIETY OF INTERNATIONAL GAS TANKER AND TERMINAL OPERATORS LTD (SIGTTO)INTERNATIONAL ROAD TRANSPORT UNION (IRU)GREENPEACE INTERNATIONALINTERNATIONAL COUNCIL OF CRUISE LINES (ICCL)

MEPC 44/20 - -

I:\MEPC\44\20.doc

6

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)

The Chairman of the Maritime Safety Committee (MSC), Mr. T. Allan (United Kingdom), theChairman 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 Chairmanof 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. M. Böckenhauer (Germany) were also present.

1.3 The Secretary-General welcomed participants and stated that this meeting had a specialsignificance, first of all because it was combined with a diplomatic conference which wouldconsider and adopt the HNS Protocol to the OPRC Convention and, secondly, becausesubstantive headway would have to be made towards developing two new instruments during thissession.

1.4 The Secretary-General highlighted the Assembly resolution A.900(21) on Objectives ofthe Organization in the 2000s, which sets out the areas on which IMO should mainly focus itsattention during this decade. In order to fulfil the objectives on marine environmental protection,the Committee should pay attention to the promotion of a proactive policy, which would ensureeffective, uniform implementation and early acceptance of MARPOL Annexes IV and VI andshould take into account the Guidelines on the precautionary approach.

1.5 The Secretary-General stressed the significance of the work of the Committee and theimportance of achieving satisfactory marine environmental protection outcomes. Often theoutside world does not appreciate fully the considerable contribution IMO makes to theprotection of the marine environment. IMO needs to always keep in sight the importance theinternational community places on environmental issues because the protection of theenvironment is a key objective of nearly all Governmental and industrial organizationsthroughout the world, whether international, regional or national. It is IMO’s responsibility toprovide for, and deliver, an environmentally safe world for future generations.

1.6 The Secretary-General noted that there were several important items on the Committee'sagenda. With regard to the harmful effects of the use of anti-fouling paints for ships, theSecretary-General stated that this had been a priority item for many years and that the Committeewas requested by Assembly resolution A.895(21) to ensure global prohibition of TBT-basedpaints by the target dates taking into account the availability of alternative systems. To this end,the text of a legal instrument must be completed by MEPC 45 so that it can be circulated in timefor the Conference proposed for 2001. Turning to the mater of harmful aquatic organisms in

- - MEPC 44/20

I:\MEPC\44\20.DOC

7

ships' ballast water, the Secretary-General stated that the international shipping industry mustface this problem and resolve it satisfactorily without compromising the safety of ships. Hehoped that the Committee would obtain a greater consensus on this very important environmentalissue and make considerable progress in preparing the draft regulations.

1.7 The Secretary-General commented on sinking of the tanker "Erika" off the western coastof France last December. While noting with relief that all crew members were safely rescued, heexpressed deep concern about the impact the accident has had on the marine environment and theaffected French communities and industries. The Secretary-General indicated that the reportproviding information as to the cause of the loss of the ship was not yet available and that itwould be wise to refrain from acting hastily and that prudence would suggest that theinvestigation in the cause should be accelerated and the results made known as soon as possibleso that, if any action needed to be taken at the regulatory level, it could be introduced into IMOwhere decisions could be made rapidly after all aspects had been carefully considered.

1.8 The Secretary-General further stated that following the accident, meetings have been heldby the European Commission and, according to the media, proposals have been formulated foraction to be taken. A general framework for action has also been suggested in a letter to theSecretary-General in the week before MEPC 44 from the Ministers of Foreign Affairs and ofTransport of France, which had already been circulated to Member States as Circular letterNo. 2208. While expressing that this is an understandable reaction from the community which issensitive to any loss of life at sea or pollution of the marine environment, the Secretary-General,however, reiterated his firm position that IMO should always and without exception, be regardedas the only forum where safety and pollution prevention standards affecting internationalshipping should be considered and adopted. He emphasized that regional, let alone unilateral,application to foreign flag ships of national requirements which go beyond IMO standards wouldbe detrimental to international shipping and to the functioning of IMO itself - and should,therefore, be avoided.

1.9 The Secretary-General also stated that, since the Exxon Valdez accident, IMO hadintroduced the double hull requirements, the Guidelines on the enhanced programme ofinspections, the ISM Code and the Guidelines for classification societies. In the wake of theNakhodka, structural requirements for existing tankers carrying persistent oil have also beenupgraded and proposals to improve the enhanced programme of surveys are presently underconsideration by the DE Sub-committee. While waiting for the investigation report on the Erikaand any proposal for regulatory measures, it was recognize that the credibility of the safetysystem has been damaged. According to statistics, the accident rate of tankers has been decliningin recent years and the Erika could therefore be considered as an exceptional case. TheSecretary-General, however, stated that IMO must face the fact that the safety net which hadbeen developed over the years had failed in this case. This must be addressed head on otherwiseit would not be possible to restore credibility to the whole system.

1.10 The delegation of France stated that as the French coasts are once again suffering frommarine pollution, this time following the Erika accident, the Prime Minister, M. Lionel Jospin,announced on 15 February 2000 a series of initiatives designed to strengthen the safety ofmaritime transport. The French authorities want measures to be taken as quickly as possible thatwill enable pollution incidents such as the one now affecting France to be prevented in the future.They will naturally be pursuing the action already initiated on these matters within the EuropeanUnion – and especially in the course of France’s forthcoming presidency.

MEPC 44/20 - -

I:\MEPC\44\20.doc

8

1.11 France stressed that IMO remains the natural forum for discussions and decisions thatwill create the right conditions for safer and more responsible maritime transport. Whileacknowledging the issue of the international law of the sea, and with the aim of bringing togetherall the States concerned, the French authorities wish to achieve an outcome which will preventfurther accidents off the French coasts. France will submit individual proposals on each point toappropriate IMO bodies such as the MEPC and MSC.

1.12 The delegation of Malta, referring its statement on the Erika pollution incident at FSI 8,stated that the Maltese Administration had immediately launched an investigation into thecasualty and that the findings would be crucial in the decision on necessary action that needed tobe taken. Malta supported the speech of the Secretary-General with regard to regulatoryproposals which might arise from the incident.

1.13 A large number of delegations spoke on the Erika pollution incident. They all supportedthe Secretary-General in stressing that any proposal for the improvement of safety at sea orenvironmental protection at the regulatory level, resulting from the investigation into thecasualty, must be discussed and agreed internationally within the framework of the Organizationrather than regionally or unilaterally. The delegations emphasized that such proposals shouldonly be made after all the facts surrounding the accident had been thoroughly investigated andestablished. In the interventions, the similarity between the accidents of the Erika and theNakhodka was mentioned and that the Committee took prompt decisions, including amendmentsto regulation 13G of MARPOL Annex I which was adopted at MEPC 43 by resolutionMEPC.78(43) as well as the proposed amendments to resolution A.744 on the Enhancedprogramme of inspections during surveys which will be considered by DE 43.

1.14 The observers of WWF and FOEI stressed the importance of marine environmentprotection, referring to the disastrous effect on birds by the Erika incident, and the effectiveenforcement of existing IMO regulations as well as the development of new requirements wherenecessary as a result of the Erika incident.

1.15 In summary, the Chairman stated that clearly there was overwhelming support for theSecretary-General’s view that unilateral or regional action should be avoided and any proposalsfor action of a safety or environment nature should be brought to IMO noting there may well beproposals of a commercial nature that the shipping industry will have to address. On behalf of theCommittee, the Chairman invited the Governments of France and Malta to expedite the casualtyinvestigation process and submit their findings to IMO as soon as possible.

1.16 The Chairman, in response to the Secretary-General’s opening address regarding thesignificance of the work of this Committee in protecting the marine environment, stressedstrongly the importance of this Committee demonstrating to the world at large through itsdecision-making, its commitment to the protection of marine environment and sustainabledevelopment. Noting that in the work of the Committee commercial concerns are often raised,however an appropriate balance must be found.

1.17 The Committee noted the report of the Secretary-General that credentials of thedelegations were in due and proper order.

1.18 The agenda for the session, as adopted by the Committee, together with the list ofdocuments considered under each item, is shown at annex 1.

- - MEPC 44/20

I:\MEPC\44\20.DOC

9

2 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE OPRC CONVENTION AND OPPRCONFERENCE RESOLUTIONS

Report of the OPRC Working Group at MEPC 43

2.1 The Chairman of the OPRC Working Group, Mr. T.F. Melhuish (Canada) introduced thereport of the OPRC Working Group at MEPC 43 (MEPC 44/2), drawing the attention of theCommittee on the tasks and target dates of the Working Group and in particular, the developmentand revision of oil pollution manuals and guidelines.

2.2 The delegation of France congratulated the OPRC Working Group for its efforts andendorsed its report highlighting paragraph 10.1(a) on the role of the Working Group in theimplementation of the OPRC Convention and 10.1(b) on the need to staff a PollutionCo-ordination and Support Unit within IMO Secretariat.

2.3 The Committee noted the Chairman's remarks that he had raised the concerns of theCommittee about the need for a Pollution Co-ordination Support Unit with the IMO Council andduring the twenty-first session of the Assembly. However due to the zero nominal growth budgetthe Council decided that funds for the proposal were not available at this stage.

2.4 The Committee considered and approved, in general, the Report of the OPRC WorkingGroup at MEPC 43 (MEPC 44/2). Furthermore, the Committee discussed the target dates forcompletion in relation to the work programme of the Committee and accepted the Group'sschedule of tasks and target dates contained in annex 4 of the report (MEPC 44/2).

Review of the Manual on Oil Pollution

2.5 The Committee was informed that New Zealand was unable to continue as lead countryfor the Correspondence Group revising section IV of the Manual on Oil Pollution. TheNetherlands accepted to act as lead country for the Correspondence Group. The co-ordinator ofthe Correspondence Group would be:

Mr. A. TacomaFocal Point for OPRC MattersMinistry of Transport, Public Works and Water ManagementP.O. Box 58072280 HV RyswijkThe Netherlands

Tel: +31 70 3366793Fax: + 31 70 3900691e-mail: a.tacoma@dnz.rws.minvenw.nl

Other OPRC Working Group related works

2.6 The Committee was informed that the draft guidance document on fisheries managementduring and after an oil pollution incident prepared by ITOPF incorporating the comments madeby Australia and the United States as indicated in paragraph 3.11 of the report of the OPRCWorking Group (MEPC 44/2) was sent to FAO for comments. Comments from FAO would beincluded in a consolidated report for submission to MEPC 45.

MEPC 44/20 - -

I:\MEPC\44\20.doc

10

2.7 The Secretariat informed the Committee that the survey form for a directory of relevantcentres of expertise on oil and hazardous noxious substances under the 1973 InterventionProtocol has been distributed to Member Governments as MEPC/Circ.360. Since its issuance inAugust 1999, only six Member Governments have completed the survey form.

2.8 The Committee noted the poor response to the survey form circular and invites MemberGovernments to take action on MEPC/Circ.360 with the view to enabling the Secretariat tosubmit a preliminary draft directory of relevant centres of expertise on oil and HNS forconsideration by MEPC 45 as indicated in paragraph 2.10.6 of MEPC 43/21.

Response measures for spillage of high density fuel oils

2.9 The representative from the Friends of the Earth International (FOEI) introduceddocument MEPC 44/2/1, stating that there is a major concern over the transport of high densityfuel oils like orimulsion which are likely to sink to the sea bed smothering benthic habitat,making the use of booms, skimmers and dispersants, including the natural dispersing propertiesof the sea, ineffective.

2.10 FOEI stated that, when it comes to accidental spillage by emulsified fuels(i.e., high-density fuel oils), there remains uncertainty and concern on the practicality andeffectiveness of response measures, particularly containment. Thus, FOEI raised the followingissues for consideration by the Committee:

.1 whether the measures outlined in the OPRC Convention will be effective inmitigating the spillage of high density fuel oils; and

.2 whether the carriage of such cargoes should be restricted to, under an IMOinstrument, a special class of ships only, such as specially designed double hulledtankers.

2.11 The Committee agreed to deal with the spillage response aspect of the FOEI documentwith regard to heavy oil under this agenda item, noting that the carriage requirements of suchproducts would be discussed under agenda item 12.

2.12 The delegation of France expressed support for the document submitted by FOEI,especially on the spillage response aspect which addresses a similar type of problem recentlyencountered by his country in the case of the Erika incident.

2.13 Several delegations also expressed their support for the concerns raised by FOEI.Sweden proposed that the OPRC Working Group should expand its scope of activities to includepersistent and heavy oils while the Netherlands suggested that the OPRC Working Group shouldlook into the measures under the OPRC Convention with respect to heavy oil spill.

2.14 The Committee agreed to request the Chairman of the OPRC Working Group inconsultation with the members of the Group to review the terms of reference of the OPRCWorking Group to look into the response aspect of high density oil spill incidents. Training isalso needed on spillage response system for high density oil but it is important to understand thetechnology aspect first before conducting the training. The Chairman of the Committeesuggested to revisit the Oil Spill Research and Development Forum with the possibility to hold

- - MEPC 44/20

I:\MEPC\44\20.DOC

11

one in the near future and requested Members of the OPRC Working Group to look into thematter and in getting support from industries.

2.15 The Committee noted the report of an informal meeting of OPRC Working Groupmembers in order to address issues and concerns related to spill response arising from the sinkingof the tanker Erika (MEPC 44/WP.9). Having noted the views of the informal meeting, theCommittee requested Member Governments and organizations having had experience withresponses to spills of heavy fuel oil to make available relevant information on their experience tothe Organization. France was invited to submit, when available, a report on pollution response tothe Erika incident. These reports would be considered by the OPRC Working Group atMEPC 45 with a view to improving response capability to spills of high-density oils.

Catalogue of Computer Programs and Internet Information

2.16 The Committee approved the final version of the Catalogue as an annex toMEPC/Circ.367 with a view to dissemination to Member Governments and regional bodies. TheCommittee agreed to request the Secretariat to keep the catalogue updated to incorporate futuresubmissions from Member Governments.

European Commission - Impact Reference System

2.17 The Committee noted the information provided by the European Commission in thedocument MEPC 44/INF.3.

World Meteorological Organization - MARPOLSER 98

2.18 The Committee took note of the information provided by WMO in the documentMEPC 44/INF.4.

Oil spill conferences

2.19 The Committee noted the submission of ITOPF (MEPC 44/INF.21) related to a majorspill conference and exhibition featuring activities of the European spill response industry whichwill be held in Brighton, the United Kingdom on 28-30 November 2000 highlighting the recentexperience in Europe of international co-operation in combating major marine oil spills.

2.20 The Committee noted the information provided by Australia that a bi-annual internationalconference, SPILLCON 2000, jointly organized by Australian Institute of Petroleum andAustralian Maritime Safety Authority, will be held in Darwin, Australia on 15-17 August 2000.The Conference will feature pollution causes and prevention, preparedness, responsemanagement and case studies of recent spills in Australian and New Zealand waters.

2.21 The Chairman also noted the information provided by Singapore with copies of avideotape on the response effort by the Singaporean authorities on the oil spilled in the wake ofthe Evoikos-Orapin Global collision in Singapore waters in October 1997, which could beuseful for training purposes.

MEPC 44/20 - -

I:\MEPC\44\20.doc

12

3 HARMFUL EFFECTS OF THE USE OF ANTI-FOULING PAINTS FOR SHIPS

3.1 The Committee recalled that the Working Group on Anti-fouling systems, which met forthe first time at the forty-second session of MEPC, was instructed to prepare:

.1 a draft legal instrument;

.2 a time-table for the phase-out of harmful anti-fouling systems; and

.3 a draft Assembly resolution urging Member States to take necessary action toencourage application of less harmful alternatives to organotins acting as biocidesin anti-fouling systems pending entry into force of a mandatory instrument.

3.2 The Committee noted that the twenty-first session of the Assembly adopted Assemblyresolution A.895(21) on Anti-fouling Systems Used on Ships and, in particular, the Assemblyagreed that the legally binding instrument to be developed by the Committee should ensure aglobal prohibition of the application of organotin compounds which act as biocides inanti-fouling systems on ships by 1 January 2003, and a complete prohibition of the presence oforganotin compounds which act as biocides in anti-fouling systems on ships by 1 January 2008.

3.3 The Committee also noted that, following the recommendation received from theforty-third session of MEPC regarding the holding of a one-week diplomatic conference onanti-fouling systems, the twentieth extraordinary session of the Council in reviewing the workprogramme and budget for 2000-2001, agreed to hold the diplomatic conference in 2001 whichwas approved by the twenty-first session of the Assembly.

Draft structure/text of the legal instrument

3.4 The Committee, in considering the report of the Working Group (MEPC 44/3), recalledthe progress made by the Group in developing the draft legal instrument based on the frameworkand text contained in document MEPC 43/3/2 (United States) and, in particular recalled that:

.1 the Group had considered Articles 1, 2, 4 and 5 as well as Annex 2 and 3 of thedraft text;

.2 it would be more feasible to have a single list of restricted anti-fouling systems asopposed to having both a list of allowable and restricted systems, as developingand managing a comprehensive list would be time consuming and impracticable;

.3 it would be inappropriate to develop performance criteria for anti-fouling systemsthrough IMO as this issue is best handled as a function of market pressures;

.4 the draft instrument as it currently stands applies to vessels undertakinginternational voyages; and

.5 several members of the Group had expressed the view that applying a sealant overthe existing prohibited anti-fouling coating should satisfy conditions in the treatyand that there would be no need for existing coatings to be sandblasted off once acomplete prohibition had set in.

- - MEPC 44/20

I:\MEPC\44\20.DOC

13

3.5 The Committee also recalled that the Working Group had identified the following issueswhich still need to be considered:

.1 review of the preamble paragraphs, Article 3, Articles 6 to 21 and Annexes 1 to 4of the draft legal instrument;

.2 decide on the applicability of the legal instrument;

.3 decide on the interpretation of the complete ban on the presence of organotincompounds and the technical requirements necessary to give effect to such a ban;

.4 consider whether a definition of “fouling” should be included in the legalinstrument;

.5 consider administrative requirements appropriate for application on small vessels;and

.6 investigate the matter of responsibilities for enforcement, whether this should bedone by port States or flag States.

3.6 When considering the report of the Working Group at MEPC 43, several delegationsemphasized the importance of availability of alternative paints and suggested that the Committeediscuss whether mechanisms for evaluation of alternative anti-fouling systems should beincluded in provisions of the legal instruments.

3.7 However, several other delegations reminded the Committee of the decision of theprevious Committee meeting that the present draft text of the instrument is prepared on the basisof practical and realistic approach where only harmful substances are prohibited, and anyalternatives would be prohibited when their harmfulness is demonstrated. In the view of thesedelegations, this is the approach applied in the prohibition of Halons and CFCs under the SOLASConvention and MARPOL Annex VI. The inclusion of positive mechanisms which would defineharmless systems in the legal instrument may cause some practical problems in the future.

3.8 Having discussed the matter, the Committee instructed the Working Group, at thissession, to further consider the issue of alternative paints while preparing the draft text of theinstrument.

3.9 The Committee considered the document submitted by Japan (MEPC 44/3/1) whichsuggests:

.1 a modified framework for the draft legal instrument so that it consists of articleswhich cover contractual and legal provisions, and regulations which covertechnical requirements. This structure would enable future amendments to thetechnical provisions to be brought into effect by the tacit acceptance procedureand amendments to contractual and legal provisions to be brought into effect bythe explicit acceptance procedures; and

.2 modifications to the text on the application of the convention, inspections of shipsand detection of violations, communication of information, amendments, surveys,and certifications.

MEPC 44/20 - -

I:\MEPC\44\20.doc

14

3.10 Whilst some delegations supported the framework proposed by Japan in that it wouldallow future amendments to be brought into effect by the tacit acceptance procedure, caution wasexpressed by others.

3.11 Having discussed the proposals contained in MEPC 44/3/1, the Committee instructed theWorking Group to take into account the numerous suggestions by Japan as it proceeds withfurther developing the draft legal instrument contained in MEPC 44/3.

3.12 The Committee noted modifications to the text proposed by ISAF (MEPC 44/3/2),suggesting that the legal instrument should apply to all ships, however, the administrativemechanisms adopted should be proportional with the scale of harm which may be caused bydifferent kinds of ships.

3.13 The Committee also noted the possible conditions for entry into force of the legalinstrument submitted by the Netherlands (MEPC 44/3/3), as well as comments on theinterpretation of the complete prohibition, and proposed modifications to the text of the legalinstrument contained in this document, suggesting that:

.1 the legal instrument should apply to all ships;

.2 the technical content of the legal instrument should be brought into effectpreferably by the tacit acceptance procedure; and

.3 Annex 1, controls on anti-fouling systems, should be modified to ensure that thetext covers the scenarios of the legal instrument requiring all existing paints to bescraped off.

3.14 The Committee further noted the proposals submitted by CEFIC, (MEPC 43/3/4)regarding the interpretation of the complete prohibition and the suggested modifications to thetext of the legal instrument to take into account the following:

.1 the legal instrument should apply to all vessels entitled to fly the flag of a Partyand that countries should be recommended to prevent the use of restrictedsubstances on vessels which do not fly the flag of a Party; and

.2 non-governmental organizations should be allowed to participate, without votingright, in the expert group discussions held to evaluate amendments to the list ofprohibited/restricted anti-fouling systems.

3.15 In discussing the proposals contained in the above documents submitted by Japan, ISAF,the Netherlands and CEFIC, the Committee noted the following:

.1 whereas some delegations supported broadening the scope of the instrument toinclude small vessels, others also recognized that certification requirements shouldonly apply to vessels above a certain size. The Committee deferred furtherdiscussions on the scope of the instrument to the Working Group;

.2 discussions on the requirements for entry into force of the instrument should bedeferred to MEPC 45. However, to assist in this discussion, the Committeeaccepted the offer of the Netherlands to submit to the next session a document

- - MEPC 44/20

I:\MEPC\44\20.DOC

15

providing draft text of possible options with regard to conditions for entry intoforce of the instrument; and

.3 several delegations supported the view that old anti-fouling coatings should beremoved once a complete prohibition on the organotin compounds had takeneffect as this would assist in the future disposal of these compounds whenrecycling ships. Other delegations saw no environmental merit in requiring theexisting coatings to be removed as, by this time, the harmful effects of TBT willhave reduced considerably, suggested that the decision should be left with theshipowner. The Committee instructed the Working Group to decide on theinterpretation of the complete prohibition of organotin compounds.

Performance criteria

3.16 The Committee noted the information contained in the document submitted by Brazil(MEPC 44/3/5) expressing concern on the performance of alternative anti-fouling systems andsuggesting that Member Governments should inform the Organization of the results ofperformance tests carried out in their ships for new anti-fouling paints and that the information bedisseminated through the IMO homepage.

3.17 Some delegations saw the merits in disseminating performance test result through theIMO homepage as this would provide useful information to the shipping industry. The WorkingGroup was requested to look into this issue.

Timeframe available for finalizing the text for the draft legal instrument

3.18 Regarding the timeframe available for finalizing the draft legal instrument, the Committeenoted as follows:

.1 it is essential that the Working Group at this session considers all elementsinvolved in the development of draft text of the legal instrument, and prepare aclean text of draft instrument for submission to MEPC 45; and

.2 the Committee at its next session in October must consider the draft text of thelegal instrument on an article-by-article basis, including entry into forceconditions, so that draft text could be circulated by the end of this year forconsideration by the Conference which is tentatively scheduled from22 to 26 October 2001.

Instructions to the Working Group

3.19 Having discussed as above, the Committee instructed the Working Group to:

.1 introduce all the documents not considered at plenary;

.2 use the instrument contained in the report of the Working Group (MEPC 44/3) forfurther discussion with a view to developing the draft legal instrument and mergeproposals contained in the Japanese proposal (MEPC 44/3/1), where appropriate;

MEPC 44/20 - -

I:\MEPC\44\20.doc

16

.3 review the text of the draft legal instrument, taking into account the proposalsmade by Brazil, Japan, the Netherlands, CEFIC and ISAF and comments made inthe discussions at plenary;

.4 provide an oral report to the plenary's consideration outlining the major outcomesof the Group's work; and

.5 submit a full report with a draft text of legal instrument for the plenary'sconsideration at MEPC 45.

Oral report of the Working Group

3.20 The Chairman of the Working Group, Mr. Bryan Wood-Thomas (United States), inproviding an oral report of the Group's deliberations on Monday, 13 March 2000, informed theCommittee of the following:

.1 the Group reviewed all the articles and annexes of the draft instrument, with theexception of articles on amendments and entry-into-force which will be discussedat the Committee's next session;

.2 the text on surveys and certification as well as annex 3 on required elements of acomprehensive proposal were extracted from the document by Japan(MEPC 44/3/1) and introduced into the base document (MEPC 44/3);

.3 the Group considered which parts of the convention should be brought into forceby the explicit acceptance procedure, and which parts covering technicalrequirements should be brought into force through the tacit acceptance procedure.The Group agreed to consider this issue further at its next session;

.4 the Group recognized the MEPC as the appropriate body for Parties to determinewhether a proposal for amending controls on anti-fouling systems would justifythe establishment of an expert group. The Group agreed that the MEPC decisionto form an expert group should be based on an initial proposal, however, it alsoagreed that a Party could submit both the initial and comprehensive proposal atthe same time should it wish to do so;

.5 in considering the issue of whether the prohibition effective in 2008 shouldrequire complete removal (i.e., sandblasting of the hull), the Group felt that itshould avoid a requirement that would necessitate sandblasting all vessels,however, it was agreed that further consideration of this issue was necessarybefore arriving at a decision on this matter;

.6 in discussing the scope of the legal instrument, the United States, the RussianFederation and China expressed their continued support for the language thatwould limit the application of the Convention to ships that "engage ininternational voyages". However, an overwhelming majority of the Groupsupported that the instrument should apply to all ships entitled to fly the flag of aParty and the draft text was changed to reflect the majority view. The Group alsoreached agreement that the instrument should also apply to offshore platforms;

- - MEPC 44/20

I:\MEPC\44\20.DOC

17

.7 the Group discussed the role of the port State and flag State in implementing theinstrument; and,

.8 the draft report of the Group including the draft instrument had been reviewed byall members of the Group and it would be submitted to MEPC 45 where theCommittee would undertake an article-by-article review of the instrument.

3.21 The Committee noted the information provided by the Chairman of the Working Group,in particular that the Committee at its next session would be taking an article-by-article review ofthe draft legal instrument.

4 HARMFUL AQUATIC ORGANISMS IN BALLAST WATER

Introduction

4.1 In his introduction, the Chairman stated that IMO’s perception of the problem of harmfulaquatic organisms and pathogens in ballast water has changed since 1988 when the problem hadfirst been raised. In 1991 the Committee adopted the first guidelines for preventing theintroduction of unwanted organisms in ballast water and sediment discharges. In 1992, theproblem was recognized by the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development(UNCED) and in 1993, the Assembly adopted resolution A.774(18) based on the guidelines. Anupdated version was adopted in 1997 as resolution A.868(20). The problem of harmful aquaticorganisms and pathogens in ballast water is now recognized as a major issue at IMO and thediscussion is firmly directed towards finding solutions to reduce the extent of the problem.

4.2 The Chairman recalled that at its last session, the Committee agreed that preparation ofthe instrument was not sufficiently advanced to propose to the Council the holding of adiplomatic conference during the biennium 2000-2001. The Council at its twentiethextraordinary session, in reviewing the work programme and budget for the biennium 2000-2001,endorsed the Committee’s view. The Council noted that the Committee would continue to workon this issue as a high priority item with a view to the preparation of a legal instrument foradoption at a diplomatic conference as early as possible after the next biennium.

4.3 The Committee was further reminded that the postponement of a diplomatic conferenceuntil after 2001 should not lead to any kind of complacency. The issue of harmful aquaticorganisms and pathogens in ballast water was still a high priority item and the Committee and theWorking Group do not have much time available to formulate the new instrument.

4.4 The Committee further recalled the discussion at its forty-third session regarding safetyconcerns that alternative options to ballast water exchange at sea for ballast watertreatment/management should be addressed as a matter of priority. It noted the need fordevelopment of means for the Organization to approve alternative options, and a methodologywhich would help the master of a ship to judge whether he or she met the ballast watermanagement requirements of a port State prior to arrival.

4.5 The Committee recalled that, whilst the Working Group reached agreement on severalkey issues, the following issues remained open for further consideration:

.1 the preferred approach to application - whether the global approach, thedesignation of ballast water management areas, or other approaches;

MEPC 44/20 - -

I:\MEPC\44\20.doc

18

.2 development of a range of standards, e.g. for evaluation and acceptance of newballast water management and control options;

.3 development of a regionalization concept; and

.4 the extent of application of the provisions to some categories of vessels, such asfishing vessels, pleasure boats, etc.

4.6 The Committee further recalled that MEPC 43 agreed at that stage to work towards anew instrument as a free-standing convention as a basis for further consideration, bearing in mindthat the final decision regarding the status of the new instrument has not been finally agreed.

Activities during the intersessional period

4.7 The Committee also noted that a Regional Scientific Workshop on Ballast WaterManagement and Control was held in the Black Sea from 14 to 17 September 1999(MEPC 44/INF.2), funded by IMO’s Technical Co-operation Fund and the United NationsDevelopment Programme. The Workshop was arranged in close co-operation with the ShippingSafety Inspectorate of Ukraine. The Committee expressed its appreciation to the Government ofUkraine and the UNDP for their contributions in organizing and financing this Workshop.

4.8 The Committee was informed of the status of GEF/UNDP/IMO project on Removal ofBarriers to the Effective Implementation of Ballast Water Management and Control Measures inDeveloping Countries (MEPC 44/INF.23). The project, which is designed to assist developingcountries in preparing their own capacity and human resources to deal with potential problemsfrom ship’s ballast water, will co-operate with the Governments of Brazil, China, India, Iran,South Africa and Ukraine with the following aims:

.1 the establishment of an ongoing ballast water capacity at the IMO;

.2 the creation of effective ballast water management methodologies at the regionallevel and based on IMO Guidelines; and

.3 an effective communication system to rapidly communicate ballast watertreatment methodologies and other information related to ballast watermanagement.

Prevention of introduction of harmful organisms in the Rio Plate delta

4.9 Argentina introduced its two papers (MEPC 44/4/2 and MEPC 44/INF.13) whichdescribed action taken in respect of an outbreak of mollusc species in the River Plate region ofArgentina. It advised that ships would be required to have a ballast water management plan onboard when visiting the region and take necessary action to minimize further introductions to thearea.

4.10 Australia, in its paper MEPC 44/INF.19, outlined recent developments regarding theimplementation of mandatory provisions for ballast water arrangements for international tradingvessels which will take effect from mid-2001 and which are based on Assemblyresolution A.868(20). Australia reaffirmed its ongoing commitment to work within the IMO. Itadvised the Committee that the proposed Australian mandatory provisions would, to the extentpracticable, be complementary with the directions being taken within IMO.

- - MEPC 44/20

I:\MEPC\44\20.DOC

19

Report of the Working Group at MEPC 43

4.11 The Committee approved, in general, the report of the Working Group at MEPC 43(MEPC 44/4) as a basis for further discussion, and agreed that the Working Group shouldcontinue the development of a legal instrument based on the draft included in documentMEPC 44/4, taking into account the discussion on key issues, as well as other points raised inplenary.

Introduction of documents relating to key issues

4.12 The Committee considered the following documents:

.1 document MEPC 44/4/1 submitted by the United States which introduced itsviews regarding principles discussed by the Ballast Water Working Group duringMEPC 43;

.2 document MEPC 44/4/3 submitted by Japan which introduced its regionalconcept. Japan expressed its preference for a regional approach to exempt all shortvoyages, e.g. between Japan and Korea. Japan was not in favour of the view thatall ships should carry out ballast water management options or a requirementwhich would require ships to have Ballast Water Management Plans on board, ifthose ships were not involved in international trade;

.3 document MEPC 44/4/4 submitted by Brazil which called for the finalization of aBallast Water Management Code, and expressed the need for sampling techniquesthat provided comparable results;

.4 document MEPC 44/4/5 submitted by Norway which explained the concept ofBallast Water Management Areas and compared this concept with the globalapproach. The document concluded that for the foreseeable future, the globalapproach will have serious negative side effects, in particular the increased safetyrisks for ships. In view of this, the document recommended the adoption of theconcept of Ballast Water Management Areas which will provide a flexible regimethat can be adopted by IMO in the future in accordance with new knowledge andtechnical development; and

.5 document MEPC 44/4/6 submitted by Greece which explained that thedevelopment of alternative techniques to ballast water exchange is necessary. Itexpressed the view that there is a strong need for developing performance criteriaso that alternative techniques could be evaluated in an objective manner.

Application provisions and area concepts

4.13 The Committee discussed the application provisions based on documents submitted bythe United States (MEPC 44/4/1), Japan (MEPC 44/4/3) and Norway (MEPC 44/4/5).

4.14 After discussion on the above basic issues, the Chairman stated that, in his view, all shipsabove a certain tonnage on international voyages should have a Ballast Water Management Plan.There were four concept areas where there may be varying requirements for ballast watermanagement. These were as follows:

MEPC 44/20 - -

I:\MEPC\44\20.doc

20

.1 an area where no loading of ballast water is permitted (e.g., algal blooms,temporary or emergency areas);

.2 an area where no ballast water management action is required (an explicit area,such as a semi-enclosed sea area);

.3 an area where all ships are required to take some ballast water management action(ranging from simply communicating information about the ships ballast water toundertaking full ballast water treatment); and

.4 an area where ballast water management action is required by ships on sometrades (e.g. vessels coming from distant international voyages).

4.15 The Committee noted that, regarding the global approach proposed by the United States(MEPC 44/4/1), except for ships engaged solely in domestic trade and for sovereign immunityvessels, the instrument would apply to all ships that carry ballast water and Parties would haveenforcement obligations for violations of the requirements with respect to vessels flying their flagor entering their ports.

4.16 Several delegations supported the Japanese and Norwegian proposals to apply a regionalapproach (MEPC 44/4/3 and MEPC 44/4/5), because the need for ballast water managementand control was of interest to a coastal State, and each area has different physical characteristics(weather condition, ocean condition, etc.). International Ballast Water Management Areas(BWMA) should be designated after the discussion within IMO and only ships operating inBallast Water Management Areas should be regulated.

4.17 In his summary of the discussions, the Chairman pointed out that, in his view, the threeproposals were complementary to each other. The Japanese proposal was indeed a variation ofthe United States' proposal. All ships trading into or out of a Ballast Water Management Areashall follow legally binding provisions.

4.18 The Chairman, therefore, proposed that, the Working Group should be instructed toformulate a compromise, e.g. some kind of global arrangement with some regional components(Ballast Water Management Areas), taking into account the four concepts described inparagraph 4.14 above.

Environmental performance standards

4.19 Greece proposed the development of performance standards in order to evaluatealternative Ballast Water Management options (MEPC 44/4/6).

4.20 It was pointed out that it was necessary to develop an approval mechanism for alternativeBallast Water Management Techniques. The effectiveness of any new techniques should be ableto be compared with ballast water exchange at sea methods. Ballast water management controland management options need also to be evaluated and standardized for example by a panel ofexperts and if appropriate be approved by the Committee for use on board ships.

4.21 The Chairman stated, in his summary of the discussions, that, regarding the introductionof new techniques, a systematic approach, e.g., through an IMO expert group, would bedesirable, in order to evaluate the techniques when they were proposed. The Committeeinstructed the Working Group to look further into the matter of how to evaluate and approve

- - MEPC 44/20

I:\MEPC\44\20.DOC

21

alternative techniques. This should include consideration of an approval system for alternatives.The need to develop appropriate sampling techniques for organisms in ballast water was includedin the instructions to the Working Group.

Other matters raised in documents submitted to this session

4.22 The Committee noted that other matters raised in documents submitted by MemberGovernments to this session, included the following:

.1 Japan proposed to use the mechanism of “Inspection and Survey” and “Issue ofCertificates” under the SOLAS and Load Lines Conventions as a control meansfor ballast water management and control techniques (MEPC 44/4/3);

.2 Brazil proposed to introduce the concept of Ballast Water Management Code, andcalled for a decision regarding alternative methods to Ballast Water Exchange(MEPC 44/4/4);

.3 The United States discussed several aspects other than application, e.g. the ballastwater management plan; the need for a primary ballast water managementmethod, supplementary management practices where possible, ballast waterrecord book, and Ballast Water Management Areas (MEPC 44/4/1); and

.4 Japan expressed the need for a Ballast Water Management Plan, as well as amechanism for survey and inspection and issuance of certificate (MEPC 44/4/5).

4.23 The Committee requested the Working Group to consider the above issues and otheroutstanding questions.

Information papers

4.24 The Committee agreed that information papers MEPC 44/INF.9 (Japan) andMEPC 44/INF.20 (Australia) were important for the discussions and should be introduced in theWorking Group.

Instructions to the Working Group

4.25 In light of the above discussions, the Committee instructed the Working Group to:

.1 give priority to key issues of application of the arrangements and development ofan IMO approval process for alternative ballast water treatment techniques, andconsider all relevant documents, especially MEPC 44/4/1 (United States),MEPC 44/4/3 (Japan) and MEPC 44/4/5 (Norway) as well as the Chairman’s fourconcept areas (see paragraph 4.14 above);

.2 consider the development of environmental standards;

.3 consider the mechanism for assessment of standards and technologies, includingpossible use of a group of experts;

.4 consider sampling methods;

MEPC 44/20 - -

I:\MEPC\44\20.doc

22

.5 consider the key issues detailed in the report of the Working Group (MEPC 44/4,paragraph 2.21); and

.6 consider other papers not introduced in plenary, including MEPC 44/16 by FOEIon potential environmental effects of ballast water discharges in relation toscrapping of ships.

4.26 The Working Group was also requested, if time permits, to continue further developmentof the draft instrument using the framework contained in the report of the Working Group(MEPC 44/4) and present an oral report to plenary. The Committee, however, advised theWorking Group to refrain from any drafting of legal text for the Convention until the key issuesof principle were addressed.

Oral report of the Working Group

4.27 The Chairman of the Working Group, Mr. Denis Paterson (Australia), provided an oralreport on Monday, 13 March 2000, reflecting the status of work carried out by the Group duringthis session. Paragraphs 4.28 to 4.42 below summarize his oral statement.

4.28 The Working Group gave priority to the key threshold questions of "Application of theArrangements". In this regard, a number of documents and proposals were considered as well asthe suggestion that the matter be developed on the basis of the four concept areas.

4.29 The Working Group realized that this threshold question had been a stumbling block andthat until it is resolved, no real progress could be made towards a draft Convention. It wastherefore this subject that dominated the time and effort of the Working Group at this session.

4.30 The Chairman of the Working Group informed the Committee that a two-tier approachhad been developed as a practical and scientifically justifiable approach to this complex subject.The two tiers require, firstly, certain baseline precautionary requirements which will apply to allships that carry ballast water on international voyages. Secondly, when these ships enter certaindefined areas, they may be subject to further controls regarding the loading and/or discharge ofballast water. These arrangements would provide for bilateral and regional agreements thuspermitting the introduction of practical, harmonised arrangements across jurisdictions.

4.31 The Chairman of the Working Group explained that in the first tier of this approach, shipscovered by the Convention would be required to meet the baseline requirements for ballast watermanagement at all times and all over the world with possible exceptions. The majority of theWorking Group agreed that these baseline requirements would include a requirement for aBallast Water Management Plan, a requirement for a Ballast Water Management Record Bookand a requirement for some ability to manage sediments.

4.32 The Working Group also agreed that, for practical and safety reasons, new ships might besubject to different baseline requirements from those for existing ships. In this connection, theWorking Group noted that ballast water and sediment management and control options are beingactively considered in the design of new ships. Recognizing the need for replacement of manyships of the world’s tanker fleet, the Working Group recommended that consideration be given atMEPC 45 to the development of a joint MEPC/MSC circular on this matter.

4.33 While the Working Group considered whether new and existing ships should be subjectto a primary ballast water management option, the general view was that technology was not

- - MEPC 44/20

I:\MEPC\44\20.DOC

23

sufficiently advanced at this time to require existing ships to exercise a primary ballast watermanagement option, such as ballast water exchange, as part of the baseline requirements.However, some members of the Working Group disagreed on this point.

4.34 Regarding the second tier, each country would have the right to designate areas in watersunder its jurisdiction either as ballast water discharge control areas or as ballast water loadingcontrol areas. Countries would designate these areas in accordance with criteria to be establishedby IMO, and in accordance with international law. In those designated areas, countries couldrequire more measures additional to those set out in the baseline requirements of tier one. TheWorking Group agreed in principle that a country, after designating such areas, should informIMO for further action. Any additional requirements would also reflect standards and criteriaapproved by IMO.

4.35 The Chairman of the Working Group then drew attention to the fact that there were twoparticularly important aspects of this approach: firstly, the action required of vessels will beconsistent and minimized because it will be directly related to the circumstances of the specificmarine environment in which they are taking up or discharging ballast water; secondly, itprovides for both flexibility and technological innovation.

4.36 The Chairman of the Working Group advised that, based on the discussions on thistwo-tiered approach to application, a drafting group had undertaken revision of the framework ofthe draft convention annexed to document MEPC 44/4, so as to incorporate this new concept intothe framework. The revised framework will be annexed to the report of this session of theWorking Group which will be finalized and distributed immediately after this session.

4.37 The Chairman of the Working Group then drew particular attention of the Committee tothe fact that this new approach warranted serious consideration by all delegations. Its agreementwould allow the Working Group to undertake concerted work at the next session on filling in theframework thus eventually leading to a completed draft Convention.

4.38 The Committee was further informed that the Working Group discussed several other keyissues. The Committee was advised that very good headway had been made on issues regardingstandards and criteria.

4.39 The Working Group agreed on principles and approaches of the following key issues:

.1 criteria for good management practices in both the uptake and discharge of ballastwater;

.2 criteria for good management practices to minimize risk and to manage sediments;

.3 standards and criteria for technical evaluation of ballast water managementoptions, and which group of experts might be best placed to perform this task;

.4 possible efficiency benchmark which new treatment technologies would have tomeet. This benchmark would provide for the acceptance of the three widelyaccepted ballast discharge options – the sequential, the flow-through and thedilution methods. This benchmark would also allow for those involved in thedevelopment of new and promising technologies to assess their systems againstthe benchmark; and

MEPC 44/20 - -

I:\MEPC\44\20.doc

24

.5 verification and sampling methodologies.

4.40 Other key issues on which the Working Group reached agreement in principle related toeach of the following:

.1 the responsibilities of port, flag and coastal States and the Organization; and

.2 the contents of the ballast water management plan and the ballast water recordbook – both of which are under active consideration and review by ICS andINTERTANKO.

4.41 The Committee was advised that the Working Group considered a programme and a drafttimetable which it predicted would enable the completion of a draft convention for a diplomaticconference in conjunction with MEPC 48 in 2002. The Chairman of the Working Groupemphasized that this assumes that this matter continues to be given high priority by MEPC with aworking group at each session. The milestones which have to be met at each MEPC meeting inorder to achieve this outcome are detailed in the suggested timetable which will form part of theWorking Group report.

4.42 The Chairman of the Working Group noted the very good progress made at this meetingand that overcoming many of the stumbling blocks facilitated the delivery in time of the draftconvention.

5 INADEQUACY OF RECEPTION FACILITIES

5.1 The Committee recalled that, at MEPC 43, it was recognized that the draft Guidelines forensuring the adequacy of port reception facilities needed further revision before publication. Itdecided, therefore, that the Correspondence Group on Reception Facilities should continue itswork and submit a revised draft of the Guidelines together with the management/auditingstrategy to MEPC 44 for consideration.

5.2 The Committee considered the report of the Correspondence Group submitted to thissession by the United Kingdom on the subject ( MEPC 44/5 and MEPC 44/5/1 ).

5.3 One delegation raised the question as to whom the Guidelines were addressed. It wassuggested that the present text of the guidelines provides the impression that there is a shift ofemphasis from the obligations of Government under MARPOL 73/78 to obligations of the ports.It was further pointed out that the paragraph on the role of port State should be redrafted in a waythat responsibilities of port State are well taken into account.

5.4 The Committee also noted a suggestion that the relationship between the manual on portreception facilities and the Guidelines should be clarified.

5.5 FOEI, while recognizing the usefulness of the Guidelines, pointed out that, for the sake ofefficiency, they should also provide for mandatory discharge of waste, mandatory requirementsfor the provision of port reception facilities and mandatory requirements for waste managementplans for future consideration by the Committee.

- - MEPC 44/20

I:\MEPC\44\20.DOC

25

5.6 The Chairman, in summing up, instructed the Working Group to:

.1 first review their terms of reference with a view to ensuring that all tasksdescribed therein have been carried out. In so doing, determine whether thegeographical dimension of “adequacy” is covered, and advise the Committee onhow geographic adequacy on a national/regional level can be determined;

.2 give further consideration to Chapter 9 “Role of port State” and suggest the meansby which port States can ensure their ports’ compliance with MARPOL 73/78;e.g. establishment of contractual arrangements or agreements with theGovernment for port waste management plans;

.3 consider including in the Guidelines a mechanism for member Governments toconduct an audit of the waste reception facilities in their ports;

.4 also consider the appropriateness of developing an MEPC resolution urgingmember States to conduct an audit of waste reception facilities in their ports andadvise IMO of the outcome of such an audit, including any port receptionfacilities’ inadequacies as well as any technical co-operation assistance needed toaddress those inadequacies; and

.5 commence its work as soon as possible, taking into account the comments made atplenary, and provide a written report to plenary for its consideration with:

.1 the final Guidelines;

.2 the final text of the waste assessment strategy; and

.3 draft cover note as a draft MEPC resolution.

Report of the Working Group

5.7 The Chairman of the Working Group, Mr John Wren (United Kingdom), in presenting thereport of the Working Group (MEPC 44/WP.8), informed the Committee of the following:

.1 the Group, having considered its terms of reference, thoroughly reviewed both thetext and the substance of the draft Guidelines, taking account of the guidancegiven by the Plenary, and prepared a revised text together with a resolution foradoption by the Committee;

.2 the Group has agreed that the Guidelines should encourage the principle ofadvance notification of ships’ intentions to deliver wastes to shore and supportsthe mechanism for ports or States to assess the provision of port waste receptionfacilities;

.3 with regard to planning of adequate facilities within a region, the Group stressedthat the Guidelines should not be used as a means to justify States Parties toMARPOL 73/78 avoiding their treaty obligations by permitting ports within theirjurisdiction to rely on the provision of adequate facilities in other ports;

MEPC 44/20 - -

I:\MEPC\44\20.doc

26

.4 the Guidelines now also include an assessment methodology offered as a guideeither for formal assessment by a State Administration or an independentconsultant or alternatively as a means of self assessment by a port administrationto help improve its provisions for receipt of ships’ wastes. The Group also agreedthat MEPC/Circ.349 “Revised consolidated format for reporting allegedinadequacy of port reception facilities” should be annexed to the Guidelines;

.5 the Working Group also recommends that the Guidelines should include suitablecross references to other related guidance available through the Organization;

.6 the Group recognized that further revisions of the Guidelines will be needed toreflect changes in policies or other IMO instruments; and

.7 in view of the urgent and important need for the fullest use of the Guidelines bythe biggest number possible, the Group recommended their urgent publication andtheir availability on the IMO website. In this respect, the Group expressed itsappreciation to INTERTANKO for their generous offer in providing a fund tocover the printing cost.

5.8 The Committee approved the report of the Working Group (MEPC 44/WP.8) and adoptedthe Guidelines for ensuring the adequacy of port waste reception facilities under cover ofresolution MEPC.83(44) as contained in annex 2.

6 CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO MANDATORYINSTRUMENTS

6.1 Under this agenda item, the Committee considered the proposed amendments to theAppendix to Annex III of MARPOL 73/78, which were circulated by the Secretary-General ofthe Organization in accordance with article 16(2)(a) of MARPOL 73/78 under cover of Circularletter No.2148 of 31 August 1999.

Amendments to the Appendix to Annex III of MARPOL 73/78

6.2 The Committee considered the proposed amendments to the Appendix to Annex III ofMARPOL 73/78 (MEPC 44/6).

6.3 After discussion, the Committee agreed, in principle, with the proposed amendments andreferred them to the Drafting Group for editorial corrections, if any, before formal adoption.

6.4 The Committee also considered the draft MEPC resolution on adoption of the proposedamendments to the Appendix to Annex III of MARPOL 73/78 (MEPC 44/6).

6.5 During the discussion on the above draft MEPC resolution, the Committee noted thatamendment 30 to the IMDG Code, which had already incorporated amendments correspondingto the proposed deletion of tainting, would take effect on 1 January 2002.

6.6 The Committee, recognizing the need to harmonize the date of entry into force of theamendments to Annex III of MARPOL with the date of taking effect of amendment 30 to theIMDG Code, agreed to change the dates in the square brackets in operative paragraphs 2 and 3 ofthe draft MEPC resolution to 1 July 2001 and 1 January 2002, respectively.

- - MEPC 44/20

I:\MEPC\44\20.DOC

27

Adoption of the amendments (2000 amendments)

6.7 Having received a report of the Drafting Group (MEPC 44/WP.7), the Committeeadopted the amendments to the Appendix to Annex III of MARPOL 73/78 under cover ofresolution MEPC.84(44) as contained in annex 3.

7 IDENTIFICATION AND PROTECTION OF SPECIAL AREAS ANDPARTICULARLY SENSITIVE SEA AREAS

BACKGROUND

7.1 The Committee recalled that, in 1991, Guidelines for the designation of PSSAs weredeveloped as resolution A.720(17). Seven years later, MEPC 41 instructed the CorrespondenceGroup on this subject to review the resolution, taking into account a proposal by the UnitedStates (MEPC 41/6) to develop an appendix which would amplify and clarify paragraph 3.2 ofthe Guidelines entitled Procedures for the identification of a particularly sensitive sea areas.

7.2 The Committee recalled that the Correspondence Group made several recommendationsto MEPC 42 for revising the Guidelines and the Committee agreed to discuss the matter further atMEPC 43.

7.3 The Committee recalled that, during the discussions at its forty-third session, it wasagreed, inter-alia, that:

.1 the term demonstrated need, which some delegations considered to beinappropriate in the context of a precautionary approach, should be deleted;

.2 once IMO has agreed that an area satisfies the conditions for identification as aPSSA, such an area may be designated as a pre-PSSA until it has been formallyapproved along with its Associated Protective Measures. However, suchpre-PSSAs should not be marked on navigational charts; and

.3 a shortened version of the information on the Sabana-Camagüey PSSA should beappended in the revised guidelines.

7.4 Furthermore, the Committee recalled that, during MEPC 43, a drafting group wasinstructed to prepare draft procedures for the identification of PSSAs to supplementresolution A.720(17), based on the comments and decisions made during plenary.

7.5 Based on the report of this drafting group, the Committee approved a draft Assemblyresolution (MEPC 43/21, annex 6) which included approved new procedures for theIdentification of Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas along with information on theSabana-Camagüey PSSA and other editorial changes.

7.6 The Committee noted that the twenty-first session of the Assembly had noted that theNAV Sub-Committee at its forty-fifth session had concluded that there were no discrepancieswith respect to the General Provisions on Ships’ Routeing and, therefore, adopted the resolution,as A.885(21) with minor editorial modifications.

MEPC 44/20 - -

I:\MEPC\44\20.doc

28

ISSUES ADDRESSED

7.7 The Committee addressed the following issues:

.1 terms of reference for the Correspondence Group (MEPC 44/7/2);

.2 general topics of the review of the PSSA Guidelines;

.3 a specific proposal to declare the Malpelo Island as a PSSA (MEPC 44/7); and

.4 specific information on an Australian project (MEPC 44/INF.8).

Terms of Reference for the Correspondence Group

7.8 The Committee approved the draft terms of reference, with some minor addition as shownat paragraphs 7.13 and 7.18, for the Correspondence Group (MEPC 44/7/2) proposed byAustralia, acting as lead country of the Group as shown in annex 14.

Review of the PSSA Guidelines

7.9 The Committee recalled that, at MEPC 43, IUCN had submitted document MEPC 43/6/3,on the revision of the Guidelines, which it withdrew so that a revised version could be submittedto MEPC 44 which was done under cover of MEPC 44/7/1. The Committee noted that theproposal separated the revised Guidelines for the Designation of Special Areas and theIdentification of Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas into two separate documents. Furthermore, theCommittee noted that the proposal made a number of changes to the format and text with theintention of making it simpler and more user-friendly.

7.10 IUCN introduced its document MEPC 44/7/1, which included:

.1 a proposal for new Guidelines for the Designation of Special Areas underMARPOL 73/78;

.2 a proposal for new Guidelines for the Designation of Particularly Sensitive SeaAreas; and

.3 an explanation of the provenance of the provisions of the two proposals which arealmost identical to those in the original Guidelines adopted underresolution A.720(17).

7.11 The Committee welcomed the proposal of IUCN as a useful part of the revision of theGuidelines on the identification and designation of Special Areas and PSSAs.

7.12 However, the Committee agreed with the concerns expressed by one delegation thatparagraph 5.16 of the proposed Guidelines does not include protective measures based on shipsrouting and reporting arrangements which are addressed by specific IMO resolutions.

7.13 In addition the Committee agreed to the proposal that a new paragraph (3bis), shownbelow, should be added to the Terms of Reference the Correspondence Group (MEPC 44/7/2,annex).

- - MEPC 44/20

I:\MEPC\44\20.DOC

29

3bis In relation to PSSAs, consider which protective measures might be appropriatefor implementation and prepare a short justification, based on an illustrative example forthe inclusion of each measure within an indicative list.

7.14 The Committee also agreed to the proposal that IHO should be invited to report, at anappropriate time, on the progress being made with regard to devising the necessary symbologyfor identifying PSSAs and their associated protective measures on charts, as recommended insection 8 of the annex to the IUCN document. However, one delegation expressed its concernabout the proliferation of information being proposed for inclusion on navigational charts andsuggested that such information may be more appropriately added to the Sailing Directions.

7.15 WWF introduced its document, MEPC 44/7/3, which responded to issues raised inMEPC 43/6/2 by the Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea of the United NationsOffice of Legal Affairs.

7.16 Whilst maintaining that the criteria for Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas are fullyconsistent with UNCLOS, WWF made proposals for improving and updating the criteria to beconsistent with international trends and priorities identified in other conventions. In making thisproposal, WWF, made the following four points:

.1 the PSSA concept can be used to implement the general obligation of all States toprotect and preserve the marine environment (article 197) as well as more specificprovisions cited in articles 194.5, 196.1, 77, 239, 204.2, 303 and 240;

.2 the criteria for special areas under article 211.6 must be read broadly to includesustainable development as well as protection of associated ecosystems. Aselaborated in Chapter 17 of Agenda 21 of UNCED, this should take a morecomprehensive and integrated approach to management involving all sectors ofsociety;

.3 with regard to article 303 of UNCLOS, which recognizes a fundamental duty ofStates to protect objects of an archaeological and historical nature, IMO couldextend its purview to include this; and

.4 article 197 of UNCLOS calls for States to co-operate to develop additional rulesfor protecting the marine environment which is in line with the PSSA concept.

7.17 Furthermore, WWF proposed that, in order to ensure consistency with other internationalconventions such as the World Heritage Convention, the Convention on Biological Diversity andthe initiative to establish a global representative system of marine protected areas, the Committeeshould include the following two new categories in the criteria for identifying PSSAs:

.1 biogeographic criteria; and

.2 international, regional or national significance.

7.18 Having considered this proposal the Committee instructed the Correspondence Group totake this document into account when preparing a draft revised version of resolution A.720(17).

MEPC 44/20 - -

I:\MEPC\44\20.doc

30

Proposal to make the Malpelo Island a PSSA

7.19 In introducing its document, MEPC 44/7, which proposed that the Malpelo Island shouldbe designated as a PSSA, Colombia provided the following information in addressing the eightcriteria described in paragraph 3.3.5 of resolution A.720(17):

.1 the position and morphological, geological and ecological characteristics makeMalpelo Island a unique and special enclave of Colombian territory;

.2 a clear description of the area in terms of geographical location, though no chartwas provided with this submission;

.3 a detailed description of the diverse flora and fauna of the area that make it uniqueand rare resulting in it being the subject of scientific research;

.4 as description of the diversity, productivity, integrity and inter-dependency ofsuch flora and fauna in the region;

.5 an indication that this area, as part of the Colombian reefs, have shown alarmingsigns of deterioration over the last 30 years;

.6 the deleterious impact that illegal fishing has had in this area;

.7 an indication of the national legislative measures that have been taken to protectthis area; and

.8 an quantification of the number of national and international ship movements inthe area.

7.20 However, the Committee noted that, whilst the Colombian proposal provided a detaileddescription of the area and which, it was agreed, met the ecological criteria, described inparagraph 3.3.5 of resolution A.720(17), for being designated as a PSSA, some of theinformation required in resolution A.885(21) was missing, as shown below with the associatedparagraph number in resolution A.885(21):

.1 a chart showing the area in question (3.2.2.1);

.2 an indication of the extent of risk that international maritime activities pose(3.2.2.3);

.3 types of cargo carried by international traffic (3.2.2.3 (a));

.4 evidence of damage caused by such traffic (3.2.2.3 (a));

.5 any history of groundings, collisions or spills, or a reference to the fact that therehave not been any (3.2.2.3 (a));

.6 an indication of the potential harm associated with such activities;

.7 a proposal for the Associated Protective Measures available through IMO and anindication of how such measures will provide the protection needed (3.2.3); and

- - MEPC 44/20

I:\MEPC\44\20.DOC

31

.8 an indication of the possible impact of any proposed measures on the safety andefficiency of navigation, taking into account the area of the ocean in which theproposed measures are to be implemented (3.2.3.4).

7.21 As a result, the Committee requested Colombia to provide the additional information to afuture session for further consideration.

Information regarding the application of PSSA criteria by Australia

7.22 The Committee noted the information contained in MEPC 44/INF.8 on an Australianproject on how it used the IMO criteria for identifying PSSAs, together with those of the IUCN,as a first step in the process of identifying Australian marine areas that qualify for status as aMarine Environment High Risk Area (MEHRA).

8 REPORTS OF SUB-COMMITTEES

OUTCOME OF NAV 45

8.1 The Committee noted that the Sub-Committee on Safety of Navigation held its forty-fifthsession (NAV 45) from 20 to 24 September 1999 and its report was circulated under the symbolNAV 45/14.

Establishment of an area to be avoided off the north coast of Cuba

8.2 The Committee recalled that, at MEPC 42, it requested the NAV Sub-Committee toconsider the proposed area to be avoided off the north coast of Cuba (MEPC 42/10/3) taking intoaccount the status of the Archipelago of Sabana-Camagüey as a PSSA and relevant informationsubmitted to the MEPC on the sea area concerned (MEPC 40/7 and Add.1). MEPC 42 hadfurther agreed that, since the proposed area to be avoided was for protection of the marineenvironment, the outcome of the discussion at NAV 45 on the matter should be reported back tothe Committee before a final decision was taken.

8.3 The Committee noted that NAV 45 considered a proposal by Cuba (NAV 45/3/6) callingfor the establishment of an “Area to be avoided” at the approaches to the ports of Matanzas andCordenas and agreed to approve the proposed “Area to be avoided” (NAV 45/14, paragraph 3.21and annex 3).

8.4 The Committee endorsed the outcome of NAV 45 on the matter and requested theSecretariat to convey the endorsement of the Committee to MSC 72 for final adoption in Maythis year.

URGENT MATTERS ARISING FROM FSI 8

8.5 The Committee noted that the Sub-Committee on Flag State Implementation held itseighth session (FSI 8) from 24 to 28 January 2000, and its report was circulated under the symbolFSI 8/19. Although FSI 8 was held only 5 weeks before MEPC 44, in accordance with theGuidelines on the organization and method of work of the Committees (MSC/Circ.931 andMEPC/Circ.366), the urgent matters are reported to this session of the Committee(MEPC 44/8/1). A full report of FSI 8 will be submitted to MEPC 45.

MEPC 44/20 - -

I:\MEPC\44\20.doc

32

Self-Assessment of Flag State Performance

8.6 With regard to the issue of Self-Assessment of Flag State Performance, the Committeenoted that FSI 8, after intensive discussion, prepared a draft MSC/MEPC circular on the criteriaand performance indicators for the self-assessment of flag State performance (MEPC 44/8/1,annex) and invited MEPC 44 and MSC 72 to approve the joint circular.

8.7 After consideration, the Committee agreed to approve the draft MSC/MEPC circular onSelf-assessment of flag State performance: Criteria and performance indicators and requested theSecretariat to disseminate it to Member Governments as a guide for self-assessment of theirperformance after approval also by MSC 72. In this connection, the delegation of Cyprus statedthat they will submit their comments on the matter as a document for MSC 72.

8.8 With regard to the question of how the self-assessment form database to be maintained bythe Secretariat should be used, the Committee, being informed that there will be writtensubmissions to MSC 72 in May, decided to consider the matter at MEPC 45 in October when theoutcome of MSC 72 is available.

The issue of illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing

8.9 With regard to the issue of illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing, theCommittee noted that FSI 8 considered two submissions from Member States (FSI 8/6 andFSI 8/INF.6) and one document from FAO (FSI 8/INF.8) in relation to the development ofmeasures to ensure that fishing vessels meet international rules and standards and thedevelopment of PSC guidelines with specific reference to fishing vessels. The submissionsreferred to relevant requests by the UN General Assembly and the UN Commission onSustainable Development (CSD) to IMO for assistance.

8.10 The Committee noted the various views expressed at FSI 8 as follows:

.1 the proposal for the joint IMO/FAO ad hoc working group should be supportedand terms of reference for such a group should be developed by the Committees;

.2 the fisheries management and conservation aspects of IUU fishing themselvesmight be outside IMO’s mandate, however, safety and pollution preventionmatters relating to or surrounding the matter should be handled by IMO;

.3 although the 1993 Torremolinos Protocol has not yet entered into force, there are anumber of regulations in force which are applicable to fishing vessels, e.g.SOLAS chapter V, MARPOL Annexes I and V, the Collision Regulations etc.,aspects of these regulations referring to fishing vessels should be discussed by theSub-Committee;

.4 the fisheries management and conservation aspects of IUU fishing should not bedealt with through IMO’s Port State Control Procedures;

.5 FAO’s leadership is essential as prime mover to make progress on the matter andfurther information should be provided by FAO on statistics and data of fishingvessels in general and, in particular, of fishing vessels engaged in IUU fishing;

- - MEPC 44/20

I:\MEPC\44\20.DOC

33

.6 it was not within the mandate of IMO to take responsibility for ensuring thatfishing vessels give complete and full effect to the provisions of UNCLOS. TheSub-Committee also noted that IMO is not the competent body on nationality ofships referred to in Article 91 of UNCLOS and therefore should not engage indiscussing this matter; and

.7 IUU fishing is a serious problem and further co-operation between FAO and IMOon this matter should be supported.

8.11 The Committee further noted that, FSI 8, after extensive discussion, agreed that IMO andin particular the FSI Sub-Committee, could provide assistance to FAO in this matter, butrecognizing the need for a policy decision on the issue, agreed to refer the matter to the twoCommittees for further guidance on how the issues involved could be incorporated in theSub-Committee’s work programme. FSI 8 further recommended that the Committees considerthe formation of a joint FAO/IMO ad hoc working group and invited FAO to submit a relevantdocument, also providing draft terms of reference for such a joint group, to MSC 72 forconsideration.

8.12 After an exchange of views, the Committee agreed that IMO, as requested by the UNGeneral Assembly and the Commission of Sustainable Development (CSD), should provideassistance to FAO in dealing with IUU fishing in respect of safety and pollution prevention offishing vessels and other related issues.

8.13 With regard to the formation of a joint FAO/IMO ad hoc working group on the matter asrecommended by the FSI Sub-Committee, the Committee, recalling that there is an agreement ofco-operation between IMO and FAO in matters of mutual interest and other joint groups, such asthe one on training of fishermen, agreed to establish the proposed joint FAO/IMO working groupsubject to further consideration by MSC 72. Regarding the question of terms of reference for thejoint group, the Committee, recognizing that FAO's leadership is essential as prime mover tomake progress on the matter and FSI 8 had invited FAO to provide draft terms of reference toMSC 72, agreed to leave this matter to MSC 72 for further consideration.

9 WORK OF OTHER BODIES

OUTCOME OF LEG 80

9.1 The Committee recalled that the Legal Committee held its eightieth session (LEG 80)from 11 to 15 October 1999 and its report was circulated under the symbol LEG 80/11.

Compensation for pollution from ship’s bunkers

9.2 With regard to the matter of compensation for pollution from ships’ bunkers, theCommittee noted that LEG 80 continued preparation of an international regime for liability andcompensation for damage caused by ships' bunkers, and decided to recommend to Council theholding of a diplomatic conference (on Compensation for Pollution from Ship's Bunkers) in the2000-2001 biennium. The Committee noted further that, as agreed by the Council, thetwenty-first session of the Assembly approved the holding of the one-week diplomaticconference.

MEPC 44/20 - -

I:\MEPC\44\20.doc

34

9.3 The Committee expressed its appreciation to the Legal Committee for its work indeveloping the draft Convention on Compensation for Pollution from Ship's Bunkers, recallingthat this matter had been referred to the Legal Committee by this Committee.

OUTCOME OF FAL 27

9.4 The Committee recalled that the Facilitation Committee held its twenty-seventh session(FAL 27) from 6 to 10 September 1999 and its report was circulated under the symbolFAL 22/19.

Harmonization of ship’s certificates

9.5 The Committee noted that one of the topics discusssed by FAL 27 was the harmonizationof ship’s certificates and the Committee was invited to comment on and endorse theFAL Committee’s view and action on the matter.

9.6 The Committee noted that, at FAL 27, the view was expressed that a large number ofcertificates which are presently required under many conventions are causing problems and thatIMO should give serious consideration to the possibility of combining or even eliminating someof them. As a result of its consideration, FAL 27 agreed that simplification and unification of theexisting documents and certificates should be pursued, reducing their number where possible. Tothis end, FAL 27 developed a draft ship’s certificate and a grouping of relevant certificates anddocuments (MEPC 44/9/1, annex 1): the ship’s certificate would contain sufficient ship’sparticulars to determine the applicability with the relevant conventions or codes and would besupplemented by the relevant complementary certificates.

9.7 The Committee noted further that it was proposed at FAL 27 to combine the relevantcertificates under MARPOL, such as the International Oil Pollution Prevention (IOPP)Certificate, the International Sewage Pollution Prevention (ISPP) Certificate and the InternationalAir Pollution Prevention (IAPP) Certificate, into one certificate entitled “International PollutionPrevention Certificate”. While expressing appreciation for this innovative idea, the Committeenoted that, under MARPOL, the certificates are required under different Annexes, and Annex IVand Annex VI are not yet in force. Another important matter is that the combination ofcertificates would entail amendments to the regulations in addition to the amendments to thecertificates themselves. Under Article 16 of MARPOL, only the MEPC, or a diplomaticconference as appropriate, is entitled to adopt amendments to the certificates and regulations ofthe Convention.

9.8 After an exchange of views, the Committee agreed that the FAL Committee shouldcontinue to consider the matter of harmonization of certificates, including certificates requiredunder MARPOL 73/78 and related Codes, from the perspective of reducing red tape. In themeantime, the Committee drew the attention of the FAL Committee to some problems in theirintended grouping of certificates in that some certificates grouped under “environmentalcertificates”, such as the Certificate of Fitness for the Carriage of Dangerous Chemicals in Bulkand the Certificate of Fitness for the Carriage of INF Cargo, are also safety certificates andfurthermore the Certificate of Fitness for the Carriage of Liquefied Gases in Bulk and theCertificate of Fitness for Offshore Support Vessels are only related to safety. It should also benoted that these certificates are regulated under different conventions and codes and required bydifferent Parties to different instruments. Therefore any combination of the certificates regulatedby different instruments may cause legal problems. It should be further noted that relevantconventions and codes would need to be amended if the certificates are to be simplified or

- - MEPC 44/20

I:\MEPC\44\20.DOC

35

combined. Therefore the practicality of this exercise would need to be examined carefully by theFAL Committee. One delegation expressed the view that certificates could be grouped into threecategories, those relating to safety, those relating to the marine environment and those that relateto both, i.e. safety and the marine environment.

Revised list of certificates to be carried on board ships

9.9 After a brief discussion, the Committee endorsed the draft FAL/MSC/MEPC circular onthe revised list of certificates to be carried on board ships (MEPC 44/9/1, annex 2) for circulationafter endorsement also by MSC 72.

Need for guidelines on minimum standards for training of port marine personnel

9.10 The Committee noted that the FAL Committee intended to develop guidelines onminimum standards for training of port marine personnel. After discussion, the Committeeagreed not to concur with the FAL Committee's recommendation.

SPI Working Group’s work programme

9.11 The Committee approved, as far as marine environmental protection related items areconcerned, the SPI Working Group’s work programme (MEPC 44/9/1, annex 3) with the deletionof the item on development of guidelines for the training of port marine personnel and invited theMSC to concur with this decision.

Port waste reception facilities

9.12 FAL 27 noted that MEPC 43 decided that there was no need for a continuous agenda itemon establishment and operation of reception facilities, in particular, on development of a modelcourse on port waste reception facilities in the work programme of the SPI Working Group, sincethe MEPC itself is working on the matter with its correspondence group and working group.With a view to avoiding duplication of work, the item of port reception facilities had beendeleted from the work programme of the SPI Working Group (MEPC 44/9/1, paragraphs 6and 7).

OUTCOME OF A 21

9.13 The Committee recalled that the Assembly, at its twenty-first session from 15 to26 November 1999, approved the reports of the Committee on its forty-first, forty-second andforty-third sessions and adopted all the Assembly resolutions prepared by the Committee. TheCommittee also noted the list of the Assembly resolutions related to the activities of theCommittee, including those Assembly resolutions originated from the MSC (MEPC 44/9/2,annex).

Diplomatic conferences in 2000-2001

9.14 The Committee noted that the Assembly approved the holding of two diplomaticconferences being prepared by the Committee in the next biennium 2000-2001:

.1 Conference on International Co-operation on Preparedness to Pollution Incidentsby Hazardous and Noxious Substances (OPRC-HNS Conference) to be held inconjunction with MEPC 44 in March 2000; and

MEPC 44/20 - -

I:\MEPC\44\20.doc

36

.2 a Diplomatic Conference on Harmful Anti-fouling Systems (TBT Conference)in 2001.

Development of new GESAMP Hazard Profiles

9.15 With regard to the development of new GESAMP Hazard Profiles, the Committee notedthat the Technical Committee of the Assembly considered the view of MEPC 42 that there was aneed to complete GESAMP Hazard Profiles for all products in the IBC Code as soon as possiblein spite of budgetary constraints and that the GESAMP EHS Working Group was requested togive priority to this issue.

9.16 The Technical Committee of the Assembly further noted that the MEPC, after havingconsidered a number of options for securing the necessary funding for the GESAMP hazardprofile review, reluctantly accepted that the current target date for the hazard profile review mayhave to be set back due to insufficient funding. The Technical Committee also noted that therevision of MARPOL Annex II would be further delayed due to the proposed reduction inresources being allocated to GESAMP for the re-evaluation of those products subject to the IBCCode. Whilst recognizing that Zero Nominal Growth is the desired objective, the TechnicalCommittee agreed that this should not prevent the completion of such an important task.

9.17 The Committee noted with appreciation that, as a result of consideration, the UnitedKingdom delegation had offered to provide the necessary sum of £22,800 to offset the proposedreduction in the budget allocated to the GESAMP EHS Working Group specifically for the workto complete the GESAMP hazard profile review required to facilitate the revision of MARPOLAnnex II.

Clearing-house mechanism for oil and litter

9.18 With regard to the clearing-house mechanism for oil and litter, the Technical Committeeof the Assembly recalled that, at the twentieth session of the Assembly, it was decided that, dueto lack of financial resources, IMO was not in a position to take on the task to develop aclearing-house mechanism for oil and litter which was called for in the UN General Assembly.resolution 51/189 on institutional arrangements for implementation of the Global Programme forthe Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities (GPA).

9.19 During discussion of the matter at the Technical Committee, the delegation of Canadastated that that Environment Canada was working with the IMO Secretariat on a pilot project fora clearing-house mechanism on oil and litter which would be compatible with GPA and the IMOelectronic information system.

9.20 In this connection, the Committee noted that the pilot project was completed just beforethe opening of MEPC 44 and expressed its thanks to Environment Canada for its generoussupport and co-operation.

Objectives of the Organization in the 2000s and Long-term work plan of the Organization

9.21 The Committee noted that the Assembly adopted the Objectives of the Organization inthe 2000s as resolution A.900(21).

- - MEPC 44/20

I:\MEPC\44\20.DOC

37

9.22 The Committee noted further hat the Assembly adopted the Long-Term Work Plan of theOrganization (up to 2006) as resolution A.879(21). In this connection, the Committee noted thatthe Technical Committee of the Assembly endorsed a proposal by Liberia that it would bebeneficial to Members if the document on the long-term work plan of the Organization could alsoinclude information on the subjects for which work had been completed, or which is still underway, in order to ascertain the Organization's performance against any previously approved planand a synopsis on proposals for new items included in the long-term work plan. The TechnicalCommittee invited the Committees concerned to include such information in the relevantdocument for future sessions of the Assembly.

9.23 The Committee agreed to bear in mind the Objectives of the Organization in the 2000s(resolution A.900(21) and the Long Term Work Plan of the Organization (up to 2006)(resolution A.879(21)) in its future work.

Draft Assembly resolutions of common interest to the MSC and MEPC

9.24 The Committee noted the issue related to draft Assembly resolutions of common interestto both the MSC and MEPC. At the Assembly, the delegation of Germany, noting that somedraft Assembly resolutions, although originated by the MSC, had been attached to the annex tothe report of MEPC. In order to avoid the inconvenience caused to certain delegations as aresult, the Assembly agreed with a proposal of the delegation of Germany as follows:

- resolutions of common interest to both the MSC and MEPC, originated by one ofthe two technical Committees, forwarded to the other for “concurrence” or“endorsement”, should be considered under the agenda item on the considerationof the reports and recommendations of the originating Committee (i.e., thoseoriginated by the MSC under the MSC reports item, those originated by theMEPC under the MEPC reports item);

- such resolutions may be submitted to the Assembly under the report of theCommittee which has met last before the Assembly, with or without anyamendments proposed by that Committee. This, however, should not beinterpreted as meaning that they will be considered under the report of theCommittee which met last, unless the last meeting of the Committee happens to bethe originator of the resolution(s) concerned; and

- the aforementioned arrangement should be clearly indicated in the Assemblydocuments on the reports of both the MSC and MEPC.

10 STATUS OF CONVENTIONS

10.1 The Committee noted the information on the status of IMO Conventions and otherinstruments relating to marine environment protection, especially the current status ofMARPOL 73/78 and its various amendments provided in document MEPC 44/10 as follows:

- annex 1 shows the status, as at 31 December 1999, of the IMO conventions andother instruments relating to marine environment protection;.

- annex 2 shows the status of MARPOL 73/78 as at 31 December 1999; and

MEPC 44/20 - -

I:\MEPC\44\20.doc

38

- annex 3 shows the status of various amendments to MARPOL 73/78 as at31 December 1999.

10.2 The Committee also noted that, since MEPC 44/10 was issued on 14 January 2000, Benindeposited its instrument of accession to MARPOL 73/78 on 11 February 2000 and Trinidad andTobago deposited its instrument of accession to MARPOL 73/78 on 6 March 2000. Thereforethe total number of Parties to MARPOL 73/78 now stands at 110. Trinidad and Tobago alsodeposited its instrument of accession to the OPRC Convention, the Intervention Convention,the 1996 Protocol to the London Convention, CLC 92, FC 92 and the 1976 LLMC Conventionon 6 March 2000.

10.3 With regard to annex 3 of MEPC 44/10, the Committee noted that the 1990 amendmentsto MARPOL Annexes I and II, to the IBC and BCH Codes on the harmonized system of surveyand certification came into force on 3 February 2000 together with the 1988 SOLAS andLL Protocols.

11 PREVENTION OF AIR POLLUTION FROM SHIPS

INTRODUCTION

11.1 The Committee considered the following matters under this agenda item:

.1 progress report by the Secretariat (MEPC 44/11/5);

.2 co-operation with UNFCCC (MEPC 44/11);

.3 IMO study on Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Ships;

.4 review of the NOx Technical Code (MEPC 43/10/3 and MP CONF. 3/35);

.5 amendments to Annex VI, including modification of factor “ƒa” (MEPC 44/11/3),and Tiers 2 emission limits for diesel engines at or above 130 kW(MEPC 44/11/7);

.6 matters related to regulation 16 of Annex VI, Incinerators (MEPC 44/11/1 andMEPC 44/11/2);

.7 research on NOx compatibility and recommendation on early entry into force ofthe 1997 Protocol to MARPOL 73/78 (MEPC 44/11/6); and

.8 the North Sea as a SOx Emission Control Area (MEPC 44/11/4).

Progress report by the Secretariat

11.2 The Committee considered the progress report prepared by the Secretariat on thefollowing activities as set out in document MEPC 44/11/5 and noted the outcome of relevantdiscussions at FSI 8 and FP 44, which was orally introduced by the Secretariat.

- - MEPC 44/20

I:\MEPC\44\20.DOC

39

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS RELATED ISSUES

Co-operation with UNFCCC

11.3 The Committee noted the outcome of the fifth session of the Conference of Parties(COP 5) and the eleventh session of the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technical Advice(SBSTA 11) in general as set out in document MEPC 44/11, and, as invited by SBSTA 11,instructed the Secretariat to:

.1 continue to provide SBSTA with any information relevant to the issue of climatechange;

.2 further explore ways and means of co-operation between the Secretariat of IMOand UNFCCC;

.3 continue the exchange of information on the outcome of any relevant activitiesrelated to the issue of climate change; and

.4 co-operate in the improvement of accuracy, consistency, and comparability of dataon emissions based upon fuel sold to ships engaged in international transportationas reported by Parties to UNFCCC.

Statement by the Secretariat of the UNFCCC

11.4 The representative of UNFCCC provided the following information:

.1 Inventories of greenhouse gas emissions

Greenhouse gas emissions from international sea and air transport are to bereported separately under the UNFCCC and are not included in national totals ofcountries. A large number of countries experienced difficulties in reporting theappropriate split into domestic and international emissions. Furthermore differentdefinitions of the term "international" were applied. There has been workundertaken to improve the reporting including that of the Intergovernmental Panelon Climate Change.

In area of greenhouse gas inventories, the IMO is invited to provide data availableto it, such as current emissions from ships and expertise on accounting for theseemissions, including appropriate definitions.

.2 Inclusion of these emissions in the overall greenhouse gas inventories ofParties

Under the UNFCCC, international emissions are currently not attributed toindividual Parties. They are calculated on the basis of fuel sold in a country, butreported separately. The Conference of the Parties decided that the SubsidiaryBody for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA), should further elaborateon the inclusion of these emissions in overall green house gas inventories ofParties.

MEPC 44/20 - -

I:\MEPC\44\20.doc

40

IMO could, in this area, provide additional data necessary to assess differentoptions for the allocation of emissions in order to facilitate the discussion when itoccurs.

.3 Limitation or reduction of emissions from international transport

Since emissions from international transport are reported separately, they are notincluded in the quantified emission limitation or reduction commitments under theKyoto Protocol. However The Kyoto Protocol states that the industrialised Partiesshall pursue limitation or reduction of emissions of greenhouse gases fromaviation and marine bunker fuels, working through the International CivilAviation Organization and the IMO.

.4 Co-operation between IMO and UNFCCC

The progress report by the IMO secretariat to the UNFCCC at the last meeting hadbeen very well received. Several additional possibilities of collaboration werementioned by Parties: presentations, joint workshops and a joint working group.It was concluded that the secretariat should further explore ways and means ofcollaboration with the IMO.

.5 UNFCCC information

All UNFCCC documents are available at the UNFCCC web site: www.unfccc.de.

IMO study on Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Ships

11.5 The Committee noted the progress of the IMO Study on Greenhouse Gas Emissions fromShips, the final report of which will be available for consideration by MEPC 45. The Committeeagreed to allocate necessary time at MEPC 45 for comprehensive discussion of the findings ofthe Study.

11.6 The Committee expressed its appreciation to the contractors for the presentation onMonday evening, on the findings of the Study on Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Ships.

11.7 The Committee noted the information submitted by Japan (MEPC 44/INF.10) andappreciated the Ship and Ocean Foundation for its presentation of the study report. According toits research, CO2 emission from crude oil tankers occupies approximately 26 per cent of the totalemission from all international ocean carriers; if the crude oil transportation continues to increaseas in the past 5 years it is expected that there will not be so many changes between the CO2

emission in 1990 and that in 2010, because of the usual replacement and scrapping.The Committee also noted that the Netherlands intends to submit the results of the first trial forsulphur monitoring to MEPC 45.

Review of the NOx Technical Code

11.8 The Committee recalled that, at its last session, it noted that the text of the NOx TechnicalCode contains a number of editorial errors which should urgently be reviewed with a view tomaking necessary corrections on technical requirements in the light of the latest developments inthe International Organization for Standardisation (ISO) with regard to ISO standard (ISO 8178).

- - MEPC 44/20

I:\MEPC\44\20.DOC

41

11.9 The Committee established a drafting group on NOx Technical Code review andinstructed it to develop a text of rectification to the NOx Technical Code taking into account thesubmissions by Japan (MEPC 44/11/3) and the United States (MEPC 44/11/7) to this session,submission by Japan to its last session (MEPC 43/10/3), the final text of the NOx Technical Codeas adopted by the Conference of Parties to MARPOL 73/78, in 1997 (MP/CONF.3/35) andAnnex VI of MARPOL 73/78 - Regulations for the Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships (IMOPublication IMO-664E).

Amendments to Annex VI, including modification of factor “ƒa”

11.10 The Committee recalled that, at its last session, it considered document MEPC 43/10/4(Japan), regarding modification of factor “ƒa” and agreed that the proposed amendment entaileda substantial amendment to the NOx Technical Code and to consider this issue further at thissession.

11.11 The Committee considered the proposal by Japan (MEPC 44/11/3) to amend the NOxTechnical Code with regard to the required test conditions for turbo-charged engines with orwithout cooling of the intake air, the range of the absolute temperature of the intake air (Ta) toconform to the range of parameter “ƒa” is from approximately 22° C to 28° C, which is a verylimited range, and which due to the temperature range of the Japanese climate can only be metabout 50 days in all the year. For this reason Japan proposes to change the test conditions forfamily approval for large size engines through an amendment to paragraph 5.2.1 of the NOxTechnical Code.

11.12 The Committee, after discussion, agreed in principle to the proposed amendment andinstructed the drafting group to develop a draft text of amendments and instructed the draftinggroup to prepare a draft MEPC resolution in line with the proposal by Japan.

Tiers 2 emission limits for diesel engines at or above 130 kW

11.13 The United States, in its submission MEPC 44/11/7, expressed its concern that the agreedreduction standards for NOx emissions do not meet the 30 per cent reduction limits as set out byMEPC in the early 1990s. Because of continuing concern about the contribution of NOx frommarine diesel engines and its influence on both local and international air quality, the UnitedStates suggests that it is appropriate for the Committee to consider a second tier of emissionlimits for marine diesel engines above 130 kW. Such a second tier of standards, set at 25 to 30per cent below the regulation 13 limits, will ensure meaningful NOx reductions and associatedreductions in tropospheric ozone formation. Alternatively, a second tier of standards that flattensthe current NOx curve and lowers the overall limits may be considered. Further, it is suggestedthat these tier 2 standards can be developed with a view to taking effect in year 2007, allowing a7-year period of stability for the current regulation 13 limits and permitting engine manufacturersto adjust their engine design to include these new emission control technologies. Finally, thesubmission encouraged the Committee to consider including limits for hydrocarbons (HC) anddiesel particulate matters (PM).

11.14 Delegations that spoke on this proposal expressed their concern on the proposedsubstantial amendments to the Nox Technical Code which had just started its application to newengines this year. However, the Committee noted the request of the United States to initiate adialogue on improvement of the Code and suggested engine experts attending to this session forconsideration of technical aspects of the Code to give consideration to the United States proposaland, if possible, to provide their initial comments to the plenary so that the Committee could

MEPC 44/20 - -

I:\MEPC\44\20.doc

42

decide how to deal with the United States proposal in the context of work programme of theCommittee.

Matters related to regulation 16 of Annex VI, Incinerators

11.15 IACS in its submission MEPC 44/11/1, recalled that the Committee at its fortieth sessionby resolution MEPC.76(40) adopted revised Standard Specification for Shipboard Incineratorswhich took into consideration the application of regulation 16 of Annex VI of MARPOL 73/78.Annex to the Standard Specification sets out a model form of the type approval certificate forincinerators. However, this certificate neither includes a statement that the incinerator has beentested and approved in accordance with resolution MEPC.76(40) nor confirms that theincinerator is acceptable in relation to regulation 16 of Annex VI of MARPOL 73/78. In theview of IACS this would unnecessarily complicate the verification of compliance with Annex VI,taking into account that regulation 16 of Annex VI will apply retrospectively to all incineratorsinstalled on or after 1 January 2000 when Annex VI enters into force.

11.16 To simplify the verification of compliance with regulation 16 of Annex VI, IACSsuggested that the introductory statement of the model form of the incinerator type approvalcertificate be amended with a proposed text as set out in paragraph 3 of MEPC 44/11/1. Japanproposed that such amendment could be achieved by an MEPC resolution.

11.17 The Committee, noting that several Members supported the view of IACS, agreed torectify the matter by means of amendments to resolution MEPC.76(40).

11.18 The Committee noted the submission by IACS (MEPC 44/11/2) on interpretation of theterm "installed on board".

Research on NOx compatibility and promotion of installation of NOx Code compatibleengines for early entry into force of the 1997 Protocol to MARPOL 73/78

11.19 Japan in its submission MEPC 44/11/6, informed the Committee of the outcome of anational research programme on compliance with the NOx requirements of regulation 13 ofAnnex VI to MARPOL 73/78. The conclusions of the programme states that all 2-stroke enginesand approximately 85 per cent of all 4-stroke engines manufactured in Japan comply withregulation 13. Considering that it would not be difficult to install engines which comply with theNOx requirements world-wide, Japan urges Member Governments to promote installation ofengines which comply with the NOx requirements, for the purpose of early entry into force of theProtocol of 1997.

11.20 The Committee recalled that the Protocol of 1997 will enter into force twelve monthsafter the date on which not less than fifteen States the combined merchant fleets of whichconstitute not less than 50 per cent of the gross tonnage of the world's merchant shipping have tobecome Party to the Protocol.

11.21 The Committee recalled further that resolution 1 of the Conference of Parties toMARPOL 73/78 urged Member States to consent to be bound by the Protocol not later than31 December 2002, and that if the conditions for entry into force have not been met by31 December 2002, the Committee is invited, at its first meeting thereafter, to initiate, as a matterof urgency, a review to identify the impediments in the entry into force of the Protocol and anynecessary measures to activate those impediments.

- - MEPC 44/20

I:\MEPC\44\20.DOC

43

11.22 The Committee, noting that, at present, only two Member States parties toMARPOL 73/78, representing approximately 5 per cent of the gross tonnage of the world'smerchant shipping have acceded to the Protocol of 1997, urge Members to accede to the Protocolas soon as possible.

11.23 The Committee agreed to urge Member Governments to promote installation of newengines for early entry into force of Annex VI.

The North Sea as a SOx Emission Control Area

11.24 At its forty-third session, the Committee noted the intention of the North Sea States,supported by the European Union Member States to submit a formal proposal to this session todesignate the North Sea as a SOx Emission Control Area in accordance with the criteria andprocedures for designation of SOx Emission Control Areas, as set out in Appendix III toAnnex VI of MARPOL 73/78.

11.25 The Netherlands, in introducing MEPC 44/11/4 submitted by the North Sea States andsupported by the European Union, pointed out that the proposed amendment to Annex VI ofMARPOL 73/78 would only take effect after entry into force of the Protocol of 1997. For therecord, the Netherlands also pointed out that, while the heaviest traffic often falls within 100nautical miles of the European coast, the emission from vessel traffic within the entire areaproposed adversely affect acid sensitive areas around the North Sea and that designation of thearea and the underlying scientific data fully meet the criteria of Appendix III to Annex VI ofMARPOL 73/78.

11.26 In the course of the discussion, the proposal received considerable support, however thequestion was raised whether all the criteria of Appendix III to Annex VI had been met. TheCommittee, having received advice from the Secretariat, confirmed that all the issues had beenaddressed in accordance with Appendix III of MARPOL Annex VI and accepted the proposal forthe designation of the SOx Emission Control Area including the draft amendment toregulation 14(3)(a) of Annex VI to MARPOL 73/78.

11.27 The Committee agreed that the draft Assembly resolution prepared by the North Seacountries addressing availability of low sulphur bunker fuel oils in SOx Emission Control Areasneeded further work, and instructed the drafting group to undertake a preliminary review of theproposed resolution with a view to further consideration by the Committee at its next session.

11.28 The Committee also noted the concerns of the delegation of Panama regarding a possibleanomaly between the proposed SOx Emission Control Area requirements for the North Sea andthe EU Sulphur in Liquid Fuels Directive 1999/32/EC, whereby a vessel using marine diesel oilwhich complies with the 1.5 per cent maximum sulphur content requirement ofregulation 14(4)(a) of MARPOL Annex VI may still fail to satisfy the stricter EU requirementof 0.2 per cent maximum sulphur content for such fuels.

Report of the Drafting Group

11.29 Having received the report of the drafting group (MEPC 44/WP.5) the Committee:

.1 approved the corrections to the NOx Technical Code as set out in annexes 1 and 2of MEPC 44/WP.5, and instructed the Secretariat to initiate the rectificationprocess of these corrections as soon as possible;

MEPC 44/20 - -

I:\MEPC\44\20.doc

44

.2 approved the amendment to paragraph 5.2.1 of the NOx Technical Code on testcondition parameter “ƒa” for an engine family, which is set out in annex 4, with aview to future adoption when MARPOL Annex VI enters into force; and agreed todisseminate the approved amendment by MEPC/Circ.369 (annex 3 ofMEPC 44/WP.5);

.3 noted the drafting group's comments regarding the proposed amendment to ISOStandard 8178-1 (1996), with regard to the “ƒa” factor;

.4 approved the introductory paragraph to replace the existing one in the annex toresolution MEPC.76(40) on the model form of Type Approval Certificate forIncinerators as suggested by IACS in document MEPC 44/11/1, and invitedGovernments to use the amended form when issuing the Certificates;

.5 agreed to consider further at its next session the proposed amendments to theIncinerator Certificate of resolution MEPC.76(40), including the InterimGuidelines for the application of regulation 16(2)(a) of MARPOL Annex VI(annex 4 of MEPC 44/WP.5);

.6 approved the proposed amendment to regulation 14(3)(a) of Annex VI toMARPOL 73/78 to include the North Sea as a SOx Emission Control Area, whichis set out in annex 5, with a view to future adoption when MARPOL Annex VIenters into force; and

.7 approved the draft Assembly resolution on the Availability of low sulphur bunkerfuel oils in designated SOx Emission Control Areas as amended by the draftinggroup and set out in annex 6.

Statement by the delegation of Cyprus

11.30 The delegation of Cyprus reserved its position with respect to the decisions taken by theCommittee in the context of paragraphs 11.29.6 and 11.29.7 above and paragraphs 12.36, 12.40.1and 12.40.3 below. In the view of the delegation of Cyprus the decisions taken by the Committeein the context of the aforesaid paragraphs are questionable in terms of legality and process.Furthermore, none of these decisions can be construed as implying or creating a precedent eitherfor the Organization or in terms of the relations between the Contracting Parties of the relevantinstruments.

11.31 The delegation of Cyprus informed the Committee that it intends to bring certain mattersof concern relating to the workload of the Committee and the manner in which the Committeeconducts its business to the attention of the Council for consideration.

12 INTERPRETATION AND AMENDMENTS OF MARPOL 73/78 AND RELATEDCODES

REVISION OF MARPOL ANNEX IV

12.1 The Committee recalled that, at MEPC 43, it requested the Secretariat to prepare a draftrevised text of MARPOL Annex IV for consideration by the Committee at this session.

- - MEPC 44/20

I:\MEPC\44\20.DOC

45

12.2 In consideration of the draft text of the revised MARPOL Annex IV (MEPC 44/12) whichwas prepared on the basis of documents MEPC 37/12/10, MEPC 38/8/6 and MEPC 43/11/2, theCommittee discussed several submissions on the matter.

12.3 Norway, in its document MEPC 44/12/4, expressed the following views:

.1 a clarification should be made with regard to distinction between sewage and greywater (Definition of sewage (regulation 1)) when toilet rooms are arranged withshower and/or scupper;

.2 the present regulation 1(3)(a) defines drainage from WC scuppers as sewage.Based on the work going on at that time, the Working Group at MEPC 19 refinedan interpretation of what is sewage and what is grey water if a toilet room includesa shower (MEPC 19/WP.7, annex 5, page 2). The idea is that if a sill separates theshower from the toilet then the shower drain may be accepted as grey water. Thisdrafted interpretation seems never to have been formally considered by theCommittee;

.3 however, on many ships there may be a conflict between the safety and theenvironmental concerns and in many cases even modern ship designs do not meetthe present requirements of Annex IV;

.4 therefore, the following three options are envisaged:

.1 maintain the present regulation 1(3)(a) and formally turn down the draftedinterpretation from MEPC 19/WP.7;

.2 maintain the present regulation 1(3)(a) and adopt (or develop further) theinterpretation from MEPC 19/WP.7; or

.3 delete the word “WC scuppers” from regulation 1(3)(a). This will havethe effect that it is acceptable to drain possible sewage overflow from toiletrooms into a grey water system being continuously open to the sea; and

.5 Norway indicated their preference for the third of the above alternatives because itis considered that the safety concerns greatly outweigh the marginal pollutionproblem should an overflow take place in a sewage system.

12.4 The Committee agreed with the proposal of Norway and instructed the Drafting Group toreflect the third option in the revised text of Annex IV.

12.5 The Committee noted that there are three errors in annex to document MEPC 44/12 andagreed to refer them to the Drafting Group for corrections.

12.6 The United States, in its document MEPC 44/12/5, proposed amendments on thefollowing points relating to Annex IV in order to make the Annex more likely to enter into force:

.1 definition of sewage (new regulation 1): matters of grey-water;

.2 application (new regulation 2): matters of 400 gross tons, requirements for smallships and period of grace;

MEPC 44/20 - -

I:\MEPC\44\20.doc

46

.3 discharge limitations by distance from land (new regulation 11): matters on thedistance to the nearest land;

.4 structure of the Annex IV: matters relating to the second-tier or mid-technologyoption;

.5 effluent standards (resolution MEPC.2 (VI)): need for updating effluent standards;and

.6 legal considerations: how to avoid a dual treaty regime.

12.7 Following the discussion about the several amendments proposed by the United States itwas agreed that the Drafting Group would give them further consideration. It was also agreedthat if difficulties arose in the Drafting Group then the proposed amendment should be referredback to the plenary for decision.

12.8 The delegation of Bahamas proposed to exempt small island States from the requirementsof providing reception facilities and consequently proposed to amend paragraph 1 ofregulation 12 of the draft revised Annex IV, accordingly. One delegation, supported by anotherdelegation, stated that there is no definition of "small island states".

12.9 The delegation of Japan proposed to delete intermediate survey and annual survey fromthe draft revised Annex IV, contained in annex to document MEPC 44/12, since there are norequirements of intermediate survey and annual survey in the existing Annex IV. TheCommittee agreed to refer the Japanese proposal for consideration by the drafting group.

12.10 Regarding the procedures for amending Annex IV, which are relevant to the proposal ofthe United States with regard to the legal consideration, the Committee noted the draft MEPCresolution on implementation of Annex IV of MARPOL 73/78, prepared by the Secretariat, andagreed to refer it to the Drafting Group for consideration.

CLARIFICATION OF MARPOL ANNEX V

Discharge of cargo hold bilge water

12.11 Further to their proposal in MEPC 43/11/5 regarding the discharge of cargo hold bilgewater, Australia and Hong Kong, China, in their document MEPC 44/12/2, proposed that thedischarge of cargo hold bilge water from dry bulk cargo vessels should not be subject to theprovisions of MARPOL Annex V provided that the cargo residues are not classified as marinepollutants in the IMDG Code and the bilge water is solely from the loaded hold. Consequently,the Guidelines for the implementation of Annex V of MARPOL 73/78 should be amended asfollows:

The following sentence is added at the end of paragraph 1.7.10:

"Cargo material contained in the cargo hold bilge water is not treated as cargo residuesprovided that the cargo material is not classified as a marine pollutant in the IMDG Codeand the bilge water is solely from a loaded hold."

- - MEPC 44/20

I:\MEPC\44\20.DOC

47

12.12 The Committee agreed, in principle, with this proposal, however, recognizing the need tomake some editorial amendments, the Committee agreed to refer it to the Drafting Group.

Discharge of incinerator ash at sea

12.13 IACS, in its document MEPC 44/12/3, proposed the following amendments to MARPOLAnnex V and the Guidelines for the implementation of Annex V of MARPOL 73/78 in order torectify an apparent inconsistency between MARPOL Annex V and the Guidelines regardingdischarge of incinerator ash containing toxic or heavy metal residues:

Proposed amendments to MARPOL Annex V

.1 the existing regulation 3(1)(b)(ii) be replaced by the following:

“12 nautical miles for food wastes and all other garbage including paper products,rags, glass, metal, bottles, crockery and similar refuses, but excluding incineratorashes with toxic or heavy metal residues.”; and

.2 the existing “Record of garbage discharges” contained in appendix “Form ofGarbage Record Book” be replaced by page 2 of annex 1 of documentMEPC 44/12/3.

Proposed amendments to the Guidelines for the implementation of Annex V ofMARPOL 73/78

.1 the existing paragraph 1.8.2 be replaced by the following:

“Ash and clinkers from shipboard incinerators and coal-burning boilers areoperational wastes in the meaning of Annex V, regulation 1(1), and therefore areincluded in the term all other garbage in the meaning of Annex V,regulations 3(1)(b)(ii) and 5(2)(a)(ii), notwithstanding regulation 3(2) andparagraph 5.4.6.2 of these Guidelines.”; and

.2 the existing Table 2 “Options for shipboard handling and disposal of garbage” bereplaced by page 2 of annex 2 of document MEPC 44/12/3.

12.14 On the proposals of IACS, the Committee, in principle, agreed with the proposals andreferred them to the Drafting Group for editorial corrections.

USE OF SPANISH UNDER MARPOL 73/78

12.15 The Committee recalled that, at MEPC 43, it noted the statement by Venezuela made atBLG 4 on behalf of the Spanish-speaking countries on the use of Spanish under MARPOL 73/78and agreed in principle that Spanish should be referenced as one alternative language to be usedwhere relevant and that to introduce this option would require amendments to MARPOL 73/78.As a result, the Committee invited those Spanish speaking countries, or one of them, to submit adocument to MEPC 44 giving their proposed amendments to the relevant regulations ofMARPOL 73/78.

MEPC 44/20 - -

I:\MEPC\44\20.doc

48

12.16 Venezuela, in its document MEPC 44/12/6, proposed amendments to MARPOLAnnexes I, II and V on use of Spanish language under MARPOL 73/78.

12.17 Spain, in its document MEPC 44/12/7, proposed additional three amendments toMARPOL Convention on use of Spanish language under MARPOL 73/78.

12.18 During the discussion on the proposal on the use of Spanish language by Venezuela andSpain, many delegations supported them.

12.19 However, a number of delegations expressed its concerns that in case of port Statecontrol, the port State control officers, whose mother tongue is not Spanish, have greatdifficulties in understanding the certificates or documents written in Spanish only.

12.20 Regarding the above concerns, the delegation of Mexico, supported by some otherSpanish-speaking delegations, expressed the following views:

1. ships from Spanish-speaking countries will continue to carry certificates inEnglish or French for the purposes of MARPOL 73/78; and

2. amendments to MARPOL Annexes I, II and V will make Spanish as an alternativeand will facilitate inspection, among Spanish-speaking countries, of thecertificates which currently are either in English or French.

12.21 Having intensively discussed this issue, the Committee agreed, in principle, with theproposals of Venezuela and Spain and referred them to the drafting group. The Committeefurther agreed to prepare a draft MEPC resolution on the use of Spanish under MARPOL 73/78,taking into account the above comments made by the delegation of Mexico and the agreementthat relevant amendments would be introduced progressively as other amendments are processed,for example in the course of the comprehensive review of MARPOL Annexes I and II which arebeing carried out at the BLG Sub-Committee.

12.22 Regarding this topic, the delegation of Cyprus, supported by some other delegations,expressed the view that MARPOL certificates may not be necessarily written in the officiallanguage of the State whose flag the ship is entitled to fly, but the State must be able to waivethis requirement and allow the certificate to be written in one of the three languages, i.e. English,French or Spanish.

12.23 The Committee recalled that the amendments to regulation 20(4) of MARPOL Annex Ion Oil Record Book and regulation 9 of MARPOL Annex II on Cargo Record Book,incorporating the above view, are being considered by the BLG Sub-Committee during thecourse of revision of MARPOL Annexes I and II, but no amendments were being considered bythe BLG Sub-Committee relating to MARPOL certificates.

12.24 The Committee requested the Secretariat to investigate the issue and prepare draftamendments to MARPOL 73/78, taking into account the view expressed by the delegation ofCyprus, for consideration by MEPC 45.

- - MEPC 44/20

I:\MEPC\44\20.DOC

49

DRAFT GUIDELINES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SHIPBOARD MARINE POLLUTIONEMERGENCY PLANS FOR OIL AND/OR NOXIOUS LIQUID SUBSTANCES AND THE AMENDMENTSTO THE GUIDELINES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SHIPBOARD OIL POLLUTION EMERGENCYPLANS

12.25 The Committee recalled that, at MEPC 43, it recognized that paragraph 2 of newregulation 16 of MARPOL Annex II requires that "such a plan shall be in accordance with theGuidelines developed by the Organization." In this connection, the Committee recalled that thedraft Guidelines for the Development of Shipboard Marine Pollution Emergency Plans for Oiland/or Noxious Liquid Substances were prepared by the BLG Sub-Committee as contained inBLG 1/20, annex 10. Consequently, the Committee requested the Secretariat to reproduce thedraft Guidelines for consideration at MEPC 44 with a view to their adoption, since the Guidelinesshould be adopted before the date of entry into force of new regulation 16, which is expected tobe 1 January 2001.

12.26 The Committee further recalled that BLG 1, as instructed by the Committee, alsoprepared draft amendments to regulation 26 of MARPOL Annex I on Shipboard oil pollutionemergency plan (BLG 1/20, annex 9) as a consequence of the addition of new regulation 16 ofAnnex II. The Committee also requested the Secretariat to reproduce the amendments to theGuidelines for the development of shipboard oil pollution emergency plans prepared by BLG 1as a result of the amendments to regulation 26 of Annex I (BLG 1/20, annex 11) forconsideration with a view to adoption at MEPC 44.

12.27 The Committee noted that document MEPC 44/12/1 provided draft texts of theGuidelines required by new regulation 16 of MARPOL Annex II (annex 1 of documentMEPC 44/12/1) and proposed amendments to the Guidelines required by regulation 26 ofMARPOL Annex I (annex 2 of document MEPC 44/12/1) with a view to their adoption atMEPC 44.

12.28 ICS, in its document MEPC 44/12/8, proposed to amend annexes 1 and 2 of documentMEPC 44/12/1 to delete the last sentence of new paragraph 3.11, addressing salvage, because theneed for ships to have on board lists and contact details of potential salvage assistance when intransit close to land or other navigational hazards will create an administrative burden forGovernments, shipowners, masters and port State control officers. The information is alwaysavailable to a ship in danger and is unnecessary for a disabled ship that is not in danger.

12.29 The Committee agreed with the view of ICS and referred it to the Drafting Group.

DOUBLE HULL: A PREREQUISITE FOR TRANSPORTATION OF EMULSIFIEDFUELS AND HIGH DENSITY OILS?

12.30 Sweden, in its submission MEPC 44/INF.16, highlighted the risks related to seatransportation of emulsified fuels and high-density oils and addressed possible future measures toprevent accidental spills or outflow of such products by making the following points:

.1 high-density oils and emulsified oils should be transported in double hull tankers;

.2 under fuel oil tanks should be located protectively aiming at the prevention ofaccidental oil pollution; and

MEPC 44/20 - -

I:\MEPC\44\20.doc

50

.3 effective modern separation technology dealing with bilge water contaminated byhigh-density fuel oil could be considered for ships using high-density fuel oils asbetter alternatives to gravimetric technology.

12.31 The majority of delegations who spoke shared the concern by Sweden and the Committeeagreed that this matter be further considered at MEPC 45 having received specific proposals fromSweden and proposals to be made in the wake of Erika accident.

Instructions to the Drafting Group

12.32 The Committee established a Drafting Group on Interpretation and Amendments ofMARPOL 73/78 with the following terms of reference:

.1 to finalize the text of amendments to MARPOL Annex III;

.2 to finalize draft Guidelines for the development of shipboard marine pollutionemergency plans for oil and/or noxious liquid substances and draft amendments tothe Guidelines for the development of shipboard oil pollution emergency plans;

.3 to prepare a draft MEPC resolution on the use of Spanish;

.4 to carry out any drafting work related to the revision of MARPOL Annex IV,taking into account documents MEPC 44/12, MEPC 44/12/4, MEPC 44/12/6 andMEPC 44/12/7 and comments made at the plenary;

.5 to consider and report on document MEPC 44/12/5;

.6 to prepare draft MEPC resolution on implementation of Annex IV ofMARPOL 73/78; and

.7 to prepare draft amendments to MARPOL Annex V and draft amendments to theGuidelines for the implementation of MARPOL Annex V, taking into accountdocuments MEPC 44/12/2, MEPC 44/12/3, MEPC 44/12/6 and MEPC 44/12/7and comments made at the plenary.

REPORT OF THE DRAFTING GROUP

12.33 Having received report of the Drafting Group (MEPC 44/WP.7 andMEPC 44/WP.7/Add.1), the Committee took decisions as indicated hereunder.

Guidelines for the development of shipboard marine pollution emergency plans for oiland/or noxious liquid substances and amendments to the Guidelines for the development ofshipboard oil pollution emergency plans

12.34 The Committee adopted, with the amendments proposed by ICS as well as thosesuggested by the Drafting Group:

.1 Guidelines for the development of shipboard marine pollution emergency plansfor oil and/or noxious liquid substances under cover of resolution MEPC.85(44) ascontained in annex 7; and

- - MEPC 44/20

I:\MEPC\44\20.DOC

51

.2 amendments to the Guidelines for the development of shipboard oil pollutionemergency plans under cover of resolution MEPC.86(44) as contained in annex 8.

12.35 The United States informed the Committee that it fully supported the adoption of theaforementioned Guidelines and amendments but it could not accept the deletion ofparagraph 3.11 from both Guidelines regarding the inclusion of a list of salvage facilities,because this was inconsistent with the United States regulations.

MEPC resolution on the use of Spanish

12.36 The Committee adopted, with one amendment proposed by the Spanish-speakingcountries, resolution MEPC.87(44) on use of Spanish under IMO Conventions relating topollution prevention as contained in annex 9.

Revision of MARPOL Annex IV and MEPC resolution on implementation of MARPOLAnnex IV

12.37 The Committee agreed that discharge of other pollutants near coral reefs and othernutrient sensitive areas should be considered by the Committee in the future.

12.38 Regarding a draft MEPC resolution on implementation of MARPOL Annex IV, thedelegation of Cyprus expressed its view that it is not a normal procedure to approve the draftrevised text of MARPOL Annex IV and request the Secretary-General to circulate it before entryinto force of MARPOL Annex IV with a view to adoption after the date of entry into force.

12.39 In response to the above view expressed by the delegation of Cyprus, the delegation ofJapan stated that, in the past, the revised MARPOL Annex III was approved and circulated whenthe conditions of entry into force of that Annex were met.

12.40 After discussions, the Committee:

.1 approved, with some amendments, the text of the revised MARPOL Annex IV, ascontained in annex 10, with a view to future adoption when MARPOL Annex IVenters into force;

.2 instructed the Secretariat to prepare a draft MEPC circular on notification fromAnnex IV Parties to IMO about regulations on discharge of sewage in watersunder their jurisdiction and available reception facilities in their ports, based onparagraph 3 of document MEPC 43/11/2, for consideration at MEPC 46; and

.3 adopted, with some amendments, resolution MEPC.88(44) on Implementation ofAnnex IV of MARPOL 73/78, as contained in annex 11.

12.41 The delegations of Germany, the Russian Federation and the United States reserved theirpositions.

MEPC 44/20 - -

I:\MEPC\44\20.doc

52

Amendments to MARPOL Annex V and amendments to the Guidelines for theimplementation of MARPOL Annex V

12.42 The Committee approved:

.1 draft amendments to MARPOL Annex V, as set out in annex 12, and requestedthe Secretary-General to circulate the draft amendments to MARPOL Annex V inaccordance with article 16(2)(a) of MARPOL 73/78 together with an appropriateMEPC resolution with a view to adoption at MEPC 45; and

.2 draft amendments to the Guidelines for the implementation of MARPOL Annex Vand instructed the Secretariat to prepare an appropriate MEPC resolution with aview to their adoption at MEPC 45.

13 FOLLOW-UP ACTION TO UNCED

Report of the seventh session of CSD 7

13.1 The Committee, as IMO’s focal point for follow-up action to UNCED, recalled that theIMO report to the Commission on Sustainable Development (MEPC 42/12/2) was considered bythe seventh session of the Commission (CSD 7) in April 1999. MEPC 43, following somepreliminary discussion on the draft report of CSD 7 (MEPC 43/9/3), agreed to defer detailedconsideration to MEPC 44 when the final report of CSD 7 is available (MEPC 43/21,paragraph 9.13).

13.2 The Committee, in considering the final report on oceans and seas of CSD 7(MEPC 44/13, annex), noted that “Oceans and seas” was a major item discussed at CSD 7,covering such matters as integrated coastal area management, land-based pollution of the sea,fisheries, shipping and offshore activities. CSD 7 agreed that Chapter 17 of Agenda 21 remainsthe fundamental programme of action for achieving sustainable development in respect to oceansand seas, and emphasised the importance of international co-operation to protect the oceans andseas within the framework of UNCLOS and Agenda 21.

13.3 The decisions of CSD 7 which are relevant to IMO are mainly contained in Section D(Other marine activities) of the CSD report. For matters of safety, legal or dumping nature in theCSD report, they have been referred to the Maritime Safety Committee, Legal Committee and theConsultative Meeting of the London Convention for consideration and appropriate action. TheCommittee noted that matters of direct relevance to marine environment protection are containedin MEPC 44/13, paragraph 35.

13.4 The Committee also noted that, in paragraph 36 of the CSD report, the Commission,noting the outcome of the International Expert Meeting on Environmental Practices in OffshoreOil and Gas Activities, sponsored by Brazil and the Netherlands and held in 1997 in theNetherlands, recommended that the primary focus of action on the environmental aspects ofoffshore oil and gas operations continue to be at the national, subregional and regional levels, andthat further initiatives should be undertaken, involving Governments, international organizations,operators and major groups.

13.5 The Committee further noted that, in paragraph 39 of the CSD report, the Commissionrecommended that, in order to promote co-operation and co-ordination on oceans and seas, theUN General Assembly establish an open-ended informal consultative process, under the aegis of

- - MEPC 44/20

I:\MEPC\44\20.DOC

53

the General Assembly, with the sole function of facilitating the effective and constructiveconsideration of matters within the General Assembly's existing mandate. In this connection, theCommittee noted that, the UN General Assembly, at its fifty-fourth session in November 1999,decided by resolution 54/33 to set up the open-ended informal consultative process. The firstmeeting within the framework of the consultative process which is scheduled to be held from30 May to 2 June 2000 among other issues will be dealing with international and inter-agencyconsideration and co-operation. The Committee agreed that it was important to follow-up thisprocess.

13.6 In the ensuing discussion of the CSD report, the Committee noted that almost all of theactions requested of IMO on the protection of the marine environment including such as theprevention of the spread of harmful aquatic organisms through ships’ ballast water and controlson harmful anti-fouling paints used on ships, are being dealt with by the Committee. With a viewto making meaningful progress in dealing with such matters as ship recycling and offshoreactivities, the Committee agreed to take into account the recommendations of CSD 7.

13.7 With regard to the matter of IUU fishing, the Committee noted that the matter wasconsidered under item 8 (see paragraphs 8.9 to 8.13).

13.8 The Committee also noted the grave concern of the Commission in paragraph 26 of theCSD report about the slow rate in many respects of the implementation of the Global Programmeof Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities (GPA). Inthe GPA, IMO was requested to develop a clearing house mechanism for litter and oil in the sea.The Committee noted the offer of Environment Canada to develop the clearing house mechanismin co-operation with the IMO Secretariat which was considered under item 9 (seeparagraphs 9.18 to 9.20).

Relevance of Agenda 21 Chapter 19 to the work of IMO

13.9 The Committee noted that WWF, in its submission MEPC 44/13/1, provided an overviewof Agenda 21 Chapter 19, indicating the matters of relevance to the work of IMO. Thesubmission highlighted some areas where there is or should be integration with IMO’s worksince the carriage by sea of hazardous and noxious substances are covered in a number of IMOinstruments, such as MARPOL Annexes II and III, IBC and BCH Codes, SOLAS Chapter VII,IMDG Code and the draft OPRC-HNS Protocol. WWF requested the Committee to alsoconsider Chapter 19 of Agenda 21 when reviewing IMO’s follow-up action to UNCED.

13.10 After discussion, the Committee agreed to take Chapter 19 into account when it considersissues of Chapter 17 under its agenda item “Follow-up action to UNCED”. The Committeeagreed that MEPC as IMO's focal point for UNCED follow-up should provide more extensiveinformation in future reports to CSD on IMO's environmental and safety activities.

Development of the “Environment best practice guidelines in offshore oil and gas activities”

13.11 In its paper on the role of IMO in dealing with the marine environmental aspects ofoffshore exploration and exploitation, the Russian Federation in its submission MEPC 44/13/2recommended that “Environment best practice guidelines in offshore oil and gas activities”should be developed with close involvement of IMO/MEPC. The Russian delegation alsopointed out that, at the Expert Meeting on Environment Practice in Offshore Oil and GasActivities held in the Netherlands in 1997, there were no specific discussions on the problemsrelating to accidental oil spills in respect of preparedness and response (MEPC 42/INF.8).

MEPC 44/20 - -

I:\MEPC\44\20.doc

54

13.12 In the ensuing discussion, various views were expressed on the submission of the RussianFederation and in particular, on the role of the Committee in the development of Guidelines. Itwas generally accepted that matters related to preparedness and response should be considered bythe OPRC Working Group while financial responsibility for oil spills may be considered by theLegal Committee. Recognizing that the primary focus of action on environmental aspects ofoffshore oil and gas activities should continue to be at national and regional levels asrecommended by CSD 7 and in view of the fact that there is still a lack of guidelines in someregions and that a number of countries requested IMO to provide relevant information on how tocontrol marine pollution from offshore activities, the Committee agreed to take the followingapproach:

.1 the countries concerned in those regions that already have guidelines andinterested international organizations are invited to provide information toMEPC 46; and

.2 the information provided by interested Members and international organizationscould be reviewed and disseminated as MEPC circulars for reference by thecountries and regions concerned when they develop their guidelines.

13.13 During the discussion, the Committee noted that an international conference on oil andgas exploration and production, to be held in June, in Stavanger, Norway, will discuss relevantenvironmental issues. The outcome of the conference will be brought to the attention of theCommittee as appropriate.

14 PROMOTION OF IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT OFMARPOL 73/78 AND RELATED CODE

Review of the Guidelines for the implementation of Annex V and the Manual on ShipboardWaste Management

14.1 The Committee recalled that, during MEPC 37, it had agreed to finalize the draft manualon Shipboard Waste Management during MEPC 38 to allow ship owners and/or operators toprepare waste management plans in order to meet the requirements of regulation 9 of Annex V to

MARPOL 73/78. However, due to insufficient time, MEPC 38 concentrated on the developmentof Guidelines which resulted in resolution MEPC.71(38).

14.2 The Committee recalled that, during MEPC 38, it had agreed that there was nocompelling need to finalize the manual which could be completed once experience had beengained from the implementation of the Guidelines for the development of Garbage ManagementPlans.

14.3 The Committee also recalled that a correspondence group had been established, under theleadership of Germany, which reported that, whilst the base document could be made shorter andmore user friendly, there had been little interest in revising it any further. As a result, MEPC 43agreed to consider the issue further during MEPC 45.

14.4 The Committee noted that, although it had agreed to defer discussion on this subject toMEPC 45, there was one submission on this subject from Norway (MEPC 44/14) and aninformation paper from the United States (MEPC 44/INF.17) which were then addressed.

- - MEPC 44/20

I:\MEPC\44\20.DOC

55

14.5 In introducing its document (MEPC 44/14), Norway made the following points:

.1 several cases of ship owners requesting Pollution Prevention Certificates todemonstrate compliance with the requirements of Annex V to MARPOL 73/78had been reported; and

.2 whilst recognizing that Annex V to MARPOL 73/78 does not require such acertificate, a confirmation of this in the MEPC report would serve to confirm thisas well as preventing further misunderstandings.

14.6 Whilst recognizing the potential confusion that had arisen, the Committee agreed that anexplanation in the report should suffice to overcome this problem and confirmed that:

.1 Annex V does not require a Pollution Prevention Certificate; and

.2 Annex V does not require the Garbage Management Plan to be formally approvedby the Administration.

14.7 The Committee noted that document MEPC 44/INF.17 described the United States’implementation of Annex V to MARPOL 73/78 through its Act to Prevent Pollution from Shipsof 1982, as amended by its Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act (MPPRCA)of 1987. This information paper described the impact of plastic debris in the Pacific whichremains a problem, despite the existence of MARPOL Annex V, and urged member States toincrease efforts to enforce this Annex. Furthermore, the Committee noted the invitation of theUnited States to Members to participate in an International Workshop on Derelict Fishing Gear,Vessels and Operation Waste: Sources, Impacts, Mitigation and Prevention and that, in order toassist the meeting, countries are requested to provide the Workshop with copies of their domesticlegislation and records of enforcement efforts as well as information on the availability ofreception facilities at ports and terminals. The Committee noted that the workshop would takeplace from 6 to 11 August 2000 in Hawaii.

MARPOL - How to do it

14.8 The Committee recalled that a correspondence group under the co-ordination of theUnited States was charged with making proposals to resolve some remaining issues for whichconsensus had not been reached during MEPC 43.

14.9 In introducing its document MEPC 44/14/1, the United States informed the Committeethat it had had informal intersessional discussions to address these points and that, as a result, thedocument contained proposals to overcome each of the issues that were unresolved. The UnitedStates indicated that since the document had been submitted, further discussions had taken placewhich had resulted in proposals to resolve the final outstanding issues.

14.10 Based on document MEPC 44/14/1 and the additional information submitted by theUnited States as shown in MEPC 44/WP.10, the Committee agreed:

.1 to the replacement of article 4.1.1 with the following text:

MEPC 44/20 - -

I:\MEPC\44\20.doc

56

Article 4.1.1 MARPOL and International Law of the Sea

MARPOL 73, Article 9(3) requires that jurisdiction be construed in light ofinternational law in force at the time of application or interpretation of MARPOL.Such international law, as set forth in the 1982 United Nations Convention on theLaw of the Sea (UNCLOS), describes the circumstances, safeguards, andgeographical zones of coastal, flag and port State jurisdiction, among otherthings. Thus, for many parties to MARPOL, international law affects howMARPOL will be enforced. For ease of reference, MARPOL provisions which arecomplementary to or require interpretation in light of the provisions of UNCLOSare contained in the cross-reference in the footnote5.

5

MARPOL/UNCLOS CROSS REFERENCE MARPOL SECTION UNCLOS SECTION

1(1) 94, 217(1)4(2) 21(1), 56(1)(B), 211, 220, 228, 2314(3) 217(7)5 217(3)5(2) 217(2)6 2187 226(1), 2329(3), 91, 217, 220, 21810 287

.

.2 to the deletion of the remaining citations to UNCLOS other than those noted in thefootnote to article 4.1.1;

.3 to the exclusion of those references, in sections 4.3.1, 4.3.2 and 4.4.3, toequivalent zones comparable with Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs);

.4 to the replacement of the last three sentences of section 5.10.3 with those shownbelow, to allow the use of bounties, to encourage public participation in reportingoil spills, for those countries which permit it under their domestic laws:

It should be noted that some States’ domestic laws do not permit bounties. Forother States, bounties are inconsistent with their enforcement objectives.However for those that wish to consider such incentives, States which utilizebounties have found them to be useful in the detection and prosecution ofMARPOL violations.

.5 to the retention of section 3.24 in order to provide a convenient checklist to thoseStates implementing MARPOL, but that in the last sentence of the chapeau, theword "should" be changed to "may" and the caption to figure 2 should beamended to read "actions in implementing MARPOL include but are not limitedto:";

.6 to the elimination of references to “marine area” in section 3.25 which is coveredby the standard terminology of “sea area”;

- - MEPC 44/20

I:\MEPC\44\20.DOC

57

.7 that the footnote to section 3.25 be changed to: "Some special area are not yet ineffect. For further information, consult IMO documentation";

.8 to the deletion of the second sentence of section 4.2.1 which, it is believed can bedone without any adverse effect;

.9 to making reference to resolution MEPC.61(34), in section 7.1, as an appropriatestandard for indicating that a violation has occurred;

.10 to the retention of the original language in section 13.1 of MEPC 43/12 as anexplanation of Annex V;

.11 to the retention of sections 8.1.1, 9.3.1 to 9.3.6, 9.6.2, 10.8.2, 10.8/3, 11/3.2, 12.5,12.7.1, 12.7.3, 13.2 and 17.3 of MEPC 43/12 as appropriate advice to ship owner,operators and ports; and

.12 in order to target unscrupulous operators, to amending section 21.6 to:

While the majority of operators comply with Annex V, unfortunately, there may bethe attempt by unscrupulous operators to cut corners and avoid costs by makingillegal discharges. Enforcement officers should particularly target the GarbageRecord Book to aid in detecting any unscrupulous practices.

14.11 Subject to the above amendments, the Committee approved the revised version of"MARPOL - How to do it" and requested the Secretariat to prepare it as a publication as soon aspossible.

Report of a workshop on the provision of reception facilities

14.12 The Committee noted the report on a ROPME/MEMAC/IMO Workshop/Symposium onMARPOL 73/78 held in Bahrain from 17 to 19 October 1999 (MEPC 44/INF.7). Thesymposium adopted the workshop report including its recommendations and work plan which areincluded in the annex to MEPC 44/INF.7.

14.13 The Committee supported the proposal by ROPME Member States to implement thereception facilities work plan for the ROPME Sea Area, noting that, when this plan is completed,these States will be in a position to notify the Organization of the adequacy of reception facilitiesso that the Committee can establish a date of taking effect for that Special Area identified underMARPOL 73/78.

15 INF CODE RELATED MATTERS

15.1 The Committee recalled that, during MEPC 38, an informal inter-agency group,comprising IMO, IAEA and UNEP had been established in order to evaluate the potentialhazards of radioactive material in the environment. It was agreed that the initial task of this groupwould be to conduct a literature review of this subject.

15.2 The Committee noted document MEPC 44/15 which indicated that the initial literaturesearch had been completed and that the report will be submitted to MEPC 45.

MEPC 44/20 - -

I:\MEPC\44\20.doc

58

16 RECYCLING OF SHIPS

16.1 The Committee recalled that, during MEPC 42, Norway had indicated that there weresafety and environmental problems associated with the dismantling of ships and proposed thatthis matter be included in the work programme of the Committee as a high priority item.

16.2 The Committee recalled that Norway, in its document MEPC 43/18/1, had indicated thatships sold for scrapping may contain several environmentally hazardous substances includingPCBs, heavy metals, hydrocarbons and ozone depleting substances. Furthermore, the majority ofthe world’s scrapping locations lacked the necessary facilities for carrying out scrapping in a safeand environmentally responsible manner. As a result, Norway had proposed that there is acompelling need for IMO to introduce such measures to ensure that the decommissioning ofships is undertaken in an environmentally responsible and safe manner in co-ordination withother relevant international regimes.

16.3 The Committee also recalled its discussions on the subject during MEPC 43, when itnoted that:

.1 the fourth UNEP Ad Hoc Committee for the Implementation of the BaselConvention prepared a draft decision on dismantling of ships. This requested thatParties give a mandate to the Technical Working Group of the Basel Conventionto collaborate with IMO on the subject in order to prepare guidelines forenvironmentally sound management on the dismantling of ships and to discussrelated legal aspects with the Consultative Sub-Group of Legal and TechnicalExperts of the Basel Convention. In recalling this information, the Committeenoted that this decision (V/23) was taken at the fifth meeting of the Conference ofthe Parties to the Basel Convention which was reported in documentMEPC 44/INF.22;

.2 there had been a Ship Scrapping (Recycling) Summit held a week beforeMEPC 43, the aim of which was to raise the awareness and consideration ofactions. In recalling this, the Committee noted that document MEPC 44/INF.14provided a report of this meeting;

.3 the seventh session of the Commission on Sustainable Development called onIMO to look into this issue and encouraged States to ensure that responsible careis applied to the disposal of decommissioned ships;

.4 resolution MEPC.53(32) on the development of the capacity of ship scrapping forthe smooth implementation of the amendment to Annex I of MARPOL 73/78recommends that Member Governments, especially the governments of Stateswith shipbuilding and shipping interests:

.1 take initiatives, in co-operation with the shipbuilding and shippingindustries, to develop ship scrapping facilities at world-wide level;

.2 endeavor to promote research and development programmes, to improveefficient scrapping techniques and to undertake, in co-operation with theshipbuilding and shipping industries, the establishment of adequate shipscrapping facilities as soon as practicable; and

- - MEPC 44/20

I:\MEPC\44\20.DOC

59

.3 provide technical assistance and transfer of technology to developingcountries in their efforts to develop ship scrapping facilities.

16.4 Finally the Committee recalled that, whilst some delegations were not in favour ofincluding this matter in the work programme, the majority of delegations who spoke supportedthe inclusion of ship scrapping in the work programme of the Committee whilst recognizing thatit is a complicated issue. As a result, Member Governments had been requested to makeproposals on the subject to MEPC 44.

16.5 In introducing its document MEPC 44/16, FOEI indicated that ships being sent toscrapping facilities almost always contain ballast water including associated sediments. Suchballast water may contain non-indigenous or pathogenic organisms and, as a result, theCommittee was invited to:

.1 note the environmental threat posed by the possible failure to deal with the ballastwater effectively;

.2 recommend measures for preventing the release of harmful organisms into theenvironment during decommissioning of ships; and

.3 clarify the point at which a ship ceases to be a ship and therefore not subject toIMO regulations.

16.6 The Committee noted these points and agreed that they should be given furtherconsideration when developing an overall strategy for dealing with this problem. The paper wasalso referred to the Ballast Water Working Group.

16.7 In introducing its document MEPC 44/16/1, the Netherlands made the following points:

.1 whilst not advocating the formulation of legally binding standards for shiprecycling, the Netherlands considers that IMO/MEPC should developinternational guidelines for this activity that would be helpful to both the shippingand ship recycling industries;

.2 whilst recognizing also that ship recycling is primarily the responsibility of thenational authorities concerned, the Netherlands suggested that close co-operationwith flag states and IMO/MEPC is needed to encourage such self regulatinginitiatives;

.3 as a result, the Netherlands proposed that future discussions should take accountof the following points:

.1 the development of technical guidelines and codes of conduct;

.2 a ship recycling technology programme;

.3 development of preventative measures; and

.4 there is a need to undertake a study of the financial consequences of shiprecycling which the Netherlands is prepared to co-sponsor; and

MEPC 44/20 - -

I:\MEPC\44\20.doc

60

.4 in order to complete the work on this subject, a correspondence group should beestablished.

16.8 Norway, in introducing its document MEPC 44/16/2, suggested that Work Plans for theMEPC, MSC and TCC should be developed and also proposed that a correspondence groupshould be set up to prepare a report for consideration by MEPC 45 in order to:

.1 collect further information on the environmental and human safety problemsconcerning recycling of ships;

.2 identify measures to be taken to reduce the environmental and safety risks relatedto recycling of ships, with special emphasis on measures to be taken in thevessels;

.3 collect information on national legislation and guidelines in the area;

.4 gather views on the approach of other international organizations on the issues;and

.5 gather views on the merit and possible content of an Assembly resolution.

16.9 Brazil, in introducing its document, MEPC 44/16/3, advocated that the recycling of shipsshould be dealt with under the Basel Convention and that the country of the buyer should haveappropriate legislation requiring that such ships be delivered in accordance with this convention.

16.10 Brazil advocated that any involvement of IMO should be via the Convention onPrevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matters and its ScientificGroup.

16.11 In introducing document MEPC 44/16/4 on behalf of ICS, BIMCO, INTERTANKO,INTERCARGO, OCIMF, and ICFTU, ICS made the following points:

.1 there appears to be a vacuum in the international debate on this subject whichshould be taken up by IMO, though it is recognized that industry also has animportant role to play;

.2 the co-sponsors of this paper fully endorse the proposal made by Norway, whichis supported by the Netherlands, to include issues related to the recycling of shipson the work programme and agenda of MEPC as well as the intention to workwith representatives of the Basel Convention and ILO on this subject. In additionthe co-sponsors support the proposal to establish a correspondence group on shiprecycling in which they would like to participate;

.3 whether ship recycling should be the subject of “a binding international regime” isa matter of debate and the end result will affect various parties including theshipping industry; and

.4 ICS has established a working group involving all the co-sponsors of thissubmission to consider practical measures which will facilitate the development ofacceptable decommissioning practices and will produce a “Code of Practice”addressing the issues involved.

- - MEPC 44/20

I:\MEPC\44\20.DOC

61

16.12 Having considered the submissions on this topic, there was general agreement that IMOhas a role to play in reducing the safety and environmental risks associated with the recycling ofships. However, some delegations considered that IMO should not take the lead in this activitywhich would be more appropriately undertaken by the Basel Convention or ILO, depending onthe area under consideration.

16.13 The Committee expressed its appreciation for the proactive approach being taken by theshipping industry and looked forward to being informed of the developments in this activity.

16.14 Whilst some concern was expressed about the need to form a correspondence group toprovide feed-back to the Committee on this issue, there was general agreement that it wouldprovide useful information that could facilitate further discussions on the subject. However,some delegations expressed concern that the current priorities placed on other work programmeitems may make it difficult to accommodate a working group on this subject.

16.15 One delegation cautioned the Committee that, should measures be introduced, they mayincrease the costs associated with ship recycling, hence leading to keeping ships in service longerthan they should or to ships being sunk to avoid recycling costs.

16.16 In addition to the general discussion on this subject, the Committee noted informationprovided by India and Bangladesh related to accident statistics associated with the ship recyclingindustry and the extensive measures being undertaken to improve working conditions and safetyin the industry. In presenting this information, it was pointed out that the industry is safer thangenerally reported.

16.17 The Committee also noted information provided by the Philippines that, as ademonstration of its commitment to the safe and environmentally sound recycling of ships, it hadordered a company engaged in this activity to cease trading. This had been done as the companywas found to be in breach of national laws that implemented the Basel Convention. Philippinesexpressed its support for the development of technical guidelines for ship recycling which shouldinclude measures to ensure that the ship is free of toxic and hazardous waste before beingdecommissioned. The guidelines should also address safety, environmental and personneltraining aspects of ship recycling.

16.18 Having had a thorough debate on the subject, the Committee agreed to consider thismatter further at MEPC 46 and in order to facilitate the discussion decided to establish acorrespondence group with the terms of reference set out in annex 14. It was agreed that theco-ordinator of the correspondence group would be:

Capt. Moin Uddin AhmedRepresentative of Bangladesh for Shipping and IMO Matters2 Abbey Road, BarkingEssex IG11 7AXTel: 020-8507 8800Fax: 020-8594 0234E-Mail: CJS@J-S-agencies.co.uk

16.19 The delegation of the Netherlands withdrew its earlier reservation on the outcome of thediscussion on ship recycling, congratulated the delegation of Bangladesh as co-ordinator of thecorrespondence group on ship recycling, and assured them of full co-operation in the work of thegroup.

MEPC 44/20 - -

I:\MEPC\44\20.doc

62

16.20 In view of related activities in other forums, the Committee requested the Secretariat tocontact the Secretariats of the Basel Convention, ILO and the London Convention to provideinformation on ship recycling to the correspondence group.

16.21 The Committee noted that the matter of ship scrapping may involve safety matters andagreed to inform the above development to the MSC and invite its comments on the activities ofthe MEPC relating to ship scrapping.

17 APPLICATION OF THE COMMITTEES' GUIDELINES

17.1 The Committee recalled that the Maritime Safety Committee, at its seventy-first session(19 to 28 May 1999), and the Committee, at its forty-third session (28 June to 2 July 1999),having reviewed the Guidelines on the organization and method of work of the Committees andtheir subsidiary bodies in the light of experience gained with their application and with a view toimproving them for the purpose of further rationalizing the work of the Committees and theirsubsidiary bodies, approved the revised Guidelines, which were disseminated as MSC/Circ.931and MEPC/Circ.366 on 10 September 1999, revoking the previous circulars MSC/Circ.816 andMEPC/Circ.331.

17.2 The Committee invited Member Governments to apply the Committees' Guidelines asrevised and bring them to the attention of their representatives at relevant IMO meetings advisingthem to observe the Guidelines.

17.3 The delegation of Cyprus drew the attention of the Committee to two problems inobserving the Committees' Guidelines: the first related to delegations are virtually preventedfrom submitting written comments on urgent matters to the attention of the committees due to thedeadline for submitting documents which has already elapsed. A recent example is the urgentmatters arising from FSI 8 which sought guidance of MEPC 44 only five weeks beforeMEPC 44. The second is related to the issue that some Sub-Committees ignore the Committees'Guidelines and certain documents are submitted under agenda items which are irrelevant to thework programme item. Cyprus urged that these two problems should be addressed and suggestedthat a joint meeting of the Chairmen of the MSC, MEPC and Sub-Committees should beconvened as described in paragraphs 5 and 7 of the Committees' Guidelines.

17.4 In the ensuing discussion, there was general agreement in the Committee that theCommittees' Guidelines are to facilitate the work of the Committees and a certain degree offlexibility should be allowed. As stated by the Secretary-General, on previous occasions, theCommittees should not become slaves of the Guidelines. The Committee noted the concernexpressed by Cyprus, however, if Cyprus thinks that there is a need to amend the Guidelines,then a written proposal would need to be submitted to the Committees for consideration. In thisconnection, it was mentioned that MSC 72 will discuss some amendments to the Committees'Guidelines (MSC 72/20/1).

18 WORK PROGRAMME OF THE COMMITTEE AND SUBSIDIARY BODIES

Management of workload of the Committee

18.1 In considering this matter relating to the functions of the Committee and possiblesolutions to the existing problems, the Committee recalled the difficulties encountered atMEPC 42 in handling the number of working and drafting groups. MEPC 42, after an exchange

- - MEPC 44/20

I:\MEPC\44\20.DOC

63

of views, agreed to discuss the matter further at MEPC 43 with a view to overcoming theproblem.

18.2 The Committee, at MEPC 43, considered a note by the Chairman (MEPC 43/18/3) andagreed that the Committees' Guidelines on the organization of work should be followed: no morethan three working groups should be convened during one session and the number of workinggroups should be reduced wherever possible. In reaching this agreement, it was noted that it maybe necessary to prioritize meetings of working groups in such a way that certain groups do notmeet at every session. The Committee also noted a view that the OPRC Working Group may bemoved under one of the Sub-Committees.

18.3 MEPC 43 further noted a suggestion, supported by a number of delegations, to reconsiderthe structure and operation of the Sub-Committees as a means of dealing with the increasingnumber of environmental issues. As a result of discussions, MEPC 43 agreed that, among otherthings, the Chairman should consider the method of work of the Committee to see whether otherresources, such as the Sub-Committees and other international organizations, could be used moreeffectively and submit proposals to MEPC 44 (MEPC 43/21, paragraph 18.22).

18.4 The Chairman, when introducing his note (MEPC 44/18), referred to the outcome of thefirst joint meeting of the MSC and MEPC which was held concurrently with the nineteenthsession of the Assembly in November 1993. Bearing in mind that the joint meeting concludedthat the MSC and MEPC should continue to enjoy equal standing as laid down in the IMOConvention and that the Sub-Committees should, as necessary, operate under the instructions ofand report to both MSC and MEPC (MSC/MEPC 1/6, paragraphs 3.6 and 3.13.6), the Chairmanstated that many of the suggestions made at the joint session remain relevant to the discussion atthis session of the Committee. For example:

.1 better use should be made of Sub-Committees;

.2 in setting up a work programme due regard should be paid to the problems ofdeveloping countries as well as those small developed countries; and

.3 the pace at which IMO works should not increase the gap between developed anddeveloping countries in their ability to implement rules.

18.5 The Chairman informed the Committee that he had advised the Council and the Assemblyof the Committee's concern in this matter. He then suggested that, as a starting point, theCommittee should exchange views on a range of options to better manage the workload of theCommittee in dealing with the increasing environmental issues, while recognizing that thepreparation of an organizational review of IMO is under way and also that a number of technicalissues have been sent to various Sub-Committees.

18.6 Brazil, in introducing its document MEPC 44/18/1, stressed that there is a need to keepthe OPRC Working Group which was set up to promote technical assistance as required by theOPRC Convention. To support its views, Brazil cited two oil spill incidents in Brazilian watersthe damage of which had been minimized due to suitable response measures and arrangementsestablished in accordance with the OPRC Convention and recommendations of the OPRCWorking Group. Since the enhancement of preparedness and response against oil spill incidentsis always needed in all countries especially in developing countries, Brazil hoped that theCommittee will find a satisfactory answer to the question.

MEPC 44/20 - -

I:\MEPC\44\20.doc

64

18.7 In the ensuing discussion, the Committee agreed that the OPRC Working Group isnecessary to carry out the work specified in article 12 of the OPRC Convention and other workwhich will arise out of the forthcoming OPRC-HNS Protocol. There was significant support tokeep the OPRC Working Group under the Committee, however, in view of the limited number ofworking groups allowed under the Committees’ Guidelines and the many priority items to bedealt with by the Committee, there was also support for the suggestion that the OPRC WorkingGroup operate under one of the Sub-Committees, such as the BLG Sub-Committee. TheCommittee agreed that before making a decision on this matter it would be prudent to assess theworkload of the BLG Sub-Committee and agreed to request the BLG Sub-Committee to considerthis matter at its next meeting.

18.8 There was general support in the Committee for the Chairman’s statement regarding theincreasing workload of the Committee in dealing with environmental matters that a long-termsolution has to be found. In principle, matters of a policy nature should be kept under theCommittee, while matters of a technical nature, including substantive technical items, should bereferred to Sub-Committees, so that the Committee could act more as a decision-making body.

18.9 Some delegations, while voicing support for the proposal to limit the number of workinggroups at each session of the Committee and to send technical works to Sub-Committees,expressed the concern that, since they can only attend the meetings of the Committee due tobudgetary constraints, they may not be able to participate in the important technical work if it issent to Sub-Committees.

18.10 With regard to the suggestion that the Committee could also make more use of otherexpert bodies such as GESAMP, ISO and IACS, it was mentioned that financial difficulties havebeen encountered in funding GESAMP's activities in relation to Annex II and it may not be ableto carry out additional technical work assigned to it by the Committee. In this connection, theCommittee noted that ISO is willing to co-operate with the Committee in dealing with technicalwork.

18.11 While there was general support to the Chairman's proposal to consider workloadmanagement of MEPC, the Committee recognized that it was premature to decide on any specificproposal including the one to relocate the OPRC Working Group under the BLG Sub-Committee.

18.12 The Committee, while noting the organizational review of the IMO Secretariat was yet tobe completed, suggested that for the longer term the Chairmen of MSC and MEPC might in thefuture consider the matter of reviewing the Sub-Committee structure with the objective ofimproving the efficiency and effectiveness of the Committees and Sub-Committees.

18.13 The MSC is invited to take note of the above development and provide its comments forconsideration by MEPC 45.

Work programme of subsidiary bodies

18.14 The Committee recalled that, at MEPC 43, it approved the work programmes of the FSIand BLG Sub-Committees and the relevant work programmes of the DE, DSC, FP and SLFSub-Committees which had environmental items.

- - MEPC 44/20

I:\MEPC\44\20.DOC

65

18.15 The Committee noted that, between MEPC 43 and MEPC 44, the STW, FSI and DSCSub-Committees had held sessions, but the environmental work programmes of relevantSub-Committees will be considered at MEPC 45.

Substantive items to be included in the agendas of MEPC 45, MEPC 46 and MEPC 47

18.16 The Committee considered MEPC 44/WP.1 and approved the substantive items to beincluded in the Committee's agenda of its forthcoming three sessions, which is set out atannex 13.

Tentative dates for MEPC 45, MEPC 46 and the Diplomatic Conference on Anti-foulingPaints

18.17 The Committee noted that MEPC 45 is scheduled to be held from 2 to 6 October 2000,MEPC 46 is tentatively scheduled to be held in July 2001 and the Diplomatic Conference onAnti-fouling Paints is tentatively scheduled to be held from 22 to 26 October 2001.

Working and drafting groups at MEPC 45

18.18 The Committee agreed to establish working groups at MEPC 45 on the followingsubjects:

.1 OPRC matters;

.2 harmful aquatic organisms in ballast water; and

.3 harmful effects of the use of anti-fouling paints for ships.

18.19 The Committee envisaged that drafting groups would be established at MEPC 45 on thefollowing subjects:

.1 PSSA related matters; and

.2 amendments to MARPOL 73/78.

19 ANY OTHER BUSINESS

Environmental effects of high-speed craft: Proposed environmental requirements to beincluded in a revised High-Speed Craft (HSC) Code

19.1 Friends of the Earth International introduced its document (MEPC 44/19) which outlinedthe alleged adverse environmental effects caused by the operation of high-speed craft anddescribes how, via the HSC Code and permit to operate procedure, measures could be taken toalleviate these effects.

19.2 FOEI requested the Committee to:

.1 establish appropriate environmental measures and criteria for inclusion in theHigh-Speed Craft Code;

MEPC 44/20 - -

I:\MEPC\44\20.doc

66

.2 consider whether those measures should be implemented as an environmentalannex to the current revision of the HSC Code;

.3 ensure that data is available from high-speed craft designers/manufacturers andactual or candidate operators to allow national maritime administrations toundertake a proper environmental impact assessment of their operation and toassist those administrations in dealing with adverse effects specific to high-speedcraft operations; and

.4 ensure that all States with coastlines affected by the operation of high-speed craftare involved in their regulation.

19.3 Ireland, supported by Vanuatu, stated that no adverse environmental effects caused byoperation of high-speed craft have been reported so far.

19.4 The Committee noted the concern shown by FOEI, but, since it entails establishment of anew work programme item, the Committee recommended FOEI to seek support by aGovernment.

Applications for consultative status

19.5 The Committee had before it the applications for consultative status from theInternational Harbour Masters' Association (IHMA) and the Professional Yachtsmen’sAssociation (PYA) (MEPC 44/19/1; C 82/24(a)).

19.6 As this is the practice of the Committee, a small informal group, under theVice-Chairman of the Committee Mr. Zafrul Alam (Singapore), was established to consider theseapplications in accordance with the Rules Governing Relationships with Non-GovernmentalInternational Organizations and the Guidelines on the Grant of Consultative Status with a view toproviding its recommendations to the Council.

19.7 Having received the report of the group (MEPC 44/WP.2), the Committee endorsed therecommendation from the group to recommend to the Council that the consultative status shouldbe granted to IHMA, being a truly international organization with special expertise to contributesubstantively to the work of the Committee and the consultative status should not be granted toPYA on the basis of the information contained in its application. However, the Committeeagreed that it would consider a new application submitted from PYA if circumstances havechanged and the requirements as set out in the Rules Governing Relationship withNon-Governmental Organizations and the Guidelines on the Grant of Consultative Status weremet.

Information on the Mare Forum .99 Conference and its Conclusions

19.8 The Committee noted the information provided by the Netherlands (MEPC 44/INF.6) onthe conclusions of the Mare Forum .99 Conference held in Amsterdam, June 1999 as well as theinformation about the Working Groups established during the conference. At the conference,maritime regulators and the industry discussed how to provide the right balance of market forcesand administrative measures so that quality shipping could be rewarded, the problem ofsub-standard shipping is tackled and international standards are effectively applied.

- - MEPC 44/20

I:\MEPC\44\20.DOC

67

Overview of Technical Co-operation Activities since MEPC 43

19.9 The Committee noted the information contained in document MEPC 44/INF.12 whichprovides an update on the technical co-operation activities for environmental protection that havetaken place during the intersessional period (July – December 1999) in different geographicalregions. The TC activities among others include the following important subjects: MARPOLimplementation, contingency planning, development of national profiles on waste managementand marine pollution prevention, implementation of OPRC training courses and organizing of theNOWPAP Third Forum Meeting.

Environmental awareness in youth

19.10 The Committee recalled that, at its last session, it agreed that it is of paramountimportance that young people should be made aware of the state of the oceans and how toimprove the marine environment. It was also agreed that IMO should consider incorporating thepromotion of this issue through the Technical Co-operation Programme.

19.11 The Committee noted the statement given by the two representatives of HELMEPAJUNIOR, Despina Nikolaidou (a girl of 14 years old) and Stathis Costacopoulos (a boy of13 years old), informing of the activities undertaken by HELMEPA's JUNIOR Program toprotect the marine environment in Greece.

19.12 Many delegations, while expressing their congratulations to the HELMEPA JUNIORrepresentatives for their excellent presentation and their work done, expressed their intention toincorporate activities similar to HELMEPA's JUNIOR Program into their national youthenvironmental education programmes. Australia informed the Committee about their ongoingactivities, which are based on the model of HELMEPA JUNIOR and drew the attention to theHELMEPA/AMSA joint publication: A Guide for the Greek Seafarers in Australian waters.

19.13 In order to draw the attention of Member Governments and relevant Organizations to thisissue, the Committee instructed the Secretariat to circulate the presentation as MEPC/Circ.370with an appropriate cover note.

19.14 The Committee noted the statement made by the Secretariat on behalf of the InternationalOcean Institute (IOI), informing of IOI's Youth Program and the intended enhanced co-operationwith HELMEPA and the associated HELMEPA Junior Program.

19.15 The Committee also noted the information provided in document MEPC 44/INF.18 aboutsome examples of UNESCO’s activities aimed at increasing awareness among young people onissues related to the marine environment.

Expressions of appreciation

19.16 The Committee expressed its appreciation to the following delegates for their invaluablecontributions to the work of the Committee and wishes them every success in their new duties:

- Mr. H.D. Paterson (Australia), Chairman of the Ballast Water Working Groupsince its establishment on changing jobs;

- Capt. S. Bandala (Mexico), after almost five years in London representing hiscountry in IMO meetings on returning to Mexico; and

MEPC 44/20 - -

I:\MEPC\44\20.doc

68

- Mr. J.P. Boer (European Commission), after many years of participation in IMOmeetings as the representative of EC, on transfer.

19.17 The Committee also expressed its appreciation to the following members of the IMOSecretariat for their long and dedicated service to the Committee and wished them a long andhappy retirement:

- Mr. O. Khalimonov, Secretary of the Committee and Director of the MarineEnvironment Division of the Organization; and

- Mr. M. Nauke, Deputy Director/Chief of the Office of the London Convention ofthe Marine Environment Division of the Organization.

***

MEPC 44/20

I:\MEPC\44\20.doc

ANNEX 1

AGENDA FOR THE FORTY-FOURTH SESSIONINCLUDING LIST OF DOCUMENTS

1 Adoption of the Agenda

MEPC 44/1 Provisional agendaMEPC 44/1/1 Annotations and provisional timetable

2 Implementation of the OPRC Convention and the OPPR Conference resolutions

MEPC 44/2 Report of the OPRC Working Groupat MEPC 43

MEPC 44/2/1 FOEI Environmental effects of high densityfuel oil release from ships and themitigation strategies to be considered

MEPC 44/2/2 Australia Catalogue of Computer Programs andInternet Information related toresponding to oil spills

MEPC 44/INF.3 EuropeanCommission

Impact Reference System - Effects ofOil in the Marine Environment:Impacts of Hydrocarbons on Faunaand Flora

MEPC 44/INF.4 WMO MARPOLSER 98 - MetoceanServices for Marine PollutionEmergency Response Operations

MEPC 44/INF.5 Australia Catalogue of Computer Programs andInternet Information related toresponding to oil spills

MEPC 44/INF.21 ITOPF INTERSPILL 2000 - An InternationalConference and Exhibition with thetheme of "A New Millennium - ANew Approach to Spill Response"

3 Harmful effects of the use of anti-fouling paints for ships

MEPC 44/3 Report of the Anti-fouling PaintsWorking Group at MEPC 43 and theDraft Text of the Legal Instrument

MEPC 44/3/1 Japan Discussion text for the proposedConvention

MEPC 44/3/2 ISAF Comments on the draft text of theproposed Convention

MEPC 44/3/3 Netherlands Comments on the draft legalinstrument

MEPC 44/20ANNEX 1Page 2

I:\MEPC\44\20.doc

MEPC 44/3/4 CEFIC Comments on proposed text for a freestanding Anti-fouling Convention asdiscussed at MEPC 43

MEPC 44/3/5 Brazil Proposals aimed to improve theadoption of the Regulations and theenforcement of these measures

MEPC 44/3/6 WWF Summary report of German coast shiptrials testing biocide free anti-foulingsystems

MEPC 44/3/7 Germany Development and execution of amethod for the identification oforganotin-containing marine paints

MEPC 44/INF.11 Italy/Netherlands/Portugal & Spain

Information on TBT levels and theoccurrence of imposex in certainmarine species in the North Sea, theMediterranean and the coastal watersof Portugal

MEPC 44/INF.15 GreenpeaceInternational

Information on recent developmentsconcerning the use of TBT coatings

4 Harmful aquatic organisms in ballast water

MEPC 44/4 Report of the Working Group onBallast Water convened duringMEPC 43

MEPC 44/4/1 United States Comments on the draft internationalconvention for the control andmanagement of ships' ballast waterand sediments

MEPC 44/4/2 Argentina Preventing pollution by harmfulorganisms in the ballast water of shipsbound for Argentine ports in the RiverPlate Estuary

MEPC 44/4/3 Japan Ballast Water Management andControl Procedures

MEPC 44/4/4 Brazil Proposals to improve the workregarding the adoption of theRegulations and the enforcement ofthese measures

MEPC 44/4/5 Norway Alternative principles for regulatingballast water management

MEPC 44/4/6 Greece Harmful Aquatic Organisms InBallast Water

MEPC 44/20ANNEX 1

Page 3

I:\MEPC\44\20.DOC

MEPC 44/INF.2 Secretariat Report on the Regional ScientificWorkshop on Ballast WaterManagement and Control held onboard m/v Georgij Ushakov in theBlack Sea from 14 to 17 September1999

MEPC 44/INF.9 Japan Mixer pipe method as an alternativeballast water management technique

MEPC 44/INF.13 Argentina Orgenanza No 7-98 - Prevención de laContaminación con OrganismosAcuáticos en el Lastre de los BuquesDestinados a Puertos Argentinos de laCuenca del Plata

MEPC 44/INF.19 Australia Australia's ballast water managementarrangements

MEPC 44/INF.20 Australia Australia's ballast water exchangeverification method

MEPC 44/INF.23 Secretariat GEF/UNDP/IMO Project on BallastWater Management(GLO/99/G31/A/1G/19)

5 Inadequacy of reception facilities

MEPC 44/5 United Kingdom Report of the Correspondence Groupon port waste reception facilities

MEPC 44/5/1 United Kingdom Further text submitted in respect ofthe preparation of guidelines on portwaste reception facilities

6 Consideration and adoption of amendments to mandatory instruments

MEPC 44/6 Secretariat Amendments to the Appendix toAnnex III of MARPOL 73/78

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

MEPC 44/7 Colombia Designation of Malpelo Island as a"particularly sensitive sea area"

MEPC 44/7/1 IUCN Revision of the Guidelines for thedesignation of special areas and theidentification of particularly sensitivesea areas

MEPC 44/7/2 Australia Draft Terms of Reference for theCorrespondence Group

MEPC 44/7/3 WWF Consistency of the criteria foridentification of PSSAs withUNCLOS

MEPC 44/20ANNEX 1Page 4

I:\MEPC\44\20.doc

MEPC 44/INF.8 Australia Communicating with the MaritimeIndustry about Sea Areas Sensitive toShipping and Boating Operations inAustralia

8 Reports of sub-committees

MEPC 44/8 Secretariat Outcome of NAV 45MEPC 44/8/1 Secretariat Urgent matters arising from FSI 8

9 Work of other bodies

MEPC 44/9 Secretariat Outcome of LEG 80MEPC 44/9/1 Secretariat Outcome of FAL 27MEPC 44/9/2 Secretariat Outcome of A 21MEPC 44/9/2/Add.1 Secretariat Outcome of A 21

10 Status of conventions

MEPC 44/10 Secretariat Status of conventions

11 Prevention of air pollution from shipsMEPC 44/11 Secretariat Outcome of the fifth session of the

Conference of Parties (COP5) toUNFCCC

MEPC 44/11/1 IACS Type approval certificate forincinerators

MEPC 44/11/2 IACS IACS Interpretation of "installed onboard"

MEPC 44/11/3 Japan Proposal for amendments to the NOxTechnical Code on test conditionparameter "fa" for engine familyapproval

MEPC 44/11/4 Austria, Belgium,Denmark, Finland,France, Germany,Greece, Ireland,Italy, Luxembourg,Netherlands,Norway, Portugal,Spain, Sweden,United Kingdomand the EuropeanCommission

Designation of the North Sea area asan SOx Emission Control Area

MEPC 44/20ANNEX 1

Page 5

I:\MEPC\44\20.DOC

MEPC 44/11/4/Corr.1 Austria, Belgium,Denmark, Finland,France, Germany,Greece, Ireland,Italy, Luxembourg,Netherlands,Norway, Portugal,Spain, Sweden,United Kingdomand the EuropeanCommission

Designation of the North Sea area asan SOx Emission Control Area:Corrigendum

MEPC 44/11/5 Secretariat Progress report on follow-up activitiesMEPC 44/11/6 Japan Research on Engines which comply

with the NOx requirements underAnnex VI of MARPOL

MEPC 44/11/7 United States Revision of the NOx Technical CodeTier 2 emission limits for dieselmarine engines at or above 130kW

MEPC 44/INF.10 Japan A point of view toward carbondioxide emission reduction:Preliminary study on estimation andfuture trend of carbon dioxide emittedfrom crude oil tankers

12 Interpretation and amendments of MARPOL 73/78 and related Codes

MEPC 44/12 Secretariat Revision of Annex IV ofMARPOL 73/78

MEPC 44/12/1 Secretariat Draft Guidelines for the Developmentof Shipboard Marine PollutionEmergency Plans for Oil and/orNoxious Liquid Substances: Proposedamendments to the Guidelines for theDevelopment of Shipboard OilPollution Emergency Plans

MEPC 44/12/2 Australia andHong Kong, China

Discharge of cargo hold bilge water

MEPC 44/12/3 IACS MARPOL Annex V - Discharge ofincinerator ash at sea

MEPC 44/12/4 Norway Revision of Annex IV

MEPC 44/12/5 United States Proposed amendments to MARPOLAnnex IV

MEPC 44/20ANNEX 1Page 6

I:\MEPC\44\20.doc

MEPC 44/12/6 Venezuela Inclusion of Spanish in thecertificates, registers, manuals andother documents specified inMARPOL 73/78

MEPC 44/12/7 Spain Inclusion of Spanish in thecertificates, registers, manuals andother documents specified inMARPOL 73/78

MEPC 44/12/8 ICS Concern about draft text inMEPC 44/12/1, requiring ships tohave lists of salvage facilities

MEPC 44/INF.16 Sweden Double hull, a prerequisite fortransportation of emulsified fuels andhigh density oils?

13 Follow-up action to UNCED

MEPC 44/13 Secretariat Report of the seventh session of theCommission on SustainableDevelopment

MEPC 44/13/1 WWF Relevance of Agenda 21 Chapter 19to the work of the IMO

MEPC 44/13/2 Russian Federation Development of the "Environmentbest practice guidelines in offshore oiland gas activities"

14 Promotion of implementation and enforcement of MARPOL 73/78 and related Codes

MEPC 44/14 Norway Confirmation of the requirements ofMARPOL Annex V

MEPC 44/14/1 United States Preparation for a new publication -MARPOL - HOW TO DO IT toincorporate guidance for enforcement

MEPC 44/INF.7 ROPME ROPME/MEMAC/IMOWorkshop/Symposium onMARPOL 73/78 held in Bahrain,17-19 October 1999

MEPC 44/INF.17 United States Enforcement of MARPOL 73/78Annex V

15 INF Code related matters

MEPC 44/15 Secretariat Progress report on the literature studyon specific hazards associated withthe carriage of INF material andconsequences of accidents

MEPC 44/20ANNEX 1

Page 7

I:\MEPC\44\20.DOC

16 Recycling of ships

MEPC 44/16 FOEI Potential environmental effects ofships' ballast water discharges inconsidering the involvement of IMOin regulating the scrapping of ships

MEPC 44/16/1 Netherlands Additional information related to shipscrapping

MEPC 44/16/2 Norway Proposal for an IMO work planMEPC 44/16/3 Brazil Recycling of shipsMEPC 44/16/4 ICS/BIMCO/

INTERTANKO/INTERCARGO/OCIMF/ICFTU

Comments on the proposal for anIMO work plan

MEPC 44/INF.14 Netherlands Report on the First Ship RecyclingSummit

MEPC 44/INF.22 Secretariat Recycling of ships

17 Application of the Committees' Guidelines

No documents submitted.

18 Work programme of the Committee and subsidiary bodies

MEPC 44/18 MEPC Chairman Management of workload of theCommittee

MEPC 44/18/1 Brazil The OPRC Working Group: Concernsabout technical assistance from IMOfor implementing OPRC Convention

19 Any other business

MEPC 44/19 FOEI Environmental effects of high-speedcraft: Proposed environmentalrequirements to be included in arevised High-Speed Craft (HSC) Code

MEPC 44/19/1 Secretariat Applications for consultative statusMEPC 44/INF.6 Netherlands Information on the Mare Forum.99

Conference and its conclusionsMEPC 44/INF.12 Secretariat Overview of Technical Co-operation

Activities since MEPC 43MEPC 44/INF.18 Secretariat Environmental awareness in youth

20 Consideration of the report of the Committee

***

MEPC 44/20

I:\MEPC\44\20.doc

ANNEX 2

RESOLUTION MEPC.83(44)

Adopted on 13 March 2000

GUIDELINES FOR ENSURING THE ADEQUACYOF PORT WASTE RECEPTION FACILITIES

THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION COMMITTEE,

RECALLING Article 38(a) of the Convention on the International Maritime Organizationconcerning the functions of the Committee,

RECALLING ALSO the objective of the International Convention for the Prevention ofPollution from Ships, 1973 as modified by the Protocol of 1978 relating thereto(MARPOL 73/78) to achieve the complete elimination of international pollution of the marineenvironment,

RECALLING FURTHER Assembly resolution A.896(21) on the provision and use of portreception facilities,

DESIRING in this regard to reduce even further operational pollution,

NOTING regulations 12(5) of Annex I, 7(4) of Annex II and 7(2) of Annex V of MARPOL73/78which require the Government of each Party to ensure the provision of reception facilities,

RECOGNIZING the urgent need for developing such guidelines in order to ensure uniformapplication of regulation 12 of Annex I of MARPOL 73/78,

RECOGNIZING ALSO that some Governments may face particular difficulties in meeting theirobligations under regulation 12 of Annex I of MARPOL 73/78,

RECOGNIZING FURTHER the importance of effective planning and accurate assessment of theneeds of port users for the provision of adequate reception facilities,

HAVING CONSIDERED at its forty-fourth session proposals for the Guidelines submitted byGovernments,

1. ADOPTS the Guidelines for ensuring the adequacy of port waste reception facilities, thetext of which is set out at Annex to the present resolution;

2. URGES Governments to meet their obligations to ensure the proper provision of adequatefacilities and arrange for effective receipt of ships’ wastes in their ports;

3. FURTHER URGES Governments to take necessary steps to ensure that the planning andestablishment of new facilities are achieved in accordance with these Guidelines;

MEPC 44/20ANNEX 2Page 2

I:\MEPC\44\20.doc

4. FURTHER ENCOURAGES Governments to make use of the assessment form appendedto the Guidelines to conduct regular assessments of their waste reception facilities in their portsand advise IMO of the outcome of such assessments, including any inadequacies of portreception facilities, as well as any technical co-operation assistance needed to address thoseinadequacies.

MEPC 44/20ANNEX 2

Page 3

I:\MEPC\44\20.DOC

ANNEX

GUIDELINES FOR ENSURING THE ADEQUACY OF PORT WASTERECEPTION FACILITIES

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 States Parties have obligations under UNCLOS1 and MARPOL 73/782 to tackle theproblems associated with the illegal discharge of ship-generated wastes from all types and sizesof ships, including sailing boats. Marine pollution is indiscriminate. By its nature it istransboundary. Its effects have repercussions on a global scale. The illegal discharge of oil has adetrimental effect on the marine and coastal environment. Oil may wash ashore as tar balls faraway from its point of discharge. Ship sourced pollution such as plastic is capable of remainingin the marine environment for hundreds of years.

1.2 These guidelines, prepared by the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) ofthe International Maritime Organisation (IMO), contain information for the provision andimprovement of port waste reception facilities and are designed to complement the IMOComprehensive Manual on Port Reception Facilities3. The guidelines provide, in summary,information relating to the ongoing management of existing facilities, as well as for the planningand establishment of new facilities. The guidelines are also intended to encourage States toprovide adequate port waste reception facilities and ships to make more effective use of thesefacilities. This will make a substantial contribution to the ultimate aim of MARPOL 73/78 toachieve the complete elimination of intentional pollution of the marine environment.

1.3 The main objective of the guidelines is to remind States that wastes arise from allmaritime activities - commercial, fishing and recreational - and that each activity requiresspecific attention. In particular, the guidelines are intended to:

.1 assist States in planning and providing adequate port waste reception facilities;and

.2 encourage States to develop environmentally appropriate methods of disposing ofships’ wastes ashore.

1.4 These guidelines are designed to address Member Governments, port States and portauthorities for their activities aimed at provision of adequate port Waste reception facilitiesrequired under the provisions of MARPOL 73/78.

1 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 19822 The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of

1978 relating thereto.3 IMO Publication 597E

MEPC 44/20ANNEX 2Page 4

I:\MEPC\44\20.doc

2. OBLIGATIONS AND PRINCIPLES

2.1 UNCLOS provides that:

.1 States have a general obligation to protect and preserve the marine environment(Article 192);

.2 States have a duty to take measures, using the best practicable means at theirdisposal and in accordance with their capabilities, to minimise to the fullestpossible extent pollution from ships, in particular measures for preventingintentional and unintentional discharges (Article 194); and

.3 flag States have a duty to adopt laws and regulations which have at least the sameeffect as that of generally accepted international rules and standards establishedthrough the IMO (Article 211(2)).

2.2 UNCLOS and MARPOL establish a framework of rights and duties. Coastal States havethe right to prohibit polluting discharges from foreign and domestic shipping in their coastalzones. If they exercise this right, they have a duty to ensure the provision of adequate receptionfacilities for ships' wastes in their ports. This duty is explicit in MARPOL. It is implicit inUNCLOS that each right also entails a duty.

2.3 States Parties to MARPOL 73/78 have specifically undertaken to ensure the provision ofadequate waste reception facilities in their ports. Most States have delegated this duty to theirports industry or to other public or private bodies, but States retain the ultimate responsibility forensuring that their undertaking is fulfilled.

2.4 The global provision of adequate port waste reception facilities will help pave the way tothe elimination of intentional pollution of the marine environment from maritime activities asenvisaged in the preamble to MARPOL 73/78. To succeed in this objective mariners must beprovided with the means to dispose of ships’ wastes ashore. The conditions of use of suchfacilities must not deter mariners from using them, either for practical or economic reasons.

2.5 States Parties failing to provide adequate reception facilities will be in breach of theirMARPOL 73/78 obligations, and make it harder to enforce measures to combat illegal dischargesat sea from shipping.

2.6 These guidelines concentrate on the need for adequate port reception facilities, rather thanon the enforcement of international obligations. There is international recognition of the need forthe proper management to achieve and maintain high standards of environmental protection byall those involved in the operation of ships. To address this need, the IMO has adopted theInternational Safety Management (ISM) Code4 to develop a safety and environmental cultureboth ashore and on board ship. It places a responsibility on the flag State to confirm, by meansof auditing, that both the shore-side management systems and operational standards on boardships comply with the ISM Code.

4 The IMO adopted the ISM Code in November 1993 through resolution A.741(18). As from 1 July 1998

compliance with the requirements of the ISM Code is mandatory under the provisions of Chapter IX of SOLAS.Section 15 contains information on the ISM Code.

MEPC 44/20ANNEX 2

Page 5

I:\MEPC\44\20.DOC

2.7 In addition to the requirements under UNCLOS, MARPOL 73/78 and SOLAS5, the ISMCode provides a link between the need for compliance with international treaty obligations andthe associated responsibilities of the maritime industry. This dual approach - by administrationsand industry - to the provision of adequate facilities should complement other measures taken bythe IMO to protect the marine environment.

3. HOW TO ACHIEVE ADEQUACY

3.1 The IMO has agreed that:

“To achieve adequacy the port should have regard to the operational needs of users andprovide reception facilities for the types and quantities of wastes from ships normallyusing the port.”6

3.2 The IMO, through the MEPC, has undertaken work into, and monitored the provision of,port waste reception facilities. It has concluded that, notwithstanding 3.1 above, adequatefacilities can be defined as those which:

.1 mariners use;

.2 fully meet the needs of the ships regularly using them;

.3 do not provide mariners with a disincentive to use them; and

.4 contribute to the improvement of the marine environment.

3.3 The facilities provided by the port must:

.1 meet the needs of the ships normally using the port; and

.2 allow for the ultimate disposal of ships’ wastes to take place in anenvironmentally appropriate way.

4. OPERATIONAL NEEDS

4.1 In relation to operational needs, the key concern of the master, shipowner and ship’sagent is likely to be to avoid the ship incurring undue delay. The IMO Comprehensive Manualon Port Reception Facilities provides a definition:

“The time of transfer [of waste] should be mutually agreed upon and transfer of wasteshould take place during the cargo-handling working hours of the port unless the ship’snormal call at the port is not at a time within this period.”.

5 International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea 1974 (as amended)6 This was agreed upon at MEPC 43

MEPC 44/20ANNEX 2Page 6

I:\MEPC\44\20.doc

4.2 It is unlikely that a ship would enter port solely to discharge wastes. Nevertheless, portsshould make every effort to meet the needs of ships and not create obstacles to ships usingreception facilities.

4.3 For logistical reasons, the providers of waste reception facilities may require advancenotification of the intention to use facilities, particularly if independent waste contractors providesome or all of the port’s waste collection services. Providing advance notification of the type andquantity of wastes on board for delivery to a reception facility should minimise the risk of unduedelay to the ship. Once alerted to the volumes and types of wastes expected, the waste facilityprovider will be better able to meet the needs of the ship at a mutually acceptable time.

4.4 Some States have, either on a national or regional basis, developed legislation regulatingthe provision of port waste reception facilities. One legislative aim is to ensure that ports receiveadvance notification of ships’ waste discharge intentions.

4.5 The universal application of a advance notification or similar procedure should ensurethat ports receive a regular supply of documented material. They may use this to monitor theprovision and adequacy of their facilities, which will greatly assist the port waste managementplanning and review process. The principle of advance notification is complementary to, andconsistent with, best practice of port waste management planning. States may wish to considerthe positive merits of introducing into their domestic regimes an obligation for ships to submit awaste discharge form prior to entry into port.

4.6 In any case, to maintain and improve the adequacy of its facilities the port administration,working with port waste facility providers, should ensure that an effective advance notificationand monitoring arrangement is in place. Such arrangements need to be communicated clearlyand concisely to all ships (and their agents) prior to port entry. For the arrangements to beeffective, ships’ masters should provide the port with their waste discharge requirements atleast 24 hours in advance of arrival, or for passages of shorter duration, as soon as is practicable.

5. PLANNING A PORT WASTE RECEPTION FACILITY

5.1 MARPOL 73/78 provides that States Parties have an on-going obligation to ensure theprovision of adequate waste reception facilities in their ports. States intending to become Partiesto this Convention will also be bound by the same obligations in accordance with therequirements of:

.1 Regulation 12 of Annex I;

.2 Regulation 7 of Annex II;

.3 Regulation 7 of Annex V;

.4 Regulation 10 of Annex IV (when it enters into force); and

.5 Regulation 17 of Annex VI (when it enters into force).

MEPC 44/20ANNEX 2

Page 7

I:\MEPC\44\20.DOC

5.2 The mere provision of facilities, which are then not fully utilised, does not necessarilymean they are adequate. Poor location, complicated procedures, restricted availability andunreasonably high costs for the service provided, are all factors which may deter the use ofreception facilities.

5.3 The obligation to provide adequate facilities covers all ports, terminals, harbours andmarinas visited by commercial shipping and other types of vessels. The effort made by the portto ensure the provision of adequate facilities should be commensurate with the quantities andvariety of wastes to be delivered ashore.

5.4 Ports cannot provide adequate facilities for users without an accurate assessment of theirneeds. The IMO Comprehensive Manual on Port Reception Facilities provides extensiveguidance on this issue. The development of a port waste assessment procedure, or managementplan is vital. This need not be an onerous task and the concept behind such a plan is simple.Ships are customers of the port, and meeting the needs of the ships while they are in port issimple ‘customer care’.

5.5 Port waste management planning is intended to identify a number of common elementswhich all ports should consider when planning waste management facilities; regardless of thesize and type of the port or the types of wastes received. These common elements are embodiedin a framework which can be applied flexibly to any port.

5.6 State Parties will need to consider how they can best promote the port waste managementconcept. The options are:

(a) as a statutory obligation in their ports, harbours and marinas; or

(b) through voluntary industry initiatives.

5.7 The most effective method for ports to provide adequate facilities is through theconsultative process. All interested parties, including port authorities, ship operators, agents andwaste service providers and various Government agencies (including those with responsibility toensure the safe and environmental disposal of wastes) have a role in the consultative process.They should all have the opportunity to express their opinion and influence the provision and useof port waste reception facilities.

5.8 Following the initial period of consultation it is important that a process of consultationcontinues with users. This will ensure that the provision of adequate facilities within the port isconsistent and continues to meet users needs, which may vary as the type and volume of trafficchange.

5.9 During the process of consultation, the port should give consideration to some commonelements. In summary, these might include ensuring that facilities:

.1 are available during a ship’s visit to the port;

.2 do not cause undue delay to ships;

.3 are conveniently located and easy to use;

MEPC 44/20ANNEX 2Page 8

I:\MEPC\44\20.doc

.4 cater for all types of waste streams usually entering the port; and

.5 do not cost so much to use as to present a disincentive to users.

5.10 Ports should also carry out a periodic review of the facilities to ensure that they continueto meet the needs of users. Government, maritime and environmental agencies should contributeto this review process, as appropriate. Reference is made to the Sample Assessment Procedurefor Ports in Appendix to these Guidelines. It should be emphasized that this merely serves as anexample and the procedure should be amended to suit local circumstances and requirements.Periodic assessment with the aim of identifying areas for improvement is also in the commercialinterest of the port. Rectifying deficiencies will enhance the quality of services provided andthus the commercial attractiveness of the port.

5.11 Ports should consult their appropriate national authorities, or the appropriate delegatedauthorities, with regard to the final treatment and disposal of ships’ wastes delivered ashore.Those responsible for the collection and treatment of wastes may require licensing arrangements.The appropriate authority responsible for waste disposal should deal with these arrangements.

5.12 While producing a management plan, ports should consider how to inform users of thelocation, cost and procedures for using the facilities. It will be important for the port to considerhow it might best publicise the availability of facilities and provide ships with names, fax,telephone, e-mail and availability details of appropriate contacts ashore.

5.13 Bodies who may provide a useful source of information during the consultation processinclude:

.1 trades associations;

.2 ships’ masters, owners and agents;

.3 the IMO (e.g. for technical advice); and

.4 the national and local administration, e.g. marine, environment, waste disposalplanning and legal departments.

5.14 All States Parties have an obligation to provide reception facilities for all specifiedMARPOL 73/78 wastes from all ships normally calling at their ports. However, it is recognizedthat some port authorities may face particular problems meeting this obligation. To identifypossible solutions the port waste management planning process is particularly useful.

5.15 Port waste management planning on a regional arrangements can provide a solution whenit is undertaken in such a manner as to ensure that vessels do not have an incentive to dischargewastes into the sea. In the development of such regional plans it is imperative that the dedicatedwaste storage capacity of vessels involved is sufficient to retain their wastes between ports ofcall. Such planning may require close collaboration between States.

MEPC 44/20ANNEX 2

Page 9

I:\MEPC\44\20.DOC

5.16 In judging the adequacy of waste reception facility at individual pots within a regionalplan, States Parties to MARPOL 73/78 will need to have particular regard to the ability of allships to discharge all of their wastes within the region.

6. PORT WASTE FACILITIES - ASSESSMENT STRATEGY

6.1 An integral element of the planning and ongoing management of port waste receptionfacilities is the collection and assessment of information regarding port user requirements. Usinga waste reception facility auditing or assessment strategy is one of the best methods of achievingthis.

6.2 Such a strategy may support the principle of port waste management planning, providingfor the evaluation of existing facilities and the assessment and effectiveness of wastemanagement programmes operating within a port. For example, it may be possible to identify acorrelation between the adequacy of port waste reception facilities and local levels of marinepollution and debris.

Assessment procedures

6.3 Most importantly, the collection of relevant data should reveal existing weaknesses inport and ship practices and allow for the implementation of improvements. A key component ofany assessment strategy is its ability to facilitate the collection and interpretation of all necessaryinformation. An example of such a procedure is set out in the Appendix to these guidelines.

6.4 The procedure annexed to these guidelines provides an example of a detailed audit thatmight be conducted by a third party, e.g. by a consultant. Many types of assessments will notrequire such a comprehensive approach. For example, a self-assessment by a port authoritywould not require the use of the whole of the procedure outlined in Appendix to these guidelines.

6.5 The procedure is primarily aimed at large commercial ports. However, it can readily beadapted to suit smaller harbours and marinas. In its current format, the procedure offers asystematic checklist of questions designed to obtain information about current port facilities,demand, and the type and level of waste service provided.

6.6 In any case, it will be necessary to provide initial training to both private and publicsector assessors to ensure that an objective assessment of ports waste facilities is undertaken.When undertaken by government authorities, the assessment procedure should ideally apply toall ports, marinas and harbours within a State’s jurisdiction according to systematic criteria thatreflect the size of the port or harbour, the types and volumes of traffic that pass through it, andthe waste streams regularly delivered ashore by users. It therefore follows that the approacheswill differ between commercial ports, marinas and fishing harbours.

6.7 Waste management systems within a port do not exist in isolation from the rest of the portinfrastructure, but rather are an integral part of the entire package of facilities and servicesoffered by the port. Assessments and plans for waste reception facilities in a port must be linkedto other infrastructure developments within the port complex if their value is to be optimised.

MEPC 44/20ANNEX 2Page 10

I:\MEPC\44\20.doc

Use of the waste management planning assessment procedures

6.8 The waste management planning assessment procedures may be used as follows:

• in commercial ports, marinas and harbours, as part of an overall strategydemonstrating good waste management practice;

• by regulatory agencies, where there is a need to conform to waste licence orcompliance regulations, or to undertake a needs analysis;

• by the managers of waste service providers, to assess performance and by portusers; and

• a means by which States Parties to MARPOL might demonstrate their compliancewith Article 11 (1) (d) of the 1973 Convention.

Implementation of the assessment procedures

6.9 The assessment could be both an objective and independent exercise from that carried outfor port waste management planning purposes.

• Assessors should be able to demonstrate adequate expertise (with the assistance ofthe assessment protocol and procedure) and experience in the conduct ofenvironmental assessments.

• Most environmental consultants, and many environment, health, and safetyexperts employed in the waste management industry have the appropriateexpertise and experience to carry out such audits.

• All States should consider this option, resources permitting.

• Any assessment forms and procedures developed by States should be shared withreception facility managers in order further to promote industry self-evaluationand improvements in management practices.

7. TYPE AND CAPACITY OF WASTE RECEPTION FACILITIES

7.1 Waste facilities should be available in all ports where there is a need for ships todischarge wastes ashore. They should be easily accessible and equipped to deal with the variouswaste streams and quantities that users deliver. Reception facilities must be able to deal with therange of wastes that is likely to arise from ships normally using the port. Where appropriate thefacilities should be capable of handling:

• Annex I - oily waste, from engine room tanks, slop tanks etc.;

• Annex II - noxious liquid substances e.g. from tank cleaning activities;

• Annex V - garbage;

MEPC 44/20ANNEX 2

Page 11

I:\MEPC\44\20.DOC

• Annex IV - sewage (not yet in force); and

• Annex VI - ozone depleting substances and exhaust gas cleaning residues(not yet in force).

7.2 On occasion, this may mean going beyond the strict requirements of the MARPOLAnnexes that are in force. Inadequate facilities may encourage a master to discharge wastes atsea or to overload the waste storage capacity on board the ship.

7.3 It is necessary for ports to provide adequate facilities to cater for each type of wastesdelivered by ships using the port: both cargo residues and wastes generated on board ships.Following the consultation process the port will be in a better position to tailor the facilities itprovides to meet individual circumstances according to the port’s normal traffic patterns.

7.4 For various waste streams, where appropriate, port administrations may prefer shipoperators, or their agents, to make their own arrangements with waste contractors. However, theport administration must retain responsibility for ensuring that the facilities provided by thecontractors are sufficient for the amounts and types of wastes received. It does this by exercisinggeneral oversight as part of its waste management plan or waste facility assessment process.

7.5 Ports will wish to consider the potential human and environmental risk associated withcombining different waste streams within the same reception facility. Such action may lead totechnical problems in the collection, treatment and final disposal of wastes. The waste policy ofnational authorities should dictate how to handle and contain different waste streams at the port.

7.6 Ships and ports should be encouraged to take appropriate measures to promote theseparation of wastes. They could provide for the separate collection of materials such as glass,metal paper packaging and plastics for recycling.

7.7 The inappropriate storage of waste in shore side receptacles may encourage theintroduction of vermin. The design and maintenance of receptacles should avoid the spread ofinfection and disease.

7.8 The use of road tankers and other vehicles for the removal of ships’ wastes is common.This method can facilitate the rapid discharge of wastes and minimise undue delay to the ship,provided that it is suitable for the types and volume of wastes on board and the ship’s operationalneeds. Road vehicles will also generally be responsible for the collection and carriage of wastesfrom the port to the point of final treatment and disposal. Vehicular access to the ship should nottherefore be unduly restricted, nor should access to the facilities impede the normal functions ofthe ship or port. Due regard should, however, be given to ships loading or unloading dangerouscargoes.

7.9 Alternatively it might be appropriate to provide barges to collect wastes from shipswithout interfering with the operations of the ship while it is loading or unloading, or while shipsare at anchor away from the dock side. In particular, this would be appropriate where vehicularaccess is not practicable.

MEPC 44/20ANNEX 2Page 12

I:\MEPC\44\20.doc

7.10 The IMO Comprehensive Manual on Port Reception Facilities provides a useful checklistand considers, in summary, that when selecting a site the following considerations should betaken into account:

.1 other port operations should not be hindered;

.2 the risk for wastes to enter the water should be minimised;

.3 the site should be at a convenient place;

.4 the site should have sufficient lighting allowing for 24 hour use;

.5 siting of the facilities should be convenient for users, contractors and vehicles;

.6 reception facilities should be clearly identified;

.7 the location of facilities should not impact adversely on the local community; and

.8 the facilities must comply with national, local and other legislation on garbagecollection and processing.

Quarantine Waste

7.11 Some States impose specific requirements regarding quarantine waste. The definition ofsuch waste will be a matter for national legislation, and may be based on the protection ofspecific agricultural products or indigenous wildlife. Quarantine waste may, according tonational legislation, require separate receptacles which should be clearly marked and which aresufficiently secure to prevent birds and animals from accessing the facility. The location of suchfacilities should not present a risk to the human population either at the site or during itstransportation, treatment and final disposal.

7.12 Ports should ensure that specific national requirements relating to quarantine wastes areproperly notified to ships in order that appropriate steps may be taken to ensure that the storageof such waste will prevent the introduction of disease and vermin. The proper management ofwaste should provide a means whereby the waste can be delivered ashore without presenting arisk to human health, the local land or marine environment.

8. ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE

8.1 Flag and port States should be able to demonstrate that they fulfil the requirements ofMARPOL 73/78 obligations by ensuring that the obligation to provide adequate port wastereception facility is complied with, maintained and enforced.

8.2 In adopting MEPC/Circ.349 (attached to these Guidelines) for reporting allegedinadequacy of port reception facilities, the MEPC agreed that Parties to MARPOL 73/78 shouldfulfil their obligations under Regulation 12(5) of Annex I, Regulation 7(4) of Annex II andRegulation 7(2) of Annex V. They can do this by ensuring that whenever shipowners or mastersidentify an inherent inadequacy of reception facilities a report is made as advised inMEPC/Circ.349. The revised format places an obligation on flag States:

“The flag State shall notify the port State of the occurrence.”

MEPC 44/20ANNEX 2

Page 13

I:\MEPC\44\20.DOC

8.3 In order for the full benefits of the reporting system to be achieved, when using theAlleged Inadequacy Reporting Form, States should take the following steps:

.1 Where the flag State and port State are different, the flag State shall inform theport State of the alleged inadequacy and also inform the IMO Secretariat.Notification shall be made as soon as possible following completion of theAlleged Inadequacy Reporting Form (MEPC/Circ.349).

.2 Where the flag State and the port State are the same, the marine administrationshould take up the matter of the alleged inadequacy directly with the port orterminal concerned.

The flag State is required to notify IMO of any case where facilities are alleged to be inadequate.

9. ROLE OF FLAG STATE

9.1 There are measures that the flag administration should take to ensure that its ships complywith the requirements of MARPOL. For example, the flag State should:

.1 provide advice to ships flying its flag;

.2 examine onboard arrangements (safety and counter-pollution) during inspections;

.3 investigate infringements; and

.4 prosecute offenders.

9.2 The flag State is in a unique position to provide port States with a regular source ofdetailed information which accurately lists the inadequacies of ports visited by its ships.

9.3 Should flag States fail to provide accurate records of inadequacies, port States and theIMO may be unable to resolve matters of alleged inadequacy as quickly as necessary.

9.4 The communication process between States Parties must be meaningful for it to provideimprovements in the provision of waste reception facilities. It therefore follows that flag Statesmust take responsibility for ensuring that appropriate measures are taken to report matters ofinadequacy. Port State administrations will be unable to take action against its ports without theappropriate information to do so.

10. ROLE OF PORT STATE

10.1 Port States will need to ensure that domestic legislation provides suitable powers andinfrastructure to implement, administer and enforce MARPOL 73/78. Those who fail to complywith the appropriate domestic legislation implementing MARPOL 73/78 should be open toprosecution by the port State whether they be masters, shipowners, port authorities, or terminaloperators.

MEPC 44/20ANNEX 2Page 14

I:\MEPC\44\20.doc

10.2 Port States must take the ultimate responsibility for ensuring that adequate port wastereception facilities are available to ships calling at ports within the port State’s jurisdiction. PortStates shall ensure the provision of waste reception facilities that are adequate and capable ofhandling the discharge of wastes from regular port users.

10.3 Port States should also ensure the provision of proper arrangements to consider andrespond appropriately and effectively to reports of inadequacies.

11. ROLE OF THE IMO

11.1 The IMO does not act as an enforcement agency in response to allegations of inadequacyof port waste reception facilities. Nevertheless, the obligation for States to report allegedinadequacies to the IMO remains of value. The IMO is in a unique position to raise matters ofconcern with national administrations. Under the terms of Protocol II Parties to MARPOL 73/78may submit their case to an arbitration procedure. Where the matter concerns the interpretationof a regulation, Parties may make submissions to the MEPC7.

11.2 The IMO will continue to provide educational, training and technical assistance both toexisting States Parties and to States wishing to ratify MARPOL 73/78.

12. CHARGING

12.1 Although no specific or generic system for charging is recommended, the IMO hasrecently revised its Comprehensive Manual on Port Reception Facilities (chapter 11). Thiscontains a number of options which ports may wish to consider as a means of recovering the costof providing adequate facilities. However, the cost should not be a disincentive to use of thefacilities.

13. REGIONAL CO-OPERATION

13.1 Given the transboundary nature of marine pollution, the requirement for States to ensurethe provision of adequate waste reception facilities may be further improved by regionalagreements.

13.2 States Parties, by reaching consensus on a regional framework may bring aboutsignificant improvements to the region’s marine environment. Such arrangements may alsoprovide States with a basis for co-operation on enforcement and charging principles and theexchange of technical information. Examples of such regional arrangements include those eitherin place or under development between:

.1 Baltic Sea States;

.2 Australia and New Zealand;

7 The provisions are contained in Protocol II to MARPOL 73/78 and summarised in ‘MARPOL - How To Do It’.

Providing that States follow the approach to the provision of adequate waste facilities contained in theseGuidelines, and that consultation between user and provider is meaningful, invoking the arbitration procedureshould not be a necessary course of action other than in the most exceptional circumstances.

MEPC 44/20ANNEX 2

Page 15

I:\MEPC\44\20.DOC

.3 members of the Regional Organisation for the Protection of the MarineEnvironment (ROPME); and

.4 Member States of the European Union.

14. INDUSTRY CO-OPERATION

14.1 In ensuring the provision of adequate facilities, the ports and shipping industries, togetherwith the waste disposal industry should consider methods for revising and upgrading existingdischarge, transportation and final disposal methods. The involvement of all parties concernedshould make it easier to find innovative approaches to overcome practical problems.

14.2 There are currently a number of associations that provide the shipping industry withdetails of reception facilities at many ports throughout the world. Port administrations shouldensure that these data bases include information on the facilities available in their ports. Thedetails of these organisations are readily available through the IMO.

15. TRAINING

At sea

15.1 Whilst the onus is on port States to ensure the provision of adequate facilities, the role ofthe mariner is also essential. The requirements of MARPOL 73/78 and of the ISM Code areclearly defined. The implementation of the ISM Code in compliance with international and flagState legislation provides for the safe operation of ships, the safety of their crews and assists inthe protection of the marine environment. The ISM Code provides, inter alia, that everyCompany should:

.1 develop a safety and environmental protection policy;

.2 provide instructions and procedures to ensure safe operation of ships andprotection of the environment in compliance with relevant international and flagState legislation; and

.3 ensure that all personnel on assignments related to safety and protection of theenvironment are given proper familiarisation with their duties.

On shore

15.2 All personnel involved in the collection, handling and disposal of ships’ wastes need to beaware of the State’s national legislation and waste management policies. Personnel should begiven appropriate training.

15.3 States may wish to consider the human implications of handling certain types of wastes.Trained personnel involved in the collection or handling of noxious and harmful substances maybe able to minimise the threat of accidental injury or the potential spread of disease, purely bybeing aware of the potential risk that they and the local environment face. Such measures mayalready be a requirement of the national environmental or waste management policies.

MEPC 44/20ANNEX 2Page 16

I:\MEPC\44\20.doc

APPENDIX

Sample AssessmentProcedure for Ports

Management/Assessment Strategy for Waste Reception Facilitiesat Ports, Marinas and Boat Harbours

Assessment Procedure - Ports

MEPC 44/20ANNEX 2

Page 17

I:\MEPC\44\20.DOC

Contents

SECTION A ASSESSMENT DETAILS

SECTION B SUMMARY OF WASTE RECEPTION FACILITIES PROVIDED

SECTION C DEMAND FOR WASTE RECEPTION FACILITIES

SECTION D ASSESSMENT OF WASTE RECEPTION FACILITIES

Section D 1 Oily Wastes

Section D 2 Noxious Liquid Substances (NLS)

Section D 3 Sewage

Section D 4 Garbage Disposal – On Shore

Section D 5 Waste Management System

SECTION E ASSESSMENT OF ADEQUACY OF SERVICE

MEPC 44/20ANNEX 2Page 18

I:\MEPC\44\20.doc

Section A Assessment Details

Auditor: Organisation &Address:

Contact DetailsPhone:Fax:

Date

Name of Port and Location

Name and Contact Details of PortRepresentatives

Name:Position:

Organisation:Address:

Telephone/Fax:e-mail:

Name:Position:

Organisation:Address:

Telephone/Fax:e-mail:

Name:Position:

Organisation:Address:

Telephone/Fax:e-mail:

MEPC 44/20ANNEX 2

Page 19

I:\MEPC\44\20.DOC

Section B Summary of Waste Reception Facilities Provided

Type of Waste Can Waste beReceived(Y or N)

Type of Reception Facility(Fixed, Road Tanker or Barge)

Any Limitations inCapacity

(m3 )

Service Provider(Port, Private Contractor, State Authority

or Other)Inidcate the number of service providers

Oily8

Oily tank washingsDirty ballast water

Oily bilge waterOil Sludges

Used lubricating oilNoxious Liquid Substances9

Category ACategory BCategory CCategory D

SewageGarbage10

Category 1Category 2Category 3Category 4Category 5

Quarantine Wastes

8 Section 7A.1 of the IMO Comprehensive Manual on Port Reception Facilities9 Regulation 3(1) of Annex II of MARPOL 73/7810 Section 3 of the Appendix to Annex V of MARPOL 73/78

MEPC 44/20ANNEX 2Page 20

I:\MEPC\44\20.doc

Section C Demand for Waste Reception Facilities

Ship Type* No of ship visits Average Average Number of Requests for Waste Collectionduring the period of

reviewRange of dead

weight (Tonnes)No. of Persons on

BoardOily

WastesNoxious Liquid

SubstancesSewage Garbage Quarantine

WastesOil Tankers*

Crude oil tankers*Combinationcarriers*Chemical Tankers*General Cargo

Container CarriersBulk Carriers

Passenger Ships

Livestock CarriersFishing Vessels

Recreational CraftsOther

*The ship types marked with an asterisk(*) are defined in the Annexes to MARPOL73/78. The other types of ships have been indicatively inserted as their operations mayinfluence the reception facilities required.

MEPC 44/20ANNEX 2

Page 21

I:\MEPC\44\20.doc

Section D Assessment of Waste Reception Facilities

Section D 1 Oily Wastes

Question Yes No1 How are the oily wastes disposed of?

(Please give details, on separate sheet, if available)separation of oil and water then recycling

land disposalrecycled

incinerationother (specify)

2 Are there any restrictions on receipt or collection of oily wastes by serviceproviders? (Please give details if available)

Minimum quantityMaximum quantity

Discharge rate (m3 /hour)Vessel type

Vehicle Access to Berthother (specify)

4 Are oily waste reception facilities available -24 hours a day, 7 days per week24 hours a day, 5 days per week

Business hours only, 7 days per weekBusiness hours only, 5 days per week

5 Is prior notice for receipt of oily wastes required -0 hours

12 hours24 hours48 hours

6 .1 Is the waste receipt service available:at no cost

at a cost incorporated into standing port use chargeat a cost charged in addition to other services

.2 Is the cost:reasonable in terms of service

a disincentiveother (specify)

7 Is a waste collection service available:at all berths

at most berthsat only one berth

to vessels anchored within the portto vessels anchored outside the port

other (specify)Comments:

Based on the above, please provide an assessment of the provision of waste reception facilities:q q q

1 - Less than satisfactory 2 - Satisfactory 3 - Fully meets the requirements

MEPC 44/20ANNEX 2Page 22

I:\MEPC\44\20.doc

Section D 2 Noxious Liquid Substances (NLS)

Question Yes No

1 Where is the NLS disposed of? (Please give details if available)Directly from the ship to a mobile facility

Ships to a holding tanks prior to being pumped outother (specify)

2 Are there any restrictions on receipt or collection of NLS wastes by serviceproviders? (Please give details if available)

Minimum quantityMaximum quantity

Discharge rate (m3 /hour)Vessel type

Vehicle Access to Berth3 Are NLS reception facilities available -

24 hours a day, 7 days per week24 hours a day, 5 days per week

Business hours only, 7 days per weekBusiness hours only, 5 days per week

other (specify)4 Is prior notice for receipt of NLS required -

0 hours12 hours24 hours48 hours

5 Is the waste receipt service available:at no cost

at a cost incorporated into standing port use chargeat a cost charged in addition to other services

7 Is a waste collection service available:at all berths

at most berthsat only one berth

to vessels anchored within the portto vessels anchored outside the port

other (specify)Comments:

Based on the above, please provide an assessment of the provision of waste reception facilities:q q q

1 - Less than satisfactory 2 - Satisfactory 3 - Fully meets the requirements

MEPC 44/20ANNEX 2

Page 23

I:\MEPC\44\20.DOC

Section D 3 Sewage

Question Yes No

1 Where is the sewage disposed of? (Please give details if available)Directly to a reticulated sewerage system

Directly to a mobile facilityShips to holding tanks then pumped to a mobile facility

Ships to on-site treatment facility to sewerage systemother (specify)

2 Are there any restrictions on receipt or collection of sewage wastes by serviceproviders? (Please give details if available)

Minimum quantityMaximum quantity

Discharge rate (m3 /hour)Vessel type

Vehicle Access to Berth3 Are sewage reception facilities available -

24 hours a day, 7 days per week24 hours a day, 5 days per week

Business hours only, 7 days per weekBusiness hours only, 5 days per week

other (specify)4 Is prior notice for receipt of sewage required -

0 hours12 hours24 hours48 hours

5 Is the waste receipt service available:at no cost

at a cost incorporated into standing port use chargeat a cost charged in addition to other services

7 Is a waste collection service available to :at all berths

at most berthsat only one berth

vessels anchored within the portvessels anchored outside the port

Comments:

Based on the above, please provide an assessment of the provision of waste reception facilities:q q q

1 - Less than satisfactory 2 - Satisfactory 3 - Fully meets the requirements

MEPC 44/20ANNEX 2Page 24

I:\MEPC\44\20.doc

Section D 4 Garbage Disposal – On Shore

Question Yes No

1 Where is the garbage disposed of? (Please give details if available)Local Government dump/landfill

Private dump/landfillTransfer Station

Materials Recycling FacilityDon’t know

2 Where are quarantine wastes disposed of? (Please give details if available)incinerator

sterilisationdeep burial

normal landfill Garbage Disposal – Ship to Shore

3 Are there any restrictions on receipt or collection of garbage wastes? (Pleasegive details if available)

Minimum quantityMaximum quantity

Vessel typeVehicle Access to Berths

4 Are garbage waste reception facilities available -24 hours a day, 7 days per week24 hours a day, 5 days per week

Business hours only, 7 days per weekBusiness hours only, 5 days per week

5 Is prior notice for receipt of waste required -0 hours

12 hours24 hours48 hours

6 Is the waste receipt service available:at no cost

at a cost incorporated into standing port use chargeat a cost charged in addition to other services

7 Is a waste collection service available :at all berths

at most berthsat only one berth

to vessels anchored within the portto vessels anchored outside the port

Comments:

Based on the above, please provide an assessment of the provision of waste reception facilities:q q q

1 - Less than satisfactory 2 - Satisfactory 3 - Fully meets the requirements

MEPC 44/20ANNEX 2

Page 25

I:\MEPC\44\20.DOC

Section D 5 Waste Management System

Question Yes No

1 Has a Waste Management Plan (WMP) been developed and implemented forship wastes?

2 Is the Waste Management Plan part of an overall Environmental ManagementSystem (EMS) for the port?

3 Are marinas and fishing harbours covered by the port EMS or required todevelop their own EMS?

4 Does the WMP provide a brief summary of the types of wastes received andthe collection and disposal facilities/services?

5 Does the WMP address and provide management objectives for:

6 Operations:Facility Management

MaintenanceSignage

InfrastructureContractual arrangements

Emergency ResponseSeasonal Variations

Training and EducationDelegation of Responsibilities and Accountability

Compliance with regulatory conditions, including auditing

7 Technical Standards:Facility Requirements

Incorporation of new technologiesCleaning requirements

Maintenance of equipment to technical standards

8 Environmental Considerations:Prevention of pollution to surface waters

Noise EmissionsVisual Impacts

Odour EmissionsSpecial considerations due to surrounding environment (eg. proximity to

wetland or mangrove areas)Coastal Processes (eg. extreme tides)

9 Plans for future expansion / upgrades:Oily Wastes

Noxious Liquid SubstancesSewage

GarbageRecycling of wastes

Quarantine wastes10 Are contact details held for all waste service providers?

MEPC 44/20ANNEX 2Page 26

I:\MEPC\44\20.doc

Question Yes No

11 Are the service providers licensed/approved as required by legislation?

12 Are a copy of the licences on file?

13 Are a copy of the licences for the waste disposal facilities used by the serviceproviders held on file?

14 Have receipts for waste disposal been sighted / copies held on file?

15 Are alternative waste service providers or disposal facilities available (egspare drums, waste oil recyclers)?

16 Is there a procedure for choosing waste disposal service providers (eg list ofpreferred contractors)?

17 Are the details of back-up facilities available on file?

18 Does the WMP include an emergency response plan?

19 Is the plan adequate in that it addresses at least the following issues?spillage of liquidspillage of solids

leakage of gasfire or explosion

emergency contactsother (specify)

20 Is information recorded on the quantities of each waste stream which arereceived, date of receipt, disposal contractor and method of disposal ortreatment? (Data sighted/copies attached)

Oily wastesNoxious Liquid Substances

SewageGarbage

Recycling of wastesQuarantine wastes

21 Are there variations in the quantities of each waste stream received?:in any one month (eg due to shipping variations)

in any one year (eg due to seasonal effects)over a number of years(eg due to industry growth)

don’t know

22 Is this information analysed on an on-going basis to detect changes in usage(both short term season variations and long term growth or reductions) andassist in formulating future plans? (Graphs sighted)

23 Is on-going consideration given to changes in demand for waste receptionfacilities ?

24 Do plans exist for future upgrades, extensions or reductions to the wastereception facilities?

25 Is there an on-going process for reviewing existing facilities and determiningchanges that may be required to meet adequacy, timing or waste generationdemands?

MEPC 44/20ANNEX 2

Page 27

I:\MEPC\44\20.DOC

Question Yes No

26 Are there provisions for audits against the WMP (at least within 2 years ofimplementation and thereafter every 3 years?

27 Is there provision for periodic review of the WMP?

28 Are the relevant requirements of the MARPOL 73/78, UNCLOS and IMOgenerally adhered to by the users of the port?

29 Is there information on the state and local regulations regarding (please listlegislation if known):

Waste managementPollution of water

Pollution of airNoise emissions

Discharges to sewerStorage of dangerous goods

Local Government requirements30 Is there information on waste minimisation hierarchy ie avoid / reduce / reuse

/ recycle / reprocess?

31 Is an open and co-operative relationship maintained between the port authorityand the relevant authorities and agents?

32 Are there channels of communication and consultation with relevantorganisations to ensure that particular changes in demand are considered inproviding waste reception facilities?(Give examples of consultation methods)

33 Do training programmes for port employees (both of the port authority andusers) include a section on waste management and the facilities provided atthe port?

34 Is there a section in the WMP or a separate document which is included inagreements with port users and specifies requirements for the usage of portwaste reception facilities?

35 Is clear and visible signage for waste reception facilities present and includes:advice at initial vessel contact point of waste reception facilities:

direction to receptacle or disposal point location:labelling of all receptacles and disposal points:

contact numbers:emergency procedures:

translation into other languages as required:36 Are there information sheets/ leaflets available for each waste reception

facility?

37 How is this information conveyed to ships?

Comments:

Based on the above, please provide an assessment of the waste management systems:q q q

1 - Less than satisfactory 2 - Satisfactory 3 - Fully meets the requirements

MEPC 44/20ANNEX 2Page 28

I:\MEPC\44\20.doc

Section E Assessment of Adequacy of Service

Organisation: RepresentativeInterviewed:

Contact DetailsAddress:Phone:Fax

InterviewDate:

In the view of the representative interviewed what overall rating would be given for the wastereception service:

q q q1 - Less than satisfactory 2 - Satisfactory 3 - Fully meets the requirements

Please provide details of the good aspects of the waste reception services:

Please provide details of the deficiencies of the waste reception services:

Based on the above, please provide an assessment of the adequacy of waste reception service:q q q

1 - Less than satisfactory 2 - Satisfactory 3 - Fully meets the requirements

***

MEPC 44/20

I:\MEPC\44\20.doc

ANNEX 3

RESOLUTION MEPC.84(44)

Adopted on 13 March 2000

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

FROM SHIPS, 1973

(Amendments to the Appendix to Annex III of MARPOL 73/78)

THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION COMMITTEE,

RECALLING article 38(a) of the Convention on the International Maritime Organization concerningthe function of the Committee conferred upon it by international conventions for the prevention andcontrol 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 tothe International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, (hereinafter referred toas the “1978 Protocol”) which together specify the amendment procedure of the 1978 Protocol andconfer upon the appropriate body of the Organization the function of considering and adoptingamendments to the 1973 Convention, as modified by the 1978 Protocol (MARPOL 73/78),

HAVING CONSIDERED the proposed amendments to the Appendix to Annex III of MARPOL73/78,

1. ADOPTS, in accordance with article 16(2)(d) of the 1973 Convention, the amendments to theAppendix to Annex III of MARPOL 73/78, the text of which is set out at annex to the presentresolution;

2. DETERMINES, in accordance with article 16(2)(f)(iii) of the 1973 Convention, that theamendments shall be deemed to have been accepted on 1 July 2001, unless prior to the date, not lessthan one-third of the Parties or the Parties combined merchant fleets of which constitute not less than50 per cent of the gross tonnage of the world’s merchant fleet, have communicated to theOrganization their objections to the amendments;

3. INVITES the Parties to note that, in accordance with article 16(2)(g)(ii) of the 1973Convention, the amendments shall enter into force on 1 January 2002 upon their acceptance inaccordance with paragraph 2 above;

4. REQUESTS the Secretary-General, in conformity with article 16(2)(e) of the 1973Convention, to transmit to all Parties to MARPOL 73/78 certified copies of the present resolution andthe text of the amendments contained in the annex; and

5. REQUESTS FURTHER the Secretary-General to transmit to the Members of theOrganization which are not Parties to MARPOL 73/78 copies of the resolution and its annex.

MEPC 44/20ANNEX 3Page 2

I:\MEPC\44\20.doc

ANNEX

AMENDMENTS TO THE APPENDIX TO ANNEX III OF MARPOL 73/78

The clause “-liable to produce tainting of seafood (Hazard Rating “T” in column A*); or” isdeleted from the Appendix to Annex III of MARPOL 73/78.

***

MEPC 44/20

I:\MEPC\44\20.doc

ANNEX 4

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE TECHNICAL CODE ON CONTROL OFEMISSION OF NITROGEN OXIDES FROM MARINE DIESEL ENGINES

(THE NOx TECHNICAL CODE)

The following words are added at the end of paragraph 5.2.1:

"If, for evident technical reasons, it is not possible to comply with this requirement, fashall be between 0.93 and 1.07."

***

MEPC 44/20

I:\MEPC\44\20.doc

ANNEX 5

PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO

REGULATION 14(3)(A) OF ANNEX VI TO MARPOL 73/78

The following words are added in regulation 14(3)(a) before the word "and":

“, the North Sea area as defined in regulation 5(1) of Annex V;”

***

MEPC 44/20

I:\MEPC\44\20.doc

ANNEX 6

DRAFT ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION

AVAILABILITY AND USE OF LOW SULPHUR BUNKER FUEL OILS IN SOxEMISSION CONTROL AREAS DESIGNATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH

REGULATION 14(3) OF ANNEX VI OF MARPOL 73/78

THE ASSEMBLY,

RECALLING Article 15(j) of the Convention on the International Maritime Organizationconcerning the functions of the Assembly in relation to regulations and guidelines for maritimesafety and the prevention and control of marine pollution from ships,

RECALLING FURTHER that, in line with article 212 of the United Nations Convention on theLaw of the Sea, 1982 (UNCLOS), resolution A.719(17), it invited the MEPC to develop legallybinding measures to reduce air pollution from ships through the preparation of a new Annex tothe International Convention on the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, and the 1978Protocol related thereto, as amended (MARPOL 73/78),

RECALLING ALSO that on 26 September 1997 Parties to MARPOL 73/78 adopted a newAnnex to the Convention in order to reduce the contribution by shipping to air pollution,

RECOGNIZING that in order for these measures to reduce air pollution from ships to beeffective in SOx Emission Control Areas, bunker fuel oil used must contain a lower sulphurpercentage as prescribed in regulation 14(4)(a) of Annex VI of MARPOL 73/78, rather than themaximum permitted by regulation 14(1) of Annex VI of MARPOL 73/78,

RECOGNIZING ALSO that, in order to facilitate compliance with these requirements lowsulphur fuel oil should be available in sufficient quantities,

REAFFIRMING its endeavours to contribute to the reduction of air pollution from ships by allpossible means,

HAVING CONSIDERED the recommendations made by the Marine Environment ProtectionCommittee at its forty-fourth session,

INVITES Governments, and more specifically those in geographical regions where SOx

Emission Control Areas have been designated, to:

1. ensure the availability of low sulphur bunker fuel oil within their jurisdiction; and

2. call on the oil and shipping industries to facilitate the availability and use of lowsulphur bunker fuel oil.

MEPC 44/20ANNEX 6Page 2

I:\MEPC\44\20.doc

ANNEX

GUIDELINES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SHIPBOARD MARINE POLLUTIONEMERGENCY PLANS FOR OIL AND/OR NOXIOUS LIQUID SUBSTANCES

FOREWORD

The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modifiedby the Protocol of 1978 relating thereto (MARPOL 73/78) is a principal instrument established byIMO for preventing marine pollution. Regulation 26 of Annex I of this Convention requires thatevery oil tanker of 150 tons gross tonnage and above and every ship other than an oil tankerof 400 tons gross tonnage and above shall carry on board a shipboard oil pollution emergency planapproved by the Administration. It is pertinent to note that MARPOL 73/78 was amended to includethe above-mentioned regulation 26 of Annex I as a consequence of article 3(1)(a) of the InternationalConvention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Co-operation, 1990 (OPRC Convention).This Convention contains a requirement that certain ships have on board a shipboard oil pollutionemergency plan. The shipboard plan required under regulation 26 of Annex I of MARPOL 73/78 isthe same shipboard oil pollution emergency plan that is required under article 3(1)(a) of the OPRCConvention.

Regulation 16 of Annex II of the Convention requires that every ship of 150 tons grosstonnage and above certified to carry noxious liquid substances in bulk shall carry on board ashipboard marine pollution emergency plan for noxious liquid substances approved by theAdministration. A shipboard marine pollution emergency plan for noxious liquid substances shouldbe combined with a shipboard oil pollution emergency plan since most of their contents are the sameand only one combined plan on board is more practical than two separate plans in case of anemergency. In this case the title of such a combined plan should be “Shipboard marine pollutionemergency plan” in order to distinguish it from a shipboard marine pollution emergency plan fornoxious liquid substances and a shipboard oil pollution emergency plan. Both regulation 26 ofAnnex I and regulation 16 of Annex II require that the plans be in accordance with guidelinesdeveloped by IMO.

The Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) at its thirty-second session adoptedGuidelines for the development of shipboard oil pollution emergency plans under cover of resolutionMEPC.54(32) to meet the requirements of regulation 26 of Annex I.

The MEPC at its forty-fourth session prepared Guidelines for the development of shipboardmarine pollution emergency plans for oil and/or noxious liquid substances to meet requirements ofregulation 26 of Annex I and/or regulation 16 of Annex II.

It is also pertinent to note that shipboard oil pollution emergency plans which have alreadybeen approved by the Administration for oil tankers of 150 tons gross tonnage and above and shipsother than oil tankers of 400 tons gross tonnage and above in accordance with the Guidelines for thedevelopment of shipboard oil pollution emergency plans adopted by resolution MEPC.54(32) neednot be modified in accordance with these Guidelines.

Under the provisions of article 5 of the 1973 MARPOL Convention, a ship is required to holda certificate in accordance with the provisions of regulations and, while in the ports or offshoreterminals under the jurisdiction of a Party, is subject to inspection by officers duly authorized by thatParty. In this context, the carriage of a shipboard oil pollution emergency plan, a shipboard marinepollution emergency plan for noxious liquid substances or a shipboard marine pollution emergencyplan should also be subject to such inspection.

MEPC 44/20ANNEX 6

Page 3

I:\MEPC\44\20.DOC

These Guidelines contain information for the preparation of shipboard oil pollutionemergency plans, shipboard marine pollution emergency plans for noxious liquid substances and/or ashipboard marine pollution emergency plan .

The main objectives of these Guidelines are:

• to assist ship owners in preparing shipboard oil pollution emergency plans, shipboardmarine pollution emergency plans for noxious liquid substances and/or a shipboardmarine pollution emergency plan in conformance with the cited regulations; and

• to assist Governments in developing and enacting domestic laws which give force toand implement the cited regulations.

In the interest of uniformity, Governments are requested to refer to these Guidelines whenpreparing appropriate national regulations.

***

MEPC 44/20

I:\MEPC\44\20.doc

ANNEX 7

RESOLUTION MEPC.85(44)adopted on 13 March 2000

GUIDELINES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SHIPBOARD MARINE POLLUTIONEMERGENCY PLANS FOR OIL AND/OR NOXIOUS LIQUID SUBSTANCES

THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION COMMITTEE,

RECALLING Article 38(a) of the Convention on the International Maritime Organizationconcerning the function of the Committee,

NOTING that regulation 26 of Annex I and regulation 16 of Annex II of MARPOL 73/78require ships to carry a shipboard oil pollution emergency plan, a shipboard marine pollutionemergency plan for noxious liquid substances and/or a shipboard marine pollution emergency plan inaccordance with the Guidelines developed by the Organization,

RECOGNIZING the urgent need for developing such Guidelines in order to ensure uniformapplication of these regulations,

HAVING CONSIDERED at its thirty-second session proposals for the Guidelines for thedevelopment of shipboard oil pollution emergency plans and at its forty-fourth session furtherproposals for Guidelines for the development of shipboard marine pollution emergency plans for oiland/or noxious liquid substances,

1. ADOPTS the Guidelines for the development of the shipboard marine pollution emergencyplans for oil and/or noxious liquid substances, the text of which is set out at the annex to the presentresolution;

2. URGES Governments to ensure that the shipboard oil pollution emergency plans, theshipboard marine pollution emergency plans for noxious liquid substances and/or the shipboardmarine pollution emergency plan are developed in accordance with these Guidelines when approvingthem under the provisions of regulation 26 of Annex I and/or regulation 16 of Annex II ofMARPOL 73/78, pending their entry into force.

MEPC 44/20ANNEX 7Page 2

I:\MEPC\44\20.doc

GUIDELINES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SHIPBOARD MARINE POLLUTIONEMERGENCY PLANS FOR OIL AND/OR NOXIOUS LIQUID SUBSTANCES

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 These Guidelines have been developed to assist with the preparation of shipboard oilpollution emergency plans, shipboard marine pollution emergency plans for noxious liquidsubstances and/or a shipboard marine pollution emergency plan (hereafter referred to as the"Plan(s)") that are required by regulation 26 of Annex I and/or regulation 16 of Annex II of theInternational Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by theProtocol of 1978 relating thereto (MARPOL 73/78) (hereafter referred to as the "Convention"). ThePlan (s) must be approved in accordance with these regulations.

1.2 The Guidelines are comprised of three primary sections:

.1 Introduction: This section provides a general overview of the subject-matter andintroduces the reader to the basic concept of the Guidelines and the Plans that areexpected to be developed from them.

.2 Mandatory provisions: This section provides guidance to ensure that the mandatoryprovisions of regulation 26 of Annex I and regulation 16 of Annex II of theConvention are met.

.3 Non-mandatory provisions: This section provides guidance concerning the inclusionof other information in the Plan. This information, although not required underregulation 26 of Annex I and regulation 16 of Annex II of the Convention, may berequired by local authorities in ports visited by the ship, or it may be added to provideadditional assistance to the ship's master when responding to an emergency situation.This section also provides guidance on updating and exercising of the Plan.

1.3 Concept of the Guidelines: The Guidelines are intended to provide a starting point for thepreparation of the Plans for specific ships. The broad spectrum of ships for which Plans are requiredmakes it impractical to provide specific guidelines for each ship type. Plan writers are cautioned thatthey must consider in their Plans the many variables that apply to their ships. Some of these variablesinclude: type and size of ship, cargo, cargo’s physical properties (applicable only to ships certified tocarry noxious liquid substances (NLSs) in bulk as defined in regulation 16 of Annex II of theConvention. Hereafter referred to as “ships certified to carry NLSs”), route, and shore-basedmanagement structure. The Guidelines are not intended to be a compilation of menu items fromwhich the Plan writer can select certain sections and produce a workable Plan. For a Plan to beeffective and to comply with regulation 26 of Annex I and/or regulation 16 of Annex II of theConvention, it must be carefully tailored to the particular ship for which it is intended. Properly used,the Guidelines will ensure that all appropriate issues are considered in developing the Plan.

1.4 Concept of the Plan: The Plan is available to assist personnel in dealing with an unexpecteddischarge of oil or other noxious liquid substance. Its primary purpose is to set in motion thenecessary actions to stop or minimize the discharge and to mitigate its effects. Effective planningensures that the necessary actions are taken in a structured, logical, safe and timely manner.

MEPC 44/20ANNEX 7

Page 3

I:\MEPC\44\20.DOC

1.4.1 The Plan must go beyond providing for operational spills. It must include guidance to assistthe master in meeting the demands of a catastrophic discharge, should the ship become involved inone.

1.4.2 The need for a predetermined and properly structured Plan is clear when one considers thepressures and multiple tasks facing personnel confronted with an emergency situation. In the heat ofthe moment, lack of planning will often result in confusion, mistakes, and failure to advise keypeople. Delays will be incurred and time will be wasted; time during which the situation may wellworsen. As a consequence, the ship and its personnel may be exposed to increasing hazards andgreater environmental damage may occur.

1.4.3 For the Plan to accomplish its purpose, it must be:

.1 realistic, practical, and easy to use;

.2 understood by ship management personnel, both on board and ashore; and

.3 evaluated, reviewed, and updated regularly.

1.4.4 The Plans envisioned by regulation 26 of Annex I and/or regulation 16 of Annex II of theConvention are intended to be simple documents. Use of summarizing flowcharts or checklists toguide the master through the various actions and decisions required during an incident response ishighly encouraged. These can provide a quickly visible and logically sequenced form of informationwhich can reduce error and oversight during emergency situations. Inclusion of extensivebackground information on the ship, cargo, etc., should be avoided as this is generally availableelsewhere. If such information is relevant, it should be kept in annexes where it will not dilute theability of ship's personnel to locate operative parts of the Plan.

1.4.5 An example of a summarizing flowchart referred to in paragraph 1.4.4 is included in theExample Format for a Shipboard Marine Pollution Emergency Plan at appendix II.

1.4.6 The Plan is likely to be a document used on board by the master and officers of the ship. Itmust therefore be available in a working language or languages understood by the master andofficers. A change in the master and officers which brings about an attendant change in theirworking language or languages understood would require the issuance of the Plan in the newlanguage(s).

1.4.7 The Plan should clearly underline the following:

"Without interfering with shipowners' liability, some coastal States consider that it is theirresponsibility to define techniques and means to be taken against a marine pollution incidentand approve such operations which might cause further pollution, i.e. lightening. States are ingeneral entitled to do so under the International Convention relating to Intervention on theHigh Seas in Cases of Oil Pollution Casualties, 1969 (1969 Intervention Convention) and theProtocol relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Pollution by Substances otherthan Oil, 1973 (1973 Intervention Protocol)."

2 MANDATORY PROVISIONS OF REGULATION 26 OF ANNEX I ANDREGULATION 16 OF ANNEX II TO THE CONVENTION

2.1 This section provides individual guidelines for each of the four mandatory provisions ofregulation 26 of Annex I and regulation 16 of Annex II of the Convention.

MEPC 44/20ANNEX 7Page 4

I:\MEPC\44\20.doc

2.2 Regulation 26 of Annex I and regulation 16 of Annex II of the Convention provide that thePlan shall consist at least of:

"(a) the procedure to be followed by the master or other persons having charge of the shipto report an oil or noxious liquid substance pollution incident, as required in article 8and Protocol I of the present Convention1, based on Guidelines developed by theOrganization2;

(b) the list of authorities or persons to be contacted in the event of an oil or noxious liquidsubstance pollution incident;

(c) a detailed description of the action to be taken immediately by persons on board toreduce or control the discharge of oil or noxious liquid substance following theincident; and

(d) the procedures and point of contact on the ship for co-ordinating shipboard activitieswith national and local authorities in combating oil or noxious liquid substancepollution."

2.3 The coastal State report: Article 8 and Protocol I of the Convention require that the nearestcoastal State be notified of actual or probable discharges. The intent of this requirement is to ensurethat coastal States are informed without delay, of any incident giving rise to pollution, or threat ofpollution, of the marine environment, as well as of assistance and salvage measures, so thatappropriate action may be taken.

2.3.1 When required: The Plan should provide clear, concise guidance to enable the master todetermine when a report to the coastal State is required.

2.3.1.1 Actual discharge: A report to the nearest coastal State is required whenever there is:

.1 a discharge above the permitted level of oil or noxious liquid substance for whateverreason including those for the purpose of securing the safety of the ship or saving lifeat sea; or

.2 a discharge during the operation of the ship of oil or noxious liquid substance inexcess of the quantity or instantaneous rate permitted under the present Convention1.

2.3.1.2 Probable discharge: The Plan should give the master guidance to evaluate a situation which,though not involving an actual discharge, would qualify as a probable discharge and thus require areport. In judging whether there is such a probability and whether the report should be made, thefollowing factors, as a minimum, should be taken into account:

.1 the nature of the damage, failure or breakdown of the ship, machinery or equipment;

1 i.e. MARPOL 73/78

2 Refer to "General principles for ship reporting system and ship reporting requirements, including Guidelines for reportingincidents involving dangerous goods, harmful substances and/or marine pollutants" adopted by the Organization byresolution A.648(16). For ease of reference, see IMO publication "Provisions concerning the Reporting of IncidentsInvolving Harmful Substances under MARPOL 73/78".

MEPC 44/20ANNEX 7

Page 5

I:\MEPC\44\20.DOC

.2 ship location and proximity to land or other navigational hazards;

.3 weather, tide, current and sea state; and

.4 traffic density.

2.3.1.3 It is impracticable to lay down precise definitions of all types of situations involving probabledischarge which would warrant an obligation to report. As a general guideline, the master shouldmake a report in cases of:

.1 damage, failure or breakdown which affects the safety of ships; examples of suchsituations are collision, grounding, fire, explosion, structural failure, flooding, cargoshifting; and

.2 failure or breakdown of machinery or equipment which results in impairment of thesafety of navigation; examples of such incidents are failure or breakdown of steeringgear, propulsion, electrical generating system, essential shipborne navigational aids.

2.3.2 Information required: The Plan must specify, in appropriate detail, the procedure for makingthe initial report to the coastal State. The Organization's Guidelines in resolution A.648(16) providenecessary detail for the Plan writer. The Plan should include a prepared message form, an example ofwhich is included at appendix II to these Guidelines. Coastal States are encouraged to take note oftable 1 of appendix II and accept this as sufficient initial information. Supplementary or follow-upreports should as far as possible use the same format.

2.4 List of persons to be contacted

2.4.1 The ship involved in an oil or noxious liquid substance pollution incident will have tocommunicate with both coastal State or port contacts and ship interest contacts.

2.4.2 When compiling contact lists, due account must be taken of the need to provide 24-hourcontact information and to provide alternates to the designated contact. These details must beroutinely updated to take account of personnel changes and changes in telephone, telex, and telefaxnumbers. Clear guidance should also be provided regarding the preferred means of communication(telex, telephone, telefax, etc.).

2.4.3 Coastal State contacts

2.4.3.1 In order to expedite response and minimize damage from an oil or noxious liquid substancepollution incident, it is essential that appropriate coastal States should be notified without delay. Thisprocess is begun with the initial report required by article 8 and Protocol I of the Convention.Guidelines for making this report are provided in section 2.3.

2.4.3.2 The Plan should include as an appendix the list of agencies or officials of administrationsresponsible for receiving and processing reports as developed and updated by the Organization inconformance with article 8 of the Convention. In the absence of a listed focal point, or should anyundue delay be experienced in contacting the responsible authority by direct means, the mastershould be advised to contact the nearest coastal radio station, designated ship movement reportingstation or rescue co-ordination centre (RCC) by the quickest available means.

MEPC 44/20ANNEX 7Page 6

I:\MEPC\44\20.doc

2.4.4 Port contacts

2.4.4.1 For ships in port, notification of local agencies will speed response. The variety of trades inwhich ships engage makes it impractical to specify in these Guidelines a definitive approach to listingthese agencies in the Plan. Information on regularly visited ports should be included as an appendixto the Plan. Where this is not feasible, the Plan should require the master to obtain details concerninglocal reporting procedures upon arriving in port.

2.4.5 Ship interest contacts

2.4.5.1 The Plan should provide details of all parties with an interest in the ship to be advised in theevent of an incident. This information should be provided in the form of a contact list. Whencompiling such lists, it should be remembered that in the event of a serious incident, ship's personnelwill be fully engaged in saving life and taking steps to control and minimize the effects of thecasualty. They should therefore not be hampered by having onerous communications requirementsimposed on them.

2.4.5.2 Procedures will vary between companies but it is important that the Plan clearly specifieswho will be responsible for informing the various interested parties such as cargo owners, insurersand salvage interests. It is also essential that both the ship's Plan and its company's shoreside Plan areco-ordinated to guarantee that all parties having an interest are advised and that duplication of reportsis avoided.

2.5 Steps to control discharge

2.5.1 Ship personnel will almost always be in the best position to take quick action to mitigate orcontrol the discharge of oil or noxious liquid substance from their ship. The Plan should provide themaster with clear guidance on how to accomplish this mitigation for a variety of situations. The Planshould not only outline action to be taken, but it should also identify who on board is responsible sothat confusion during the emergency can be avoided.

2.5.2 This section of the Plan will vary widely from ship to ship. Differences in ship type,construction, cargo, equipment, manning, and even route may result in shifting emphasis beingplaced on various aspects of this section. As a minimum, the Plan should provide the master withguidance to address the following:

.1 Operational spills: The Plan should outline the procedures for safe removal of oil ornoxious liquid substance spilled and contained on deck. This may be through the useof on-board resources or by hiring a clean-up company. In either case the Plan shouldprovide guidance to ensure proper disposal of removed oil, noxious liquid substancesand clean-up materials.

.1.1 Pipe leakage: The Plan should provide specific guidance for dealing with pipeleakage.

.1.2 Tank overflow: Procedures for dealing with tank overflows should beincluded. Alternatives such as lowering cargo or bunkers back to empty orslack tanks or readying pumps to transfer the excess ashore should beoutlined.

MEPC 44/20ANNEX 7

Page 7

I:\MEPC\44\20.DOC

.1.3 Hull leakage: The Plan should provide guidance for responding to spillagedue to suspected hull leakage. This may involve guidance on measures to betaken to reduce the head of cargo in the tank involved either by internaltransfer or discharge ashore. Procedures to handle situations where it is notpossible to identify the specific tank from which leakage is occurring shouldalso be provided. Procedures for dealing with suspected hull fractures shouldbe included and they should carry appropriate cautions regarding attention tothe effect corrective actions may have on hull stress and stability.

.2 Spills resulting from casualties: Casualties should be treated in the Plan as a separatesection. The Plan should include various checklists or other means which will ensurethat the master considers all appropriate factors when addressing the specificcasualty3. These checklists must be tailored to the specific ship and to the specificproduct or product types. Especially for the ships certified to carry NLSs, thechecklists or other means e.g., "Characteristics of Liquid Chemicals Proposed forMarine Transport in Bulk" (Data Sheet), should identify physical properties, specialprotective equipment or unusual response techniques in a format consistent with therequirements of section 1.4.4 of these Guidelines. Reference may be made to DataSheet or similar documents that identify characteristics of NLS. A copy of suchdocument should be kept with the plan, but need not be part of the approved plan. Inaddition to the checklists, specific personnel assignments for anticipated tasks must beidentified. Reference to existing fire control plans and muster lists is sufficient toidentify personnel responsibilities. The following are examples of casualties whichshould be considered:

.2.1 grounding;

.2.2 fire/explosion;

.2.3 collision (with fixed or moving object);

.2.4 hull failure;

.2.5 excessive list;

.2.6 containment system failure;

.2.7 dangerous reactions of cargo (for ships certified to carry NLSs);

.2.8 other dangerous cargo release (for ships certified to carry NLSs);

.2.9 loss of tank environmental control (for ships certified to carry NLSs);

.2.10 submerged/foundered;

.2.11 wrecked/stranded;

.2.12 cargo contamination yielding a hazardous condition (for ships certified tocarry NLSs); and

.2.13 hazardous vapour release. 3 Reference is made to the International Safety Management (ISM) Code, Section 8.

MEPC 44/20ANNEX 7Page 8

I:\MEPC\44\20.doc

2.5.3 In addition to the checklists and personnel duty assignments mentioned in paragraph 2.5.2,the Plan should provide the master with guidance concerning priority actions, stability and stressconsiderations, lightening and mitigating activities.

2.5.3.1 Priority actions: This section provides some general considerations that apply to a wide rangeof casualties. The Plan should provide ship-specific guidance to the master concerning these broadtopics.

.1 In responding to a casualty, the master's priority will be to ensure the safety ofpersonnel and the ship and to take action to prevent escalation of the incident. Incasualties involving spills, immediate consideration should be given to measuresaimed at preventing fire, personnel exposure to toxic vapours, and explosion, such asaltering course so that the ship is upwind of the spilled cargo, shutting downnon-essential air intakes, etc. If the ship is aground, and cannot therefore manoeuvre,all possible sources of ignition should be eliminated and action should be taken toprevent toxic vapours or flammable vapours entering accommodation andengine-room spaces. When it is possible to manoeuvre, the master, in conjunctionwith the appropriate shore authorities, may consider moving his ship to a moresuitable location in order, for example, to facilitate emergency repair work orlightening operations, or to reduce the threat posed to any particularly sensitiveshoreline areas. Such manoeuvring may be subject to coastal State jurisdiction (seeparagraph 1.4.7).

.2 Prior to considering remedial action, the master will need to obtain detailedinformation on the damage sustained by his ship. A visual inspection should becarried out and all cargo tanks, bunker tanks, and other compartments should besounded. Due regard should be paid to the indiscriminate opening of ullage plugs orsighting ports, especially when the ship is aground, as loss of buoyancy could result.

.3 Having assessed the damage sustained by the ship, the master will be in a position todecide what action should be taken to prevent or minimize further discharge. Whenbottom damage is sustained, hydrostatic balance will be achieved (depending onphysical properties) fairly rapidly, especially if the damage is severe, in which casethe time available for preventive action will often be limited. When significant sidedamage is sustained in the way of fuel/lubrication and/or cargo tanks, bunkers orcargo will be released fairly rapidly until hydrostatic balance is achieved and the rateof release will then reduce and be governed by the rate at which bunkers or cargo isdisplaced by water flowing in under the bunkers or cargo. When the damage is fairlylimited and restricted, for example, to one or two compartments, consideration maybe given to transferring the substance involved internally from damaged to intacttanks. When considering the transfer of oil or noxious liquid substances from adamaged tank to an intact tank, the master should consider (see paragraph 1.4.7):

.3.1 the extent of the damage;

.3.2 hydrostatic balance;

.3.3 the ship's ability to transfer cargo; and

MEPC 44/20ANNEX 7

Page 9

I:\MEPC\44\20.DOC

.3.4 the physical properties of the substance(s) (for ships certified to carry NLSs)involved such as:

.1 solubility;

.2 density;

.3 water reactivity;

.4 solidification; and

.5 compatibility.

2.5.3.2 Stability and strength considerations: Great care in casualty response must be taken toconsider stability and strength when taking actions to mitigate the spillage of oil or noxious liquidsubstance or to free the ship if aground. The Plan should provide the master with detailed guidanceto ensure that these aspects are properly considered. Nothing in this section shall be construed ascreating a requirement for damage stability plans or calculations beyond those required by relevantinternational conventions.

.1 Internal transfers should be undertaken only with a full appreciation of the likelyimpact on the ship's overall longitudinal strength and stability. When the damagesustained is extensive, the impact of internal transfers on stress and stability may beimpossible for the ship to assess. Contact may have to be made with the owner oroperator or other entity in order that information can be provided so that damagestability and damage longitudinal strength assessments may be made. These could bemade within the head office technical departments. In other cases, classificationsocieties or independent organizations may need to be contacted. The Plan shouldclearly indicate who the master should contact in order to gain access to thesefacilities. Additionally, in the case of ships certified to carry NLSs, consideration asto the compatibility of all substances involved such as cargoes, bunkers, tanks,coatings, piping, etc., must also be considered before such an operation is undertaken.

.2 Where appropriate, the Plan should provide a list of information required for makingdamage stability and damage longitudinal strength assessments.

2.5.3.3 Lightening: Should the ship sustain extensive structural damage, it may be necessary totransfer all or part of the cargo to another ship. The Plan should provide guidance on procedures tobe followed for ship-to-ship transfer of cargo. Reference may be made in the Plan to existingcompany guides. A copy of such company procedures for ship-to-ship transfer operations should bekept with the Plan. The Plan should address the need for co-ordinating this activity with the coastalState, as such operation may be subject to its jurisdiction.

2.5.3.4 Mitigating activities: When the safety of both the ship and personnel has been addressed, themaster can initiate mitigating activities according to the guidance given by the plan. The plan shouldaddress such aspects as:

.1 assessment and monitoring requirements;

.2 personnel protection issues:

.1 protective equipment; and

.2 threats to health and safety.

MEPC 44/20ANNEX 7Page 10

I:\MEPC\44\20.doc

.3 physical properties of the substance (for ships certified to carry NLSs) involved suchas:

.1 solubility;

.2 density;

.3 water reactivity;

.4 solidification; and

.5 compatibility

.4 containment and other response techniques (e.g. dispersing, absorbing,neutralization);

.5 isolation procedures;

.6 decontamination of personnel; and

.7 disposal of removed oil, noxious liquid substances and clean-up materials.

2.5.4 In order to have the necessary information available to respond to the situations referred to inparagraph 2.5.2, certain plans, drawings, and ship-specific details such as, a layout of a generalarrangement plan, a tank plan, etc., should be appended. The Plan should show where current cargo,bunker and ballast information, including quantities and specifications, are available.

2.6 National and local co-ordination: Quick, efficient co-ordination between the ship and coastalState or other involved parties becomes vital in mitigating the effects of an oil or noxious liquidsubstances pollution incident. The Plan should address the need to contact the coastal State forauthorization prior to undertaking mitigating actions (see paragraph 1.4.7).

2.6.1 The identities and roles of various national and local authorities involved vary widely fromState to State and even from port to port. Approaches to responsibility for discharge response alsovary. Some coastal States have agencies that take charge of response immediately and subsequentlybill the owner for the cost. In other coastal States, responsibility for initiating response is placed onthe shipowner. In the case of the latter the Plan will require greater detail and guidance to assist themaster in organizing this response.

3 NON-MANDATORY PROVISIONS

3.1 In addition to the provisions required by regulation 26 of Annex I and/or regulation 16 ofAnnex I of the Convention, local requirements, insurance company, or owner/operator policies, etc.,may dictate that other guidance be provided in the Plan. These topics may include: provision ofdiagrams and drawings; ship-carried response equipment; public affairs; record-keeping; productspecific response information (for ships certified to carry NLSs) and reference materials.

3.2 Plans and diagrams: In addition to the plans required by paragraph 2.5.4 above, other detailsconcerning the ship's design and construction may be appended to the Plan or their locationidentified.

MEPC 44/20ANNEX 7

Page 11

I:\MEPC\44\20.DOC

3.3 Response equipment: Some ships may carry on board equipment to assist in pollutionresponse. The type and quantity of this equipment may vary widely. The Plan should indicate aninventory of such equipment, if carried. It should also provide directions for safe use and guidelinesto assist the master in determining when such use is warranted. Care should be exercised to ensurethat the use of such equipment by the crew is practical and consistent with safety considerations.When such equipment is carried, the Plan should establish personnel responsibilities for itsdeployment, oversight, and maintenance. In order to ensure safe and effective use of such equipment,the Plan should also provide for crew training in the use of it. The Plan should include a provisionthat no chemical agent should be used for response to pollution on the sea without authorization ofthe appropriate coastal State and that such authorization should also be requested, when required, foruse of containment or recovery equipment (see paragraph 1.4.7).

3.4 Shoreside Spill Response Co-ordinator or Qualified Individual: Guidance for the master forrequesting and co-ordinating initial response actions with the person responsible for mobilizingshoreside response personnel and equipment.

3.5 Potential Oil or Noxious Liquid Substance Spill Response Contractors: Some coastal Statesrequire ships to have contracts with "response contractors" when ships enter into such States' ports.When ships sail toward such States, it is recommended that response resources (personnel andequipment) and capabilities are identified in advance for each potential port State. In other States, inparticular, those referred to in paragraph 1.4.7, such requirements do not exist in general.

3.6 Planning Standards: To facilitate forethought about the amount of response resources whichshould be requested, possible scenarios should be analyzed and accordingly planned for(see paragraph 1.4.7).

3.7 Public affairs: The owners may want to include in the Plan guidance for the master in dealingwith the distribution of information to the news media. Such guidance should be fashioned to reducethe burden on ship's personnel already busy with the emergency at hand.

3.8 Record-keeping: As with any other incident that will eventually involve liability,compensation and reimbursement issues, the owner may want to include in his Plan guidance for thekeeping of appropriate records of the oil or noxious liquid substances pollution incident. Apart fromdetailing all actions taken on board, records might include communications with outside authorities,owners, and other parties, as well as a brief summary of decisions and information passed andreceived. Guidance on collecting of samples of spilled oil or noxious liquid substance as well as thatcarried on board may also be provided.

3.9 Plan review: Regular review of the Plan by the owner, operator or master is recommended toensure that the specific information contained therein is current. A feedback system should beemployed which will allow quick capture of changing information and incorporation of it into thePlan. This feedback system should incorporate the following two means:

.1 periodic review: the Plan should be reviewed by the owner or operator at least yearlyto capture changes in local law or policy, contact names and numbers, shipcharacteristics, or company policy;

.2 event review: after any use of the Plan in response to an incident, its effectivenessshould be evaluated by the owner or operator and modifications made accordingly.

MEPC 44/20ANNEX 7Page 12

I:\MEPC\44\20.doc

3.10 Plan testing: The Plan will be of little value if it is not made familiar to the personnel whowill use it. Regular exercises will ensure that the Plan functions as expected and that the contacts andcommunications specified are accurate. Such exercises may be held in conjunction with othershipboard exercises and appropriately logged. Where ships carry response equipment, hands-onexperience with it by crew members will greatly enhance safety and effectiveness in an emergencysituation. Procedures for training and exercise may be defined.

3.11 Salvage: The plan should contain information on what the crew's responsibilities are in acasualty where a vessel is partially or fully disabled, and what constitutes dangerous conditions. Adecision process should be outlined in the plan that will aid the master in determining when salvageassistance should be obtained. The decision process should include, but not be limited to thefollowing:

.1 Nearest land or hazard to navigation;

.2 Vessel's set and drift;

.3 Location and time of impact with hazard based on vessel's set and drift;

.4 Estimated time of casualty repair; and

.5 Determination of the nearest capable assistance and its response time (i.e. for tugassistance, the time it will take to get on scene and secure the tow). When a casualtyoccurs to a vessel underway that reduces its manoeuvrability, the master needs todetermine his window of opportunity considering the response time of assistance,regardless of the estimated time of repair. It would not be prudent to hesitate incalling for assistance when the time needed to repair something goes beyond thewindow of opportunity.

MEPC 44/20ANNEX 7

Page 13

I:\MEPC\44\20.DOC

APPENDIX I

Additional references for the development of shipboard marine pollution emergency plans

The following publications are suggested to provide additional assistance in the preparation of Plans:

Manual on Oil Pollution, Section II, Contingency PlanningInternational Maritime Organization (IMO)ISBN 92 801 1330 5Available in English, French, and Spanish from IMO Publications Section,4 Albert Embankment, London SE1 7SR, United Kingdom

Provisions Concerning the Reporting of Incidents Involving Harmful Substances underMARPOL 73/78IMOISBN 92 801 1261 9Available in English, French and Spanish

Manual on Chemical Pollution (Section 1 - Problem assessment and response arrangements)IMOISBN 92 801 1223 6Available in English, French and Spanish

Medical First Aid Guide for Use in Accidents Involving Dangerous Goods (MFAG)IMOISBN 92 801 1269 4Available in English, French, and Spanish

International Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships carrying Dangerous Chemicals inBulk (IBC) CodeIMOISBN 92 801 1315 1Available in English, French, Russian and Spanish

Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships carrying Dangerous Chemicals in Bulk (BCH)CodeIMOISBN 92 801 1302 XAvailable in English, French, Russian and Spanish

International Safety Management Code (ISM Code)IMOISBN 92 801 1311 8Available in English

Response to Marine Oil SpillsInternational Tanker Owners Pollution Federation (ITOPF)ISBN 0 948691 51 4Available in English, French, and Spanish from Witherby & Co. Ltd.,32-36 Aylesbury Street, London EC1R OET, United Kingdom

MEPC 44/20ANNEX 7Page 14

I:\MEPC\44\20.doc

International Safety Guide for Oil Tankers and TerminalsISBN 0 948691 62 XAvailable from Witherby & Co. Ltd., London

Peril at Sea and Salvage -- A Guide for MastersInternational Chamber of Shipping and Oil Companies International Marine Forum (ICS/OCIMF)ISBN 0 948691 46 8Available from Witherby & Co. Ltd., London

Ship to Ship Transfer Guide (Petroleum)ICS/OCIMFISBN 0 948691 36 0Available from Witherby & Co. Ltd., London

Guidelines for the Preparation of Shipboard Oil Spill Contingency PlansOCIMF/ITOPFISBN 1 85609 016 7Available from Witherby & Co. Ltd., London

Tanker Safety Guide (Chemicals) - International Chamber of Shipping (ICS)12 Carthusian Street, London EC1M 6EB, United Kingdom

Ship to Ship Transfer Guide (Liquefied Gases)ICS/OCIMF/SIGTTOISBN 1 85609 0825Available from Witherby and Co. Ltd., London

Model Shipboard Oil Pollution Emergency PlanInternational Chamber of Shipping (ICS)12 Carthusian Street, London EC1M 6EB, United Kingdom

U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 46, Part 150, Compatibility of ChemicalsAvailable from Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402,United States

Chemical Hazards Response Information System (CHRIS) Hazardous Data ManualAvailable from Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC

MEPC 44/20ANNEX 7

Page 15

I:\MEPC\44\20.DOC

APPENDIX II

EXAMPLE FORMAT FOR A SHIPBOARD MARINE POLLUTION EMERGENCY PLAN(FOR OIL AND/OR NOXIOUS LIQUID SUBSTANCES)4

All shipboard marine pollution emergency plans (for oil and/or noxious liquid substances)should contain the following introductory text:

"INTRODUCTION

1 This Plan is written in accordance with the requirements of regulation 26 of Annex I and/orregulation 16 of Annex II of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships,1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 relating thereto.

2 The purpose of the Plan is to provide guidance to the master and officers on board the shipwith respect to the steps to be taken when an oil and/or noxious liquid substance pollution incidenthas occurred or is likely to occur.

3 The Plan contains all information and operational instructions required by the Guidelines.The appendices contain names, telephone, telex numbers, etc., of all contacts referenced in the Plan,as well as other reference material.

4 This Plan has been approved by the Administration and, except as provided below, noalteration or revision shall be made to any part of it without the prior approval of the Administration.

5 Changes to Section 5 and the appendices will not be required to be approved by theAdministration. The appendices should be maintained up to date by the owners, operators andmanagers."

4 Please provide an appropriate title for the shipboard pollution emergency plan : for oil only, ‘shipboard oil

pollution emergency plan’, for noxious liquid substances only ‘shipboard marine pollution emergency plan fornoxious liquid substances, and for a combined oil and noxious liquid substances plan, ‘shipboard marine pollutionemergency plan’ by referring to regulation 26 of Annex I and/or regulation 16 of Annex II of the Convention.

MEPC 44/20ANNEX 7Page 16

I:\MEPC\44\20.doc

INDEX OF SECTIONS

Section Title

1 Preamble

2 Reporting requirements

2.1 When to report

2.2 Information required

2.3 Who to contact

3 Steps to control discharge

3.1 Operational spills

3.2 Spills resulting from casualties

4 National and local co-ordination

5 Additional information (non-mandatory)

Appendices

SECTION 1: PREAMBLE

1 This section should contain an explanation of the purpose and use of the Plan and indicatehow the shipboard Plan relates to other shore-based plans (refer Section 1.4 of the Guidelines).

SECTION 2: REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

2 This section should ensure that the reporting requirements of regulation 26 of Annex I and/orregulation 16 of Annex II of MARPOL 73/78 are complied with and should include informationrelating to the following:

2.1 When to report

This section should contain guidance on when to report actual and/or probable discharges(see section 2.3.1 of the Guidelines).

2.2 Information required

This section should contain details of the information required for the initial report andsupplementary or follow-up reports. Reference should be made to resolution A.648(16) (seesection 2.3.2 of the Guidelines). This section should include an example of reporting format asillustrated in table 1.

MEPC 44/20ANNEX 7

Page 17

I:\MEPC\44\20.DOC

TABLE 1

SHIPBOARD MARINE POLLUTION EMERGENCY PLAN (FOR OIL AND/OR NOXIOUSLIQUID SUBSTANCES5 )

SAMPLE FORMAT FOR INITIAL NOTIFICATIONAA (SHIP NAME, CALL SIGN, FLAG)BB (DATE AND TIME OF EVENT, UTC)

D D H H M MCC (POSITION, LAT, LONG) OR DD (BEARING, DISTANCE FROM LANDMARK)

N Sd d m m d d d N miles

E Wd d d m m

EE (COURSE) FF (SPEED, KNOTS)

d d d kn kn 1/10LL (INTENDED TRACK)MM (RADIO STATIONS(S) GUARDED)NN (DATE AND TIME OF NEXT REPORT, UTC)

D D H H M M PP (TYPE AND QUANTITY OF CARGO/BUNKERS ON BOARD) QQ (BRIEF DETAILS OF DEFECTS/DEFICIENCIES/DAMAGE) RR (BRIEF DETAILS OF POLLUTION, INCLUDING ESTIMATE OF QUANTITY LOST)

SS (BRIEF DETAILS OF WEATHER AND SEA CONDITIONS)direction direction

WIND SWELLspeed (Beaufort) height (m)

TT (CONTACT DETAILS OF SHIP'S OWNER/OPERATOR/AGENT) UU (SHIP SIZE AND TYPE) LENGTH: (m) BREADTH: (m) DRAUGHT: (m) TYPE: XX (ADDITIONAL INFORMATION)BRIEF DETAILS OF INCIDENT:NEED FOR OUTSIDE ASSISTANCE:ACTIONS BEING TAKEN:NUMBER OF CREW AND DETAILS OF ANY INJURIES:DETAILS OF P&I CLUB & LOCAL CORRESPONDENT:OTHERS:Footnote: The alphabetical reference letters in the above format are from "General principles for ship reporting

systems and ship reporting requirements, including Guidelines for reporting incidents involving dangerousgoods, harmful substances and/or marine pollutants" adopted by the International Maritime Organizationby resolution A.648(16). The letters do not follow the complete alphabetical sequence as certain lettersare used to designate information required for other standard reporting formats, e.g., those used totransmit route information.

5 See footnote No. 4.

MEPC 44/20ANNEX 7Page 18

I:\MEPC\44\20.doc

2.3 Whom to contact

This section should refer the Plan user to appendices separately listing contacts for the following:

.1 coastal State contacts (see section 2.4.3 of the Guidelines);

.2 port contacts (see section 2.4.4 of the Guidelines); and

.3 ship interest contacts (see section 2.4.5 of the Guidelines).

Examples of how this information could be depicted are included in the appendices.

SECTION 3: STEPS TO CONTROL DISCHARGE

3 This section should ensure that the provisions of regulation 26 of Annex I and/or regulation 16of Annex II of MARPOL 73/78 regarding steps to control discharge are complied with and shouldinclude information relating to the following:

3.1 Operational spills

This section should contain ship-specific information concerning actions to be taken inresponse to operational spills (see section 2.5.2.1). As a minimum, procedures to address spillsresulting from pipe leakage, tank overflow and hull leakage should be included.

3.2 Spills resulting from casualties

This section should contain ship-specific and company-specific information concerningactions to be taken to address, as a minimum, the following casualty scenarios: grounding,fire/explosion, collision (with fixed or moving object), hull failure, excessive list, containment systemfailure, submerged/foundered, wrecked/stranded, hazardous vapour release, and especially for shipscertified to carry NLSs, dangerous reactions of cargo, other dangerous cargo release, loss of tankenvironmental control and cargo contamination yielding a hazardous condition (see section 2.5.2.2 ofthe Guidelines). This section should also provide guidance on priority actions to be taken (seeSection 2.5 of the Guidelines). Consideration should be given to providing some of the necessaryinformation in the form of checklists/flowcharts where considered applicable. An example ofpresentation of information relating to response activities and personnel responsibilities is given intable 2 below:

TABLE 2Operational

spill typeAction to be taken Designated crew member

(state rank/rating only)Pipe leakage Stop product flow Chief officer

Where appropriate this section should provide a list of information required for makingdamage stability and damage longitudinal strength assessments.

MEPC 44/20ANNEX 7

Page 19

I:\MEPC\44\20.DOC

SECTION 4: NATIONAL AND LOCAL CO-ORDINATION

4 This section should contain information to assist the master in initiating action by coastalState, local government or other involved parties (see section 2.6 of the Guidelines). Dependent onthe ship's trade, this Section should include information and guidance to assist the master withorganizing a response to the incident should such response not be organized by shore authorities.Detailed information for specific areas may be included as appendices to the Plan.

SECTION 5: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (NON-MANDATORY)

5 This section should contain additional information included in the Plan at the owners'discretion. This information, although not required by regulation 26 of Annex I and regulation 16 ofAnnex II of MARPOL 73/78, may be required by local authorities in ports visited by the vessel, or itmay be included to provide additional assistance to the ship's master when responding to anemergency situation. This information may include:

.1 plan review procedures;

.2 training and drill procedures;

.3 record-keeping procedures;

.4 public affairs policy of the owners/operators;

.5 etc.

(See section 3 of the Guidelines.)

APPENDICES

6 The following appendices should be attached to the Plan, as a minimum:

.1 list of coastal State contacts (see section 2.4.3 of the Guidelines)

.2 list of port contacts as appropriate (see section 2.4.4 of the Guidelines)

.3 list of ship interest contacts (see section 2.4.5 of the Guidelines)

.4 ship's plans and drawings (see section 2.5.4 of the Guidelines).

6.1 Additionally the following information could be attached:

.1 summary flowchart (consideration should be given to adapting the flowchart forbulkhead display on board)

.2 information relevant to roles and responsibilities of national and local authorities

.3 other reference material

MEPC 44/20ANNEX 7Page 20

I:\MEPC\44\20.doc

APPENDIX ...

SHIP INTEREST CONTACTS

The following table provides an example of how ship interest contact information could bepresented:

(a) Owner/operator contacts Name of institution/person to be contacted

Address Means of contact Remarks

Owner/operator Phone: ...................... Fax: ....................... Telex: ....................... INMARSAT- Telex: ....................... INMARSAT- Fax: .........................

(b) Other ship interest contacts

Name of institution/person to be contacted

Address Means of contact Remarks

ChartererLocal agentP&I Club and correspondents

MEPC 44/20ANNEX 7

Page 21

I:\MEPC\44\20.DOC

SHIPBOARD MARINE POLLUTION EMERGENCY PLAN(FOR OIL AND/OR NOXIOUS LIQUID SUBSTANCES6)

Summary flow chart

This flow diagram is an outline of the course of action that shipboard personnel should follow inresponding to an oil or noxious liquid substance pollution emergency based on the Guidelines publishedby the Organization. This diagram is not exhaustive and should not be used as a sole reference inresponse. Consideration should be given for inclusion of specific references to the Plan. The steps aredesigned to assist ship personnel in actions to stop or minimize the discharge of oil or noxious liquidsubstances and mitigate its effects. These steps fall into two main categories - reporting and action.

DISCHARGE OF OIL OR NOXIOUS LIQUID SUBSTANCE (Probable or actual)

ASSESSMENT OF THE NATURE OF INCIDENT

ACTIONS REQUESTED

• Alert crew members• Identify and monitor spill source• Personnel Protection• Spill assessment• Vapour monitoring• Evacuation

REPORTING ACTION TO CONTROL DISCHARGE

By master and/or designated crew member Measures to minimize the escape of oil or noxious

When to report liquid substance and threat to the marine environment

All probable and actual spills Navigational measures Seamanship measures

How to report• By quickest means to coastal radio station• Designated ship movement reporting station or• Rescue co-ordination centre (at sea)• By quickest available means to local authoritiesWhom to contact• Nearest coastal State• Harbour and terminal operators (in port)• Shipowner's manager; P & I insurer• Head charterer; cargo owner• Refer to contact listsWhat to report• Initial report (res. A.648(16))• Follow-up reports• Characteristics of oil or noxious liquid substance spilled• Cargo/ballast/bunker dispositions• Weather and sea conditions• Slick movement• Assistance required

• Alter course/position and/or speed• Change of list and/or trim• Anchoring• Setting aground• Initiate towage• Assess safe haven requirements• Weather/tide/swell forecasting• Slick monitoring• Record of events and communications taken

• Safety assessment and precaution• Advice on priority countermeasures/ preventive measures• Damage stability and stress considerations• Ballasting/deballasting• Internal cargo transfer operations• Emergency ship-to-ship transfers of cargo and/or bunker• Set up shipboard response for: - Leak sealing - Fire fighting - Handling of shipboard response equipment (if available) - etc.

- Salvage

- Lightening capacity STEPS TO INITIATE EXTERNAL RESPONSE

- Mechanical equipment - External response team - Chemical dispersant/degreasant

• Refer to coastal port State listings for local assistance• Refer to ship interest contact list• External clean-up resources required• Continued monitoring of activities

***

6 See footnote No. 4

MEPC 44/20

I:\MEPC\44\20.doc

ANNEX 8

RESOLUTION MEPC.86(44)adopted on 13 March 2000

AMENDMENTS TO THE GUIDELINES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OFSHIPBOARD OIL POLLUTION EMERGENCY PLANS

THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION COMMITTEE,

RECALLING Article 38(a) of the Convention on the International Maritime Organizationconcerning the function of the Committee,

NOTING that regulation 26 of Annex I and regulation 16 of Annex II of MARPOL 73/78require ships to carry a shipboard oil pollution emergency plan, a shipboard marine pollutionemergency plan for noxious liquid substances and/or a shipboard marine pollution emergency plan inaccordance with the Guidelines developed by the Organization,

RECOGNIZING the need for amending the Guidelines for the development of shipboard oilpollution emergency plans to ensure uniform application of these regulations,

HAVING CONSIDERED at its thirty-second session proposals for the Guidelines for thedevelopment of shipboard oil pollution emergency plans and at its forty-fourth session furtherproposals for the Guidelines for the development of shipboard marine pollution emergency plans foroil and/or noxious liquid substances and the amendments to the Guidelines for the development ofshipboard oil pollution emergency plans,

1. ADOPTS the amendments to the Guidelines for the development of the shipboard oilpollution emergency plans, the text of which is set out in the annex to the present resolution;

2. URGES Governments to ensure that the shipboard oil pollution emergency plans aredeveloped in accordance with these Guidelines, as amended, when approving them under theprovisions of amended regulation 26 of Annex I of MARPOL 73/78, pending its entry into force.

MEPC 44/20ANNEX 8Page 2

I:\MEPC\44\20.doc

ANNEX

AMENDMENTS TO THE GUIDELINES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OFSHIPBOARD OIL POLLUTION EMERGENCY PLANS

1 Replace PREFACE by FOREWORD to read:

“FOREWORD

The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, asmodified by the Protocol of 1978 relating thereto (MARPOL 73/78) is a principal instrumentestablished by IMO for preventing marine pollution. Regulation 26 of Annex I of thisConvention requires that every oil tanker of 150 tons gross tonnage and above and every shipother than an oil tanker of 400 tons gross tonnage and above shall carry on board a shipboardoil pollution emergency plan approved by the Administration. It is pertinent to note thatMARPOL 73/78 was amended to include the above-mentioned regulation 26 of Annex I as aconsequence of article 3(1)(a) of the International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness,Response and Co-operation, 1990 (OPRC Convention). This Convention contains arequirement that certain ships have on board a shipboard oil pollution emergency plan. Theshipboard plan required under regulation 26 of Annex I of MARPOL 73/78 is the sameshipboard oil pollution emergency plan that is required under article 3(1)(a) of the OPRCConvention.

Regulation 16 of Annex II of the Convention requires that every ship of 150 tonsgross tonnage and above certified to carry noxious liquid substances in bulk shall carry onboard a shipboard marine pollution emergency plan for noxious liquid substances approvedby the Administration. A shipboard marine pollution emergency plan for noxious liquidsubstances should be combined with a shipboard oil pollution emergency plan since most oftheir contents are the same and only one combined plan on board is more practical than twoseparate plans in case of an emergency. In this case the title of such a combined plan shouldbe “Shipboard marine pollution emergency plan” in order to distinguish it from a shipboardmarine emergency plan for noxious liquid substances and a shipboard oil pollutionemergency plan. Both regulation 26 of Annex I and regulation 16 of Annex II require that theplans be in accordance with guidelines developed by IMO.

The Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) at its thirty-second sessionadopted Guidelines for the development of shipboard oil pollution emergency plans undercover of resolution MEPC.54(32) to meet the requirements of regulation 26 of Annex I.

The MEPC at its [forty-fourth] session prepared Guidelines for the development ofshipboard marine pollution emergency plans to meet requirements of regulation 26 ofAnnex I and/or regulation 16 of Annex II on the basis of the Guidelines for oil. As a result ofthis review, the amendments to the Guidelines for the development of shipboard oil pollutionemergency plans were also prepared by the MEPC at the same session to ensure uniformapplication of these regulations and guidelines.

MEPC 44/20ANNEX 8

Page 3

I:\MEPC\44\20.DOC

It is also pertinent to note that shipboard oil pollution emergency plans which havealready been approved by the Administration for oil tankers of 150 tons gross tonnage andabove and ships other than oil tankers of 400 tons gross tonnage and above in accordancewith the Guidelines for the development of shipboard oil pollution emergency plans adoptedby resolution MEPC.54 (32) need not be modified in accordance with either these Guidelinesor the Guidelines for the development of shipboard marine pollution emergency plans for oiland/or noxious liquid substances adopted by resolution MEPC.85(44).

Under the provisions of article 5 of the 1973 MARPOL Convention, a ship is requiredto hold a certificate in accordance with the provisions of regulations and, while in the ports oroffshore terminals under the jurisdiction of a Party, is subject to inspection by officers dulyauthorized by that Party. In this context, the carriage of a shipboard oil pollution emergencyplan should also be subject to such inspection.

These Guidelines contain information for the preparation of shipboard oil pollutionemergency plans.

The main objectives of these Guidelines are:

• to assist ship owners in preparing shipboard oil pollution emergency plans inconformance with the cited regulations; and

• to assist Governments in developing and enacting domestic laws which giveforce to and implement the cited regulations.

In the interest of uniformity, Governments are requested to refer to these Guidelineswhen preparing appropriate national regulations.”

2 Paragraph 1.4, the last sentence is amended to read:

“Effective planning ensures that the necessary actions are taken in a structured, logical, safeand timely manner.”

3 Paragraph 1.4.4, the first sentence is amended to read:

“The Plan envisioned by regulation 26 of Annex I of the Convention is intended to be asimple document.”

4 Paragraph 1.4.4, the last sentence is amended to read:

“If such information is relevant, it should be kept in annexes where it will not dilute theability of ship's personnel to locate operative parts of the Plan.”

5 Paragraph 1.4.6, the second and the third sentences are amended to read:

"It must therefore be available in a working language or languages understood by the masterand officers. A change in the master and officers which brings about an attendant change intheir working language or languages understood would require the issuance of the Plan in thenew languages. ”

MEPC 44/20ANNEX 8Page 4

I:\MEPC\44\20.doc

6 The following new paragraph 1.4.7 should be added after paragraph 1.4.6:

"1.4.7 The Plan should clearly underline the following :

"Without interfering with shipowners' liability, some coastal States consider that it is theirresponsibility to define techniques and means to be taken against an oil pollution incident andapprove such operations which might cause further pollution, i.e., lightening. States are ingeneral entitled to do so under the International Convention relating to Intervention on theHigh Seas in Cases of Oil Pollution Casualties, 1969 (Intervention Convention) ."

7 Paragraphs 2.3.1.1.1 is amended to read:

.1 a discharge of oil above the permitted level for whatever reason including those forthe purpose of securing the safety of the ship or saving life at sea; or

8 Paragraph 2.4.3.1 is amended to read:

"2.4.3.1 In order to expedite response and minimize damage from a pollution incident, it isessential that appropriate coastal States should be notified without delay. This process isbegun with the initial report required by article 8 and Protocol I of the Convention.Guidelines for making this report are provided in section 2.3."

9 Paragraph 2.5.2.1, the first sentence is amended to read:

“The Plan should outline the procedures for safe removal of oil spilled and contained on deck.”

10 Paragraph 2.5.2.2 is amended to read:

".2 Spills resulting from casualties: Casualties should be treated in the Plan as a separatesection. The Plan should include various checklists or other means which will ensurethat the master considers all appropriate factors when addressing the specificcasualty9. These checklists must be tailored to the specific ship and to the specificproduct or product types. In addition to the checklists, specific personnel assignmentsfor anticipated tasks must be identified. Reference to existing fire control plans andmuster lists is sufficient to identify personnel responsibilities. The following areexamples of casualties which should be considered:

.2.1 grounding;

.2.2 fire/explosion;

.2.3 collision (with fixed or moving object);

.2.4 hull failure;

9 Reference is made to the International Safety Management (ISM) Code, Section 8.

MEPC 44/20ANNEX 8

Page 5

I:\MEPC\44\20.DOC

.2.5 excessive list;

.2.6 containment system failure;

.2.7 submerged/foundered;

.2.8 wrecked/stranded;

.2.9 hazardous vapour release.”

11 Paragraph 2.5.3 is amended to read:

“2.5.3 In addition to the checklists and personnel duty assignments mentioned in 2.5.2, thePlan should provide the master with guidance concerning priority actions, stability and stressconsiderations, lightening and mitigating activities.”

12 Paragraph 2.5.3.1.1 , the second and third sentences are amended to read:

“In casualties involving spills, immediate consideration should be given to measures aimedat preventing fire, personnel exposure to toxic vapours, and explosion, such as altering courseso that the ship is upwind of the spilled cargo, shutting down non-essential air intakes, etc. Ifthe ship is aground, and cannot therefore manoeuvre, all possible sources of ignition shouldbe eliminated and action should be taken to prevent toxic vapours or flammable vapoursentering accommodation and engine-room spaces” (see paragraph 1.4.7).

13 Paragraph 2.5.3.1.2, the second sentence is amended to read:

“A visual inspection should be carried out and all cargo tanks, bunker tanks, and othercompartments should be sounded.”

14 Paragraph 2.5.3.2 is amended to read:

"2.5.3.2 Stability and strength considerations: Great care in casualty response must be takento consider stability and strength when taking actions to mitigate the spillage of oil or to freethe ship if aground. The Plan should provide the master with detailed guidance to ensure thatthese aspects are properly considered. Nothing in this section shall be construed as creating arequirement for damage stability plans or calculations beyond those required by relevantinternational conventions.

.1 Internal transfers should be undertaken only with a full appreciation of the likelyimpact on the ship's overall longitudinal strength and stability. When the damagesustained is extensive, the impact of internal transfers on stress and stability may beimpossible for the ship to assess. Contact may have to be made with the owner oroperator or other entity in order that information can be provided so that damagestability and damage longitudinal strength assessments may be made. These could bemade within the head office technical departments. In other cases, classificationsocieties or independent organizations may need to be contacted. The Plan shouldclearly indicate who the master should contact in order to gain access to thesefacilities.

MEPC 44/20ANNEX 8Page 6

I:\MEPC\44\20.doc

.2 Where appropriate, the Plan should provide a list of information required for makingdamage stability and damage longitudinal strength assessments."

15 Paragraph 2.5.3.3, "(see paragraph 1.4.7)" should be added at the end of the paragraph.

16 After paragraph 2.5.3.3, add a new paragraph 2.5.3.4 to read:

"2.5.3.4 Mitigating activities: When the safety of both the ship and personnel has beenaddressed, the master can initiate mitigating activities according to the guidance given by theplan. The plan should address such aspects as:

.1 assessment and monitoring requirements;

.2 personnel protection issues:

.2.1 protective equipment; and

.2.2 threats to health and safety

.3 containment and other response techniques (e.g. dispersing, absorbing,);

.4 isolation procedures;

.5 decontamination of personnel; and

.6 disposal of removed oil and clean-up materials."

17 Paragraph 2.6, "(see paragraph 1.4.7)" should be added at the end of the paragraph.

18 Paragraph 3.3, "(see paragraph 1.4.7)" should be added at the end of the paragraph.

19 Renumber paragraphs 3.4, 3.5, 3.6 and 3.7 as 3.7, 3.8, 3.9 and 3.10 respectively, and addthree new paragraphs after paragraph 3.3, to read:

“3.4 Shoreside Spill Response Co-ordinator or Qualified Individual: Guidance for themaster for requesting and co-ordinating initial response actions with the person responsiblefor mobilizing shoreside response personnel and equipment.

3.5 Some coastal States require ships to have contracts with "response contractors" whenships enter into such States' ports. When ships sail toward such States, it is recommendedthat response resources (personnel and equipment) and capabilities are identified in advancefor each potential port State. In other States, in particular, those referred to inparagraph 1.4.7, such requirements do not exist in general.

3.6 Planning Standards: To facilitate forethought about the amount of response resourceswhich should be requested, possible scenarios should be analysed and accordingly plannedfor (see paragraph 1.4.7).”

MEPC 44/20ANNEX 8

Page 7

I:\MEPC\44\20.DOC

20 After new paragraph 3.10, add a new paragraph 3.11 to read:

"3.11 Salvage: The plan should contain information on what the crew's responsibilities arein a casualty where a vessel is partially or fully disabled, and what constitutes dangerousconditions. A decision process should be outlined in the plan that will aid the master indetermining when salvage assistance should be obtained. The decision process shouldinclude, but not be limited to the following:

.1 Nearest land or hazard to navigation;

.2 Vessel's set and drift;

.3 Location and time of impact with hazard based on vessel's set and drift;

.4 Estimated time of casualty repair; and

.5 Determination of the nearest capable assistance and its response time (i.e. ortug assistance, the time it will take to get on scene and secure the tow). Whena casualty occurs to a vessel underway that reduces its manoeuvrability, themaster needs to determine his window of opportunity considering theresponse time of assistance, regardless of the estimated time of repair. Itwould not be prudent to hesitate in calling for assistance when the timeneeded to repair something goes beyond the window of opportunity. "

21 Appendix I (Additional references for the development of shipboard oil pollution emergencyplans). The ISBN number of "Manual on Oil Pollution, Section II" should be "92 801 1330 5".

22 Appendix II (Example of format for shipboard oil pollution emergency plan), section 3, (Stepto control discharge), paragraph 3.2 is amended to read:

“3.2 Spills resulting from casualties

This section should contain ship-specific and company-specific information concerningactions to be taken to address, as a minimum, the following casualty scenarios: grounding,fire/explosion, collision (with fixed or moving object), hull failure, excessive list,containment system failure, submerged/foundered, wrecked/stranded, hazardous vapourrelease (see section 2.5.2.2 of the Guidelines). This section should also provide guidance onpriority actions to be taken (see Section 2.5 of the Guidelines). Consideration should begiven to providing some of the necessary information in the form of checklists/flowchartswhere considered applicable. An example of presentation of information relating to responseactivities and personnel responsibilities is given in table 2 below:”

23 “Shipboard oil pollution emergency plan summary flow chart” is amended to read:

MEPC 44/20ANNEX 8Page 8

I:\MEPC\44\20.doc

SHIPBOARD OIL POLLUTION EMERGENCY PLANSummary flow chart

This flow diagram is an outline of the course of action that shipboard personnel should follow in responding to an oil pollutionemergency based on the guidelines published by the Organization. This diagram is not exhaustive and should not be used as a solereference in response. Consideration should be given for inclusion of specific references to the Plan. The steps are designed toassist ship personnel in actions to stop or minimize the discharge of oil and mitigate its effects. These steps fall into two maincategories - reporting and action.

DISCHARGE OF OILProbable or actual

ASSESSMENT OF THE NATURE OF INCIDENT

ACTIONS REQUESTED

• Alert crew members• Identify and monitor spill source• Personnel Protection• Spill assessment• Vapour monitoring• Evacuation

REPORTING ACTION TO CONTROL DISCHARGE

By master and/or designated crew member

When to report

Measures to minimize the escape of oil and threat to the marineenvironment

All probable and actual spills Navigational measures Seamanship measures

How to report• By quickest means to coastal radio station• Designated ship movement reporting station or• Rescue co-ordination centre (at sea)• By quickest available means to local authoritiesWhom to contact• Nearest coastal State• Harbour and terminal operators (in port)• Shipowner's manager; P & I insurer• Head charterer; cargo owner• Refer to contact listsWhat to report• Initial report (res. A.648(16))• Follow-up reports• Characteristics of oil spilled• Cargo/ballast/bunker dispositions• Weather and sea conditions• Slick movement• Assistance required

• Alter course/position and/or speed• Change of list and/or trim• Anchoring• Setting aground• Initiate towage• Assess safe haven

equirements• Weather/tide/swell

orecasting• Slick monitoring• Record of events and

ommunications taken

• Safety assessment and precaution• Advice on priority countermeasures/ preventive measures• Damage stability and stress considerations• Ballasting/deballasting• Internal cargo transfer operations• Emergency ship-to-ship transfers of cargo and/or bunker• Set up shipboard response for: - Leak sealing - Fire fighting - Handling of shipboard response equipment (if available) - etc.

- Salvage

- Lightening capacity STEPS TO INITIATE EXTERNAL RESPONSE

- Mechanical equipment - External response team - Chemical dispersant/degreasant

• Refer to coastal port State listings for local assistance• Refer to ship interest contact list• External clean-up resources required• Continued monitoring of activities

"***

MEPC 44/20

I:\MEPC\44\20.doc

ANNEX 9

RESOLUTION MEPC.87(44)adopted on 13 March 2000

USE OF SPANISH UNDER IMO CONVENTIONS RELATINGTO POLLUTION PREVENTION

THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION COMMITTEE,

RECALLING Article 38(c) of the Convention on the International Maritime Organizationconcerning the function of the Committee,

NOTING that the present provisions of MARPOL 73/78 allow only English or French asinternational working languages in the certificates and relevant documents required by theConvention,

NOTING ALSO that Spanish is one of the official and working languages of the Organization,

HAVING CONSIDERED the proposals submitted by Venezuela and Spain for consideration bythe forty-fourth session of the Committee on amendments to MARPOL 73/78 (MEPC 44/12/6and MEPC 44/12/7),

1. AGREES to amend relevant regulations of MARPOL 73/78 to provide the same status toSpanish as is provided for English and French;

2. AGREES ALSO to take necessary formal action for amendments to each relevantMARPOL Annex when opportunities for review arrive;

3. AGREES FURTHER to provide equal status to English, French and Spanish whenpreparing future legal instruments;

4. FURTHER AGREES to inform the Council, the Maritime Safety Committee and theLegal Committee of this resolution for consistency in the Organization’s policy.

***

MEPC 44/20

I:\MEPC\44\20.doc

ANNEX 10

TEXT OF THE REVISED MARPOL ANNEX IV

REGULATIONS FOR THE PREVENTION OF POLLUTION BYSEWAGE FROM SHIPS

Chapter 1 General

Regulation 1

Definitions

For the purposes of this Annex:

1 "New ship" means a ship:

.1 for which the building contract is placed, or in the absence of a building contract, thekeel of which is laid, or which is at a similar stage of construction, on or after the dateof entry into force of this Annex; or

.2 the delivery of which is three years or more after the date of entry into force of thisAnnex.

2 "Existing ship" means a ship which is not a new ship.

3 "Sewage" means:

.1 drainage and other wastes from any form of toilets and urinals;

.2 drainage from medical premises (dispensary, sick bay, etc.) via wash basins, washtubs and scuppers located in such premises;

.3 drainage from spaces containing living animals; or

.4 other waste waters when mixed with the drainages defined above.

4 "Holding tank" means a tank used for the collection and storage of sewage.

5 "Nearest Land". The term "from the nearest land" means from the baseline from which theterritorial sea of the territory in question is established in accordance with international law exceptthat, for the purposes of the present Convention "from the nearest land" off the north eastern coast ofAustralia shall mean from a line drawn from a point on the coast of Australia in:

latitude 11°00' S, longitude 142°08' Eto a point in latitude 10°35' S, longitude 141°55' Ethence to a point latitude 10°00' S, longitude 142°00' Ethence to a point latitude 9°10' S, longitude 143°52' Ethence to a point latitude 9°00' S, longitude 144°30' Ethence to a point latitude 13°00' S, longitude 144°00' Ethence to a point latitude 15°00' S, longitude 146°00' Ethence to a point latitude 18°00' S, longitude 147°00' Ethence to a point latitude 21°00' S, longitude 153°00' Ethence to a point on the coast of Australia in latitude 24°42' S, longitude 153°15' E

MEPC 44/20ANNEX 10Page 2

I:\MEPC\44\20.doc

6 "International voyage" means a voyage from a country to which the present Conventionapplies to a port outside such country, or conversely.

7 "Person" means number of the crew and passengers.

8 "Anniversary date" means the day and the month of each year which will correspond to thedate of expiry of the International Sewage Pollution Prevention Certificate.

Regulation 2

Application

1 The provisions of this Annex shall apply to the following ships engaged in internationalvoyages:

.1 new ships of 400 gross tonnage and above; and

.2 new ships of less than 400 gross tonnage which are certified to carry morethan 15 persons; and

.3 existing ships of 400 gross tonnage and above, five years after the date of entry intoforce of this Annex; and

.4 existing ships of less than 400 gross tonnage which are certified to carry morethan 15 persons, five years after the date of entry into force of this Annex.

2 The Administration shall ensure that existing ships, according to subparagraphs 1.3 and 1.4of this regulation, the keels of which are laid or which are of a similar stage of construction before2 October 1983 shall be equipped, as far as practicable, to discharge sewage in accordance with therequirements of regulation 11 of the Annex.

Regulation 3

Exceptions

1 Regulation 11 of this Annex shall not apply to:

.1 the discharge of sewage from a ship necessary for the purpose of securing the safetyof a ship and those on boat or saving life at sea; or

.2 the discharge of sewage resulting from damage to a ship or its equipment if allreasonable precautions have been taken before and after the occurrence of thedamage, for the purpose of preventing or minimizing the discharge.

MEPC 44/20ANNEX 10

Page 3

I:\MEPC\44\20.DOC

Chapter 2 Surveys and certification

Regulation 4

Surveys

1 Every ship which, in accordance with regulation 2, is required to comply with the provisionsof this Annex shall be subject to the surveys specified below:

.1 An initial survey before the ship is put in service or before the Certificate requiredunder regulation 5 of this Annex is issued for the first time, which shall include acomplete survey of its structure, equipment, systems, fittings, arrangements andmaterial in so far as the ship is covered by this Annex. This survey shall be such as toensure that the structure, equipment, systems, fittings, arrangements and material fullycomply with the applicable requirements of this Annex.

.2 A renewal survey at intervals specified by the Administration, but not exceeding fiveyears, except where regulation 8.2, 8.5, 8.6 or 8.7 of this Annex is applicable. Therenewal survey shall be such as to ensure that the structure, equipment, systems,fittings, arrangements and material fully comply with applicable requirements of thisAnnex.

.3 An additional survey either general or partial, according to the circumstances, shall bemade after a repair resulting from investigations prescribed in paragraph 4 of thisregulation, or whenever any important repairs or renewals are made. The survey shallbe such as to ensure that the necessary repairs or renewals have been effectivelymade, that the material and workmanship of such repairs or renewals are in allrespects satisfactory and that the ship complies in all respects with the requirementsof this Annex.

2 The Administration shall establish appropriate measures for ships which are not subject to theprovisions of paragraph 1 of this regulation in order to ensure that the applicable provisions of thisAnnex are complied with.

3.1 Surveys of ships as regards the enforcement of the provisions of this Annex shall be carriedout by officers of the Administration. The Administration may, however, entrust the surveys either tosurveyors nominated for the purpose or to organizations recognized by it.

3.2 An Administration nominating surveyors or recognizing organizations to conduct surveys asset forth in subparagraph 3.1 of this paragraph shall, as a minimum, empower any nominatedsurveyor or recognized organization to:

.1 require repairs to a ship; and

.2 carry out surveys if requested by the appropriate authorities of a Port State.

The Administration shall notify the Organization of the specific responsibilities and conditions of theauthority delegated to the nominated surveyors or recognized organizations, for circulation to Partiesto the present Convention for the information of their officers.

MEPC 44/20ANNEX 10Page 4

I:\MEPC\44\20.doc

3.3 When a nominated surveyor or recognized organization determines that the condition of theship or its equipment does not correspond substantially with the particulars of the Certificate or issuch that the ship is not fit to proceed to sea without presenting an unreasonable threat of harm to themarine environment, such surveyor or organization shall immediately ensure that corrective action istaken and shall in due course notify the Administration. If such corrective action is not taken theCertificate should be withdrawn and the Administration shall be notified immediately and if the shipis in a port of another Party, the appropriate authorities of the Port State shall also be notifiedimmediately. When an officer of the Administration, a nominated surveyor or recognizedorganization has notified the appropriate authorities of the Port State, the Government of the PortState concerned shall give such officer, surveyor or organization any necessary assistance to carry outtheir obligations under this Regulation. When applicable, the Government of the Port Stateconcerned shall take such steps as will ensure that the ship shall not sail until it can proceed to sea orleave the port for the purpose of proceeding to the nearest appropriate repair yard available withoutpresenting an unreasonable threat of harm to the marine environment.

3.4 In every case, the Administration concerned shall fully guarantee the completeness andefficiency of the survey and shall undertake to ensure the necessary arrangements to satisfy thisobligation.

4.1 The condition of the ship and its equipment shall be maintained to conform with theprovisions of the present Convention to ensure that the ship in all respects will remain fit to proceedto sea without presenting an unreasonable threat of harm to the marine environment.

4.2 After any survey of the ship under paragraph 1 of this Regulation has been completed, nochange shall be made in the structure, equipment, systems, fittings, arrangements or material coveredby the survey, without the sanction of the Administration, except the direct replacement of suchequipment and fittings.

4.3 Whenever an accident occurs to a ship or a defect is discovered which substantially affectsthe integrity of the ship or the efficiency or completeness of its equipment covered by this Annex themaster or owner of the ship shall report at the earliest opportunity to the Administration, therecognized organization or the nominated surveyor responsible for issuing the relevant Certificate,who shall cause investigations to be initiated to determine whether a survey as required by paragraph1 of this Regulation is necessary. If the ship is in a port of another Party, the master or owner shallalso report immediately to the appropriate authorities of the Port State and the nominated surveyor orrecognized organization shall ascertain that such report has been made.

Regulation 5

Issue or Endorsement of Certificate

1 An international Sewage Pollution Prevention Certificate shall be issued, after an initial orrenewal survey in accordance with the provisions of Regulation 4 of this Annex to any ship which isengaged in voyages to ports or offshore terminals under the jurisdiction of other Parties to theConvention. In the case of existing ships this requirement shall apply five years after the date ofentry into force of this Annex.

MEPC 44/20ANNEX 10

Page 5

I:\MEPC\44\20.DOC

2 Such Certificate shall be issued or endorsed either by the Administration or by any persons ororganization∗ duly authorized by it. In every case the Administration assumes full responsibility forthe Certificate.

Regulation 6

Issue or Endorsement of a Certificate by another Government

1 The Government of a Party to the Convention may, at the request of the Administration,cause a ship to be surveyed and, if satisfied that the provisions of this Annex are complied with, shallissue or authorize the issue of an International Sewage Pollution Prevention Certificate to the ship,and where appropriate, endorse or authorize the endorsement of that Certificate on the ship inaccordance with this Annex.

2 A copy of the Certificate and a copy of the Survey report shall be transmitted as soon aspossible to the Administration requesting the survey.

3 A Certificate so issued shall contain a statement to the effect that it has been issued at therequest of the Administration and it shall have the same force and receive the same recognition as theCertificate issued under Regulation 5 of this Annex.

4 No International Sewage Pollution Prevention Certificate shall be issued to a ship which isentitled to fly the flag of a State, which is not a Party.

Regulation 7

Form of Certificate

The International Sewage Pollution Prevention Certificate shall be drawn up in a formcorresponding to the model given 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 8

Duration and validity of Certificate

1 An International Sewage Pollution Prevention Certificate shall be issued for a periodspecified by the Administration which shall not exceed five years.

2.1 Notwithstanding the requirements of paragraph 1 of this regulation, when the renewal surveyis completed within three months before the expiry date of the existing Certificate, the newCertificate shall be valid from the date of completion of the renewal survey to a date not exceedingfive years from the date of expiry of the existing Certificate.

∗ Refer to the Guidelines for the authorization of organizations acting on behalf of the Administrations, adopted by

the Organization by resolution A.739(18), and the Specifications on the survey and certification functions ofrecognized organizations acting on behalf of the Administration, adopted by the Organization by resolutionA.789(19).

MEPC 44/20ANNEX 10Page 6

I:\MEPC\44\20.doc

2.2 When the renewal survey is completed after the expiry date of the existing Certificate, thenew Certificate shall be valid from the date of completion of the renewal survey to a date notexceeding five years from the date of expiry of the existing Certificate.

2.3 When the renewal survey is completed more than three months before the expiry date of theexisting Certificate, the new Certificate shall be valid from the date of completion of the renewalsurvey to a date not exceeding five years from the date of completion of the renewal survey.

3 If a Certificate is issued for a period of less than five years, the Administration may extendthe validity of the Certificate beyond the expiry date to the maximum period specified in paragraph 1of this regulation.

4 If a renewal survey has been completed and a new Certificate cannot be issued or placed onboard the ship before the expiry date of the existing Certificate, the person or organization authorizedby the Administration may endorse the existing Certificate and such a Certificate shall be accepted asvalid for a further period which shall not exceed five months from the expiry date.

5 If a ship at the time when a Certificate expires is not in a port in which it is to be surveyed,the Administration may extend the period of validity of the Certificate but this extension shall begranted only for the purpose of allowing the ship to complete its voyage to the port in which it is tobe surveyed and then only in cases where it appears proper and reasonable to do so. No Certificateshall be extended for a period longer than three months, and a ship to which an extension is grantedshall not, on its arrival in the port in which it is to be surveyed, be entitled by virtue of such extensionto leave that port without having a new Certificate. When the renewal survey is completed, the newCertificate shall be valid to a date not exceeding five years from the date of expiry of the existingCertificate before the extension was granted.

6 A Certificate issued to a ship engaged on short voyages which has not been extended underthe foregoing provisions of this regulation may be extended by the Administration for a period ofgrace of up to one month from the date of expiry stated on it. When the renewal survey is completed,the new Certificate shall be valid to a date not exceeding five years from the date of expiry of theexisting Certificate before the extension was granted.

7 In special circumstances, as determined by the Administration, a new Certificate need not bedated from the date of expiry of the existing Certificate as required by paragraph 2.2, 5 or 6 of thisregulation. In these special circumstances, the new Certificate shall be valid to a date not exceedingfive years from the date of completion of the renewal survey.

8 A Certificate issued under regulation 5 or 6 of this Annex shall cease to be valid in any of thefollowing cases:

.1 If the relevant surveys are not completed within the periods specified underregulation 4.1 of this Annex.

.2 Upon transfer of the ship to the flag of another State. A new Certificate shall only beissued when the Government issuing the new Certificate is fully satisfied that the shipis in compliance with the requirements of regulations 4.4.1 and 4.4.2 of this Annex.In the case of a transfer between Parties, if requested within 3 months after thetransfer has taken place, the Government of the Party whose flag the ship wasformerly entitled to fly shall, as soon as possible, transmit to the Administrationcopies of the Certificate carried by the ship before the transfer and, if available, copiesof the relevant survey reports.

MEPC 44/20ANNEX 10

Page 7

I:\MEPC\44\20.DOC

Chapter 3 Equipment and control of discharge

Regulation 9

Sewage Systems

1 Every ship which, in accordance with regulation 2, is required to comply with the provisionsof this Annex shall be equipped with one of the following sewage systems:

.1 a sewage treatment plant which shall be of a type approved by the Administration, incompliance with the standards and test methods developed by the Organization1, or

.2 a sewage comminuting and disinfecting system approved by the Administration.Such system shall be fitted with facilities to the satisfaction of the Administration, forthe temporary storage of sewage when the ship is less than 3 nautical miles from thenearest land, or

.3 a holding tank of the capacity to the satisfaction of the Administration for theretention of all sewage, having regard to the operation of the ship, the number ofpersons on board and other relevant factors. The holding tank shall be constructed tothe satisfaction of the Administration and shall have a means to indicate visually theamount of its contents.

Regulation 10

Standard Discharge Connections

1 To enable pipes of reception facilities to be connected with the ship's discharge pipeline, bothlines shall be fitted with a standard discharge connection in accordance with the following table:

1 Reference is made to the International Specifications for Effluent Standards, Construction and Testing of Sewage

Treatment Systems adopted by the Organization by resolution MEPC.2(VI) adopted on 3 December 1976. Forexisting ships national specifications are acceptable.

MEPC 44/20ANNEX 10Page 8

I:\MEPC\44\20.doc

STANDARD DIMENSIONS OF FLANGES FOR DISCHARGE CONNECTIONS

Description DimensionOutside diameter 210mmInner diameter According to pipe outside diameterBolt circle diameter 170 mmSlots in flange 4 holes 18 mm in diameter equidistantly placed

on a bolt circle of the above diameter, slotted tothe flange periphery. The slot width to be 18 mm

Flange thickness 16 mmBolts and nuts:quantity and diameter

4, each of 16 mm in diameter and of suitablelength

The flange is designed to accept pipes up to a maximum internal diameter of 100 mm and shall be ofsteel or other equivalent material having a flat face. This flange, together with a suitable gasket, shallbe suitable for a service pressure of 6 kg/cm2.

For ships having a moulded depth of 5 metres and less, the inner diameter of the dischargeconnection may be 38 millimetres.

2 For ships in dedicated trades, i.e. passenger ferries, alternatively the ship's discharge pipelinemay be fitted with a discharge connection which can be accepted by the Administration, such asquick connection couplings.

Regulation 11

Discharge of Sewage

1 Subject to the provisions of regulation 3 of this Annex, the discharge of sewage into the sea isprohibited, except when:

.1 the ship is discharging comminuted and disinfected sewage using a system approvedby the Administration in accordance with regulation 9, paragraph 1.2 of this Annex ata distance of more than 3 nautical miles from the nearest land, or sewage which is notcomminuted or disinfected at a distance of more than 12 nautical miles from thenearest land, provided that in any case, the sewage that has been stored in holdingtanks shall not be discharged instantaneously but at a moderate rate when the ship isen route and proceeding at not less than 4 knots; the rate of discharge shall beapproved by the Administration based upon standards developed by the Organization;or

.2 the ship has in operation an approved sewage treatment plant which has been certifiedby the Administration to meet the operational requirements referred to in regulation 9,paragraph 1.1 of this Annex, and

.2.1 the test results of the plant are laid down in the ship's International SewagePollution Prevention Certificate; and

.2.2 additionally, the effluent shall not produce visible floating solids nor causediscoloration of the surrounding water.

MEPC 44/20ANNEX 10

Page 9

I:\MEPC\44\20.DOC

2 The provisions of paragraph 1 shall not apply to ships operating in the waters under thejurisdiction of a State and visiting ships from other States while they are in these waters and aredischarging sewage in accordance with such less stringent requirements as may be imposed by suchState.

3 When the sewage is mixed with wastes or waste water covered by other Annxes ofMARPOL 73/78, the requirements of those Annexes shall be complied with in addition to therequirements of this Annex.

Chapter 4 Reception facilities

Regulation 12

Reception facilities

1 The Government of each Party to the Convention, which requires ships operating in watersunder its jurisdiction and visiting ships while in its waters to comply with the requirements ofregulation 11.1, undertakes to ensure the provision of facilities at ports and terminals of the receptionof sewage, without causing delay to ships, adequate to meet the needs of the ships using them.

2 The Government of each Party shall notify the Organization for transmission to theContracting Governments concerned of all cases where the facilities provided under this Regulationare alleged to be inadequate.

MEPC 44/20ANNEX 10Page 10

I:\MEPC\44\20.doc

Appendix

FORM OF CERTIFICATE

International Sewage Pollution Prevention Certificate

Issued under the provisions of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, asmodified by the Protocol of 1978 relating thereto , and as amended by resolution MEPC…(…), (hereinafter referredto as "the Convention") under the authority of the Government of:

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

by ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….(full designation of the competent person or organization authorized

under the provisions of the Convention)

Particulars of ship1 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Name of ship ………………………………………………….………………………………………………………..

Distinctive number or letters …………………………………………………………………………………………..

Port of registry …………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Gross tonnage ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Number of persons which the ship is certified to carry ………………………………………………………………..

IMO Number2 …………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

New/existing ship*

Date on which keel was laid or ship was at a similar stage of construction or, where applicable, date on which workfor a conversion or an alteration or modification of a major character was commenced……………………………….

__________

* Delete as appropriate.

MEPC 44/20ANNEX 10

Page 11

I:\MEPC\44\20.DOC

THIS IS TO CERTIFY

1 That the ship is equipped with a sewage treatment plant/comminuter/holding tank and a discharge pipelinein compliance with regulations 9 and 10 of Annex IV of the Convention as follows:*

1.1 Description of the sewage treatment plant.*

Type of sewage treatment plantName of manufacturerThe sewage treatment plant is certified by the Administration to meet the effluent standards asprovided for in resolution MEPC.2(VI)

1.2 Description of comminuter* ………………………………………………………………………..Type of comminuter ………………………………………………………………………………...Name of manufacturer …………………………….………………………………………………..Standard of sewage after disinfection ………………………………………………………………

1.3 Description of holding tank equipment* ………….………………………………………………..Total capacity of the holding tank ………………………………………………………………..m3

Location …………………………………………………………………………………………….

1.4 A pipeline for the discharge of sewage to a reception facility, fitted with a standard shoreconnection

2 That the ship has been surveyed in accordance with regulation 4 of Annex IV of the Convention.

3 That the survey shows that the structure, equipment, systems, fittings, arrangements and material of the shipand the condition thereof are in all respects satisfactory and that the ship complies with the applicablerequirements of Annex IV of the Convention.

This Certificate is valid until ………………………………………………………………………………………… .3

subject to surveys in accordance with regulation 4 of Annex IV of the Convention.

Issued at………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..(Place of issue of Certificate)

............................ …………………………..………………... (Date of issue) (Signature of authorized official issuing the Certificate)

(Seal or stamp of the authority, as appropriate)

MEPC 44/20ANNEX 10Page 12

I:\MEPC\44\20.doc

Endorsement to extend the Certificate if valid for less than 5 years where regulation 8.3. applies

The ship complies with the relevant provisions of the Convention, and this Certificate shall, in accordance withregulation 8.3 of Annex IV of the Convention, be accepted as valid until …………………………………………….

Signed: ………………………………………………………….. (signature of authorized official)

Place: ………………………………………………………….…

Date: ………………………………………………………….….

(Seal or stamp of the authority, as appropriate)

Endorsement where the renewal survey has been completedand regulation 8.4 applies

The ship complies with the relevant provisions of the Convention, and this Certificate shall, in accordance withregulation 8.4 of Annex IV of the Convention, be accepted as valid until …………………………………………….

Signed: ………………………………………………………….. (signature of authorized official)

Place: ………………………………………………………….…

Date: ………………………………………………………….….

(Seal or stamp of the authority, as appropriate)

Endorsement to extend the validity of the Certificate until reaching the port of survey or for a period of grace whereregulation 8.5 or 8.6 applies

This certificate shall, in accordance with regulation 8.5 or 8.6* of Annex IV of the Convention, be accepted as validuntil ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Signed: ………………………………………………….……….. (signature of authorized official)

Place: ……………………………………………..………………

Date: ……………………………………………….…………….

(Seal or stamp of the authority, as appropriate)

___________

1 Alternatively, the particulars of the ship may be placed horizontally in boxes.2 In accordance with resolution A.600(15) - IMO Ship Identification Number Scheme, this information may be

included voluntarily.3 Insert the date of expiry as specified by the Administration in accordance with regulation 8.1 of Annex IV of the

Convention. The day and the month of this date correspond to the anniversary date as defined in regulation 1.8of Annex IV of the Convention.

***

MEPC 44/20

I:\MEPC\44\20.doc

ANNEX 11

RESOLUTION MEPC.88(44)adopted on 13 March 2000

IMPLEMENTATION OF ANNEX IV OF MARPOL 73/78

THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION COMMITTEE,

RECALLING article 38(a) of the Convention on the International Maritime Organizationconcerning the function of the Committee conferred upon it by international conventions for theprevention and control of marine pollution,

RECOGNIZING that approximately twenty-seven years have elapsed since the adoption ofAnnex IV of MARPOL 73/78,

RECOGNIZING ALSO that seventy-seven States, the combined merchants fleets of whichconstitute approximately forty-three per cent of the gross tonnage of the world’s merchant shipping,accepted Annex IV of MARPOL 73/78 as at 13 March 2000,

RECOGNIZING FURTHER that, since the Annex IV of MARPOL 73/78 will enter intoforce twelve months after the date on which not less than fifteen States, the combined merchant fleetsof which constitute not less than fifty per cent of the gross tonnage of the world’s merchant shippinghave become Parties to it, acceptance by States which represent approximately seven per cent of theworld’s tonnage is still needed to bring it into force,

NOTING that a large number of Member Governments, who have not yet accepted Annex IVof MARPOL 73/78, have expressed the view that they will face problems in complying with severalprovisions in Annex IV of MARPOL 73/78 if they accept Annex IV of MARPOL 73/78 in its presentform,

NOTING ALSO that these provisions need to be amended to assist the entry into force ofAnnex IV of MARPOL 73/78, while maintaining the same level of protection of the marineenvironment,

NOTING FURTHER that the text of the revised Annex IV of MARPOL 73/78, as set out inannex 10 to MEPC 44/20, was approved by the Committee at its forty-fourth session,

1. AGREES to request the Secretary-General to circulate the text of the revised Annex IV ofMARPOL 73/78 to all Members of the Organization and to all Parties to MARPOL 73/78 which arenot Members of the Organization after conditions for entry into force of the existing Annex IV ofMARPOL 73/78 have been met with a view to future adoption upon the entry into force of theexisting Annex IV in accordance with article 16 of MARPOL 73/78;

2. RESOLVES that the Parties to Annex IV of MARPOL 73/78 should implement the revisedAnnex IV of MARPOL 73/78 immediately after entry into force of the existing Annex IV ofMARPOL 73/78, with a view to avoiding the creation of a dual treaty regime between the existingand the revised Annex IV of MARPOL 73/78;

3. URGES States, which have not yet accepted the existing Annex IV of MARPOL 73/78, to doso as soon as possible with the understanding that only the provisions of the revised Annex IV ofMARPOL 73/78 will be implemented upon the entry into force of the existing Annex IV ofMARPOL 73/78.

***

MEPC 44/20

I:\MEPC\44\20.doc

ANNEX 12

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ANNEX V OF MARPOL 73/78

1 The existing paragraph (1)(b)(ii) of regulation 3 is replaced by the following:

“12 nautical miles for food wastes and all other garbage including paper products, rags,glass, metal, bottles, crockery and similar refuse, but excluding incinerator ashes fromplastic products which may contain toxic or heavy metal residues.”

2 The existing paragraph (1)(b) of regulation 9 is replaced by the following:

“The placards shall be written in the official language of the State whose flag the ship isentitled to fly and, for ships engaged in voyages to ports or offshore terminals under thejurisdiction of other Parties to the Convention, in English, French or Spanish.”

3 The existing paragraph (3)(a) of regulation 9 is replaced by the following:

“each discharge operation, or completed incineration, shall be recorded in the GarbageRecord Book and signed for on the date of the incineration or discharge by the officer incharge. Each completed page of the Garbage Record Book shall be signed by the masterof the ship. The entries in the Garbage Record Book shall be in an official language ofthe State whose flag the ship is entitled to fly, and in English, French or Spanish. Theentries in an official national language of the State whose flag the ship is entitled to flyshall prevail in case of a dispute or discrepancy;”

4 The existing Record of Garbage Discharges contained in the appendix is replaced by thefollowing:

MEPC 44/20ANNEX 12Page 2

I:\MEPC\44\20.doc

"RECORD OF GARBAGE DISCHARGES

Ship’s name : Distinctive No, or letters : IMO No :

Garbage categories :

1. Plastic2. Floating dunnage, lining or packing materials3. Ground paper products, rags, glass, metal, bottles, crockery, etc…4. Paper products, rages, glass, metal, bottles, crockery, etc…5. Food waste6. Incinerator ash

NOTE : THE DISCHARGE OF ANY GARBAGE OTHER THAN FOOD WASTE IS PROHIBITED IN SPECIAL AREAS. ONLY GARBAGE DISCHARGED INTOTHE SEA MUST BE CATEGORIZED. GARBAGE OTHER THAN CATEGORY 1 DISCHARGED TO RECEPTION FACILITIES NEED ONLY BE LISTED AS ATOTAL ESTIMATED AMOUNT. CATEGORY 6 GARBAGE CONTAINING TOXIC OR HEAVY METAL RESIDUES SHOULD BE DISCHARGED AT ANAPPROPRIATE RECEPTION FACILITY AND NOT AT SEA

Date/time Position of the ship Estimated amount discharged into sea (m3) Estimated amountdischarged to

reception facilities orto other ship (m3)

Estimated amountincinerated (m3)

Certification/Signature

Cat. 2 Cat. 3 Cat. 4 Cat. 5 Cat. 6 Cat. 1 Other

Master's signature ......................................... Date :........................ "

***

MEPC 44/20

I:\MEPC\44\20.doc

ANNEX 13

SUBSTANTIVE ITEMS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE AGENDASFOR MEPC 45, MEPC 46 AND MEPC 47

No. ItemMEPC 45October

2000

MEPC 46July2001

MEPC 47March2002

1 Implementation of the OPRC Convention andthe OPRC-HNS Protocol and relevantconference resolutions

X X X

2 Harmful aquatic organisms in ballast water X X X

3 Harmful effects of the use of anti-foulingpaints for ships

X X X

4 Consideration and adoption of amendmentsto mandatory instruments

X X

5

.1

.2

Identification and protection of special areasand PSSAs

Review of resolution A.720(17)

Proposals for PSSAs

X

X

6 Inadequacy of reception facilities X X

7 Reports of sub-committees (FSI, BLG, DSC,DE, SLF, etc.)

X X X

8 Work of other bodies (Assembly, Council,MSC, FAL/SPI, TCC, etc.)

X X X

9 Status of Conventions X

10

.1

.2

Prevention of air pollution from ships

CO2 study

Follow-up to the Conference

X

X

X

X X

MEPC 44/20ANNEX 13Page 2

I:\MEPC\44\20.doc

No. ItemMEPC 45October

2000

MEPC 46July2001

MEPC 47March2002

11

.1

.2

.3

.4

Interpretation and amendments ofMARPOL 73/78 and related Codes

Revision of Annex I (Outcome of BLG 5)

Revision of Annex II (Outcome of BLG 5)

Revision of Annex IV

Any other item

X

X

X

X

X X

12

.1

.2

Follow-up action to UNCED*

Prevention of pollution from offshore oil andgas activities

Issues arising from chapters 17 and 19 ofAgenda 21

X

X

X

X

13

.1

.2

Promotion of implementation andenforcement of MARPOL and related Codes

Identification of oil pollution sources(e.g. tagging system)

Review of the Guidelines for implementationof Annex V and the Manual on ShipboardWaste Management

X

X

14 INF Code related matters X15 The role of the Human Element with regard

to pollution preventionX X

16 Formal safety assessment, includingenvironmental indexing of ships

X X

17 Application of the Committees' Guidelines X X X18

.1

.2

Work programme of the Committee andsubsidiary bodies

Work programme for 2002/2003

Work plan up to 2008

X

X

X

X

X

X

19 Recycling of ships X

MEPC 44/20ANNEX 13

Page 3

I:\MEPC\44\20.DOC

No. ItemMEPC 45October

2000

MEPC 46July2001

MEPC 47March2002

20

.1

.2

Matters related to the 1973 InterventionProtocol

Revision of the list of substances

Directory of relevant centres of expertise

X

X

21 Technical co-operation programme X X

22

.1

.2

.3

Any other business

Relations with other UN agencies

Relations with other international treaties

Consultative status of NGOs

as necessary

as necessary

as necessary

* UN/CSD is considering to hold “Rio plus 10” in 2002.

***

MEPC 44/20

I:\MEPC\44\20.doc

ANNEX 14

TERMS OF REFERENCE OF THE CORRESPONDENCE GROUPS

1 Correspondence Group on the Review of the Manual on Oil Pollution

1 To review the Manual on Oil Pollution: Section IV - Combating Oil Spills (1988 edition)and revise and/or update each chapter with relevant technical information in accordance to theGuidelines for Correspondence Groups (MSC/Circ.931 and MEPC/Circ.366, Appendix 4). Thechapters, with the contributing countries and organization to undertake the review and revisionare as follows:

.1 Chapter 1 Introduction (New Zealand) .2 Chapter 2 Types of Oil (Canada) .3 Chapter 3 Fate of Oil Spills in the Marine Environment (Canada) .4 Chapter 4 Effects of Oil on Marine and Coastal Resources (New Zealand) .5 Chapter 5 Situation Evaluation and Response Options (ITOPF) .6 Chapter 6 Containment and Recovery of Oil (Germany and Sweden) .7 Chapter 7 Chemical Dispersion (France) .8 Chapter 8 Shore-line Clean-up (Australia and Denmark) .9 Chapter 9 Disposal of Oil and Oily Debris (United Kingdom).10 Chapter 10 Practical Training and Equipment Maintenance and Storage

(Canada, Denmark and Finland).11 Chapter 11 Clean-up Cost Consideration (ITOPF)

2 In reviewing/revising the Manual the following process and timeline will, as far aspracticable, be:

.1 members of OPRC Working Group to submit to the lead country their views, if any,on parts of the manual that need revision including the need for addition of newmaterial;

.2 the lead country will distribute this information to the members of theCorrespondence Group for their consideration when reviewing each chapter; and

.3 the Correspondence Group members will submit a revised draft text to the leadcountry, who, in turn, will distribute the revised chapters to the members of thereview group for their consideration. A final draft text of the Manual will besubmitted to MEPC 47 for its consideration with a view to approval.

2 Correspondence Group on the Revision of Resolution A.720(17)

1 Continue the broader review of resolution A.720(17) and revise the Guidelines for theDesignation of Special Areas and the Identification of Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas(A.720(17)) to provide clearer texts for the Guidelines, using A.720(17) as a basis of work andtaking into account Assembly resolution A.885(21), Procedures for the Identification ofParticularly Sensitive Sea Areas and the Adoption of Associated Protective Measures andAmendments to the Guidelines contained in resolution A.720(17);

MEPC 44/20ANNEX 14Page 2

I:\MEPC\44\20.doc

2 Consider the papers submitted to MEPC 43 (MEPC 43/6/2 and MEPC 43/6/3) and anyother relevant documents, including any papers that may be submitted to MEPC 44;

3 Divide the document into two separate documents: one on the Designation of SpecialAreas and one on the Identification of Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas (PSSAs);

4 In relation to PSSAs, consider which protective measures might be appropriate forimplementation and prepare a short justification, based on an illustrative example, for theinclusion of each measure within an indicative list;

5 Shorten the Guidelines by removing lengthy explanations and historic text, as well assections that paraphrase other IMO instruments and that contain unnecessary references to IMOprocedures that are outdated or that may become outdated;

6 Take due account of the need for consistency with the relevant provisions of the1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea;

7 Keep in mind the MEPC Guidelines on Application of the Precautionary Approach(resolution MEPC.67(37));

8 Bear in mind the relevant provisions of other international instruments, such as theConvention on Biodiversity and the World Heritage Convention, Agenda 21 of UNCED, as wellas regional agreements regarding marine conservation and protected areas;

9 Provide a detailed report for discussion at MEPC 45; and

10 Observe the provisions of the Guidelines for Correspondence Groups (MSC/Circ.931 andMEPC/Circ.366, appendix 4).

3 Correspondence Group on the Recycling of Ships

Bearing in mind the IMO’s role is to focus on the design, operation and preparation for recyclingof ships, the Group would:

.1 gather information on current practices concerning the recycling of ships;

.2 identify relevant information from documents already submitted to MEPC anddiscussions that have taken place in the Committee on the issue during itsforty-second, forty-third and forty-fourth sessions;

.3 Identify the safety and environmental risks associated with current practices;

.4 collect information regarding procedures introduced by governments and industryto reduce the environmental and safety risks associated with the recycling ofships;

.5 collate information to be received from the Secretariats of ILO, the BaselConvention, the London Convention and industry on their activities and perceivedresponsibilities associated with the recycling of ships;

MEPC 44/20ANNEX 14

Page 3

I:\MEPC\44\20.DOC

.6 gather views on areas where IMO may usefully contribute to the reduction ofsafety and environmental risks associated with the recycling of ships, and in doingso, identify the originators of these views;

.7 provide a report for discussion to MEPC 46; and

.8 in undertaking this work the Correspondence Group will observe the provisions ofthe Guidelines for Correspondence Groups (MSC/Circ.931 and MEPC/Circ.366,appendix 4).

______________