日本財団 図書館

共通ヘッダを読みとばす


Top > 社会科学 > 国防.軍事 > 成果物情報

海事の国際的動向に関する調査研究事業報告書 =海洋汚染防止関係=

 事業名 海事の国際的動向に関する調査研究
 団体名 日本海難防止協会 注目度注目度5


III 参考
INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION
E
MARINE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION
COMMITTEE
49th session
Agenda item 2
MEPC 49/2/3
24 March 2003
Original: ENGLISH
HARMFUL AQUATIC ORGANISMS IN BALLAST WATER
Report of the Second Intersessional Meeting of the MEPC Ballast Water Working Group
SUMMARY
Executive summary:
This report contains the results of the Second Intersessional Meeting of the MEPC Ballast Water Working Group, which was convened from 3 to 7 March 2003.
Action to be taken:
Paragraph 6
Related documents:
MEPC 48/21 and further documents referenced in this report.
 
1 INTRODUCTION
 
1.1 Based on the approval of the Council, at its 89th session, to convene this Second Intersessional Meeting (C 89/D, paragraph 6.2(ii)), the MEPC Ballast Water Working Group met from 3 to 7 March 2003, under the chairmanship of Mr. Mike Hunter (United Kingdom).
 
1.2 Representatives from the following 42 countries attended this meeting of the Working Group: Argentina, Australia, Bahamas, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Croatia, Cyprus, Ecuador, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Liberia, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, and Venezuela. The meeting was also attended by the observer from the European Communities and observers from the following 10 international non-governmental organizations: ICS, BIMCO, CEFIC, OCIMF, FOEI, INTERTANKO, IUCN, INTERCARGO, ISAF, IBTA and by the Programme Co-ordination Unit of the GEF/UNDP/IMO Global Ballast Water Management Programme (GloBallast).
 
Opening of the Meeting
 
1.3 In opening the proceedings, the Chairman welcomed all participants to the Second Intersessional Meeting of the Ballast Water Working Group.
 
1.4 The Director of the Marine Environment Division, Mr. K. Sekimizu, recalled that the Ballast Water Working Group had met at every session of MEPC since MEPC 35 held in 1994, totalling 16 sessions including the intersessional meetings in 2002 and this week. He outlined briefly important milestones in the work towards a global legal instrument on ballast water issues, including:
 
.1 the inclusion of the issue of ballast water management in Agenda 21 accompanied by the request to IMO: "to consider the adoption of appropriate rules on ballast water discharge to prevent the spread of non-indigenous organisms....";
 
.2 the adoption, in response to this request, of two IMO Guidelines on Ballast Water Management adopted by the Assembly as Resolutions A.774(18) in 1993 and A.868(20) in 1997;
 
.3 the establishment of the GEF/UNDP/IMO Global Ballast Water Management Programme assisting pilot countries in raising awareness on ballast water issues; and
 
.4 the acknowledgement in 2002 by the World Summit on Sustainable Development of the need to accelerate the development of measures to address invasive alien species and resulting in the urgent request to IMO to finalize the Ballast Water Convention (WSSD Plan of Implementation, paragraph 34(b)).
 
1.5 Mr. Sekimizu mentioned that there remained only two working weeks (at this session and MEPC 49) before the Diplomatic Conference would be held early 2004. The Working Group should, therefore, achieve significant progress in resolving outstanding issues in the draft Convention to enable approval by the Committee in July 2003 of the basic documents for consideration at the Diplomatic Conference. He wished the Working Group every success in its work.
 
Terms of reference of this Intersessional Meeting
 
1.6 The terms of reference of this Intersessional Meeting, as instructed by MEPC 48, and as amended from MEPC 48/21, annex 13, was to:
 
.1 further refine the main body of the draft Convention developed at MEPC 48, in particular:
 
.1 Preamble
.2 Article 1 (Objectives)
.3 Article 3 (General Obligations, particularly Article 3.3)
.4 Article 5(bis) (Acceptable Ballast Water)
.5 Article 7(1) (Monitoring)
.6 Articles 10, 10(bis) and 10(ter) (Inspection/Violations/Detention)
.7 Criteria, process and tools for review of technical provisions (e.g., Standards)
.8 Article 19 (Amendments); and
.9 further proposals not considered so far.
 
Where no agreement could be reached, possible options, shown in brackets, should be restricted as much as possible and recommendations to move forward on them should be made to MEPC 49;
 
.2 In light of results under point .1 above further refine the Annex to the draft Convention developed at MEPC 48, in particular:
 
.1 Regulation A-1 (1-4) (Definitions: New/Intermediate/Existing Ships/Major Conversion)
.2 Regulation A-4 (Exemptions)
.3 Regulation B-3-2 (Ballast Water Exchange Requirements)
.4 Regulation B-3-4 (Exceptions)
.5 Regulations Section C (Further development of the compromise text)
.6 Regulation E-1-3 (BWE design and construction requirements)
.7 Regulations E-2, 3 (Standards, particularly any numbers in brackets)
.8 Regulation E-5 (Grand fathering and experimental technologies)
.9 Regulation E-6 (Review of Standards)
.10 Regulation F-1-1 (Annual/Intermediate surveys)
.11 Administrative parts of the Annex (Appendices)
 
Where no agreement could be reached, possible options, shown in brackets, should be restricted as much as possible and recommendations to move forward on them should be made to MEPC 49;
 
.3 Further develop the guidelines in support of the draft Convention identified at MEPC 48; and
 
.4 Present a written report to MEPC 49.
 
Adoption of the agenda
 
1.7 The agenda for the Working Group (MEPC-IBWWG 2/1) as adopted and with the submissions made under each item, is shown in annex 1 to this report. The chapters of this report are structured in accordance with this agenda.
 
2 REVIEW OF THE DRAFT LEGAL INSTRUMENT DEVELOPED AT MEPC 48
 
2.1 The Working Group continued with the development of the draft Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments, based on text contained in document MEPC 48/21, annex 2. It reviewed specific comments on that text, submitted to this meeting, resulting in a new text. Several texts were prepared and discussed in detail by an overall drafting group, under the lead of the United States, and thereafter reviewed by the Working Group.
 
2.2 The delegation of Brazil gave a presentation of its proposals contained in document MEPC-IBWWG 2/2 amending the current draft Convention, as well as its submission to MEPC 49, addressing the overall structure of the Convention and how key concepts on ballast water management should be incorporated in it (MEPC 49/2/1).
 
2.3 In considering the Brazilian proposals several delegations requested clarification on the following issues:
 
.1 the main criterion for establishing acceptability of ballast water would be an "historical data" assessment of previous de-ballasting operations from the same origin. Who would make an assessment of this data, through what procedure; and what would be the role of the port State in these assessments;
 
.2 if "historical data" were not available, how would the acceptability of ballast water be determined; and
 
.3 the reliance on "historical data" would not take into account the dynamic nature of the marine ecosystems, as well as changing practices in shipping due to developments in trade patterns and technologies. Furthermore time lags are likely to occur between introduction and detection of invasive species.
 
2.4 The delegation of Brazil indicated that "historical data" would require regular monitoring in view of the dynamic nature of marine ecosystems and that risk assessments should preferably be conducted on a regional basis.
 
2.5 The delegation of Brazil recalled that at MEPC 48 it had commented on the advice by GESAMP concerning treatment and management of ships' ballast water to control introductions of non-indigenous species (MEPC 48/INF.6, MEPC 48/2/18). The delegation stressed the need to discuss the findings and suggestions in GESAMP's advice in more detail before the draft text of the Convention was concluded (MEPC-IBWWG 2/2/1).
 
2.6 The Working Group acknowledged the value of GESAMP's advice on this matter. Several issues GESAMP raised were taken into account when the current text of the draft Convention was developed.
 
Article 1 - Objective, (including relationship with preamble)
 
2.7 The Working Group reviewed the two options for the objective of the Convention in Article 1, developed at MEPC 48, which corresponded with three optional paragraphs in the preamble.
 
2.8 The Working Group agreed to remove the text of Article 1 (Objective) and further developed the text under option 3 in the preamble, as reflected in annex 2 to this report.
 
Article 3.3 - General obligations
 
2.9 The Working Group revisited the text of Article 3.3 concerning the right of Parties to take more stringent measures than the global standards, while noting that this provision referred to the Regulations in Section C that have yet to be agreed. Some delegations preferred to retain this right provided that more stringent measures should only be taken when consistent with international law (retention of first sentence). Other delegations rejected that option as it might stimulate unilateral action and therefore preferred to exercise this right only subject to approval by the Organization (retention of second sentence).
 
2.10 As no agreement could be reached, the brackets in Article 3.3 were retained. It was agreed to recommend MEPC 49 to review Article 3.3 after reaching agreement on Section C of the Regulations.
 
Article 3.1 and 3.5 - General obligations
 
2.11 The Working Group approved the text of Article 3, paragraphs 1 and 5, as amended.
 
New Article 3.6 - General obligations
 
2.12 At the proposal of the United States, the Working Group agreed to insert the following additional paragraph under the general obligations:
 
(.6) "Parties taking action pursuant to the Convention shall endeavour not to impair or damage the environment, human health, property, or resources of other States."
 
Article 5 - Control of the Transfer of Harmful Aquatic Organisms etc.
 
2.13 The delegation of Brazil re-introduced its proposals made at MEPC 48 to add Articles 5.2 and 5.3, for the purpose of anchoring ship-specific and region-specific requirements under the Ballast Water Management Plan, which should then be elaborated in the Annex to the Convention.
 
2.14 The Working Group did not support the introduction of references to region-specific requirements in this Article. The concern was also expressed that amendments to the Annex to the Convention, subject to a tacit amendment procedure in accordance with IMO practice, would not be possible when these provisions were linked with detailed references in an Article requiring explicit amendment procedures. For these reasons the Working Group could not accept the Brazilian proposals.
 
2.15 The Working Group approved the text of Article 5 as amended.
 
Article 5(bis) - Acceptable Ballast Water
 
2.16 The Working Group reconsidered the Brazilian proposal to include the concept of "acceptable ballast water" as a separate article of the Convention. The Brazilian delegation's view was that "acceptable ballast water" should be a key concept for conducting ballast water management, while technological developments were still unclear. This concept should further be connected with criteria such as safety, environmental acceptability, practicability, cost-effectiveness, and biological effectiveness of ballast water management.
 
2.17 Many delegations indicated not to support this concept:
 
.1 the formulation was vague and had no operational links with the standards and other parts of the draft Convention;
 
.2 the concept implied a reversal of the burden of proof and did not take account of the "Guidelines on application of the precautionary approach in the context of specific IMO activities", which had been accepted in resolution MEPC.67(37);
 
.3 the concept relied on the availability of "historical data" assessments of previous de-ballasting operations from the same origin;
 
.4 the concept was impracticable, e.g., it required sampling of every ship in the port of discharge because in the absence of performance standards, the contents of ballast water would be unknown;
 
.5 the current text of Article 5 would be sufficient and ballast water that met the standards agreed under the Convention should be regarded as acceptable ballast water.
 
2.18 Some delegations supported inclusion of the concept in the draft Convention.
 
2.19 The delegation of Brazil proposed inclusion of Article 5X on "Application criteria for the acceptance of ballast water" and Article 5Y on "Global and regional criteria and standards" (MEPC-IBWWG 2/2). The criteria for acceptance of ballast water should be set out in the Convention and not left solely to port State control. These articles also provided the basis for establishing the responsibilities of the coastal State authorities and monitoring programmes for ballast water management.
 
2.20 The Working Group agreed not to include the proposed articles, because:
 
.1 standards should be formulated on a global rather than regional basis; and
 
.2 "historical data", showing no invasions in recent years, would not be a guarantee for the future.
 
2.21 The Working Group agreed to retain a revised version of Article 5(bis) as provided by Brazil in brackets and as shown in annex 2 to this report for consideration at MEPC 49.
 
2.22 The suggestion was made to include a reference to "historical data" in the preamble of the Convention for future consideration.
 
Proposals for new articles concerning the establishment of a "Technical Group"
 
2.23 The delegations of Brazil and Italy proposed to include new articles for establishing a "Technical Group" which should advise MEPC on the effectiveness of the Ballast Water Management Standards and evaluate proposals for review of these standards and other regulations (MEPC-IBWWG 2/2 and MEPC-IBWWG 2/2/2).
 
2.24 Based on examples in other IMO Conventions, e.g., the NOx Technical Code under Annex VI to MARPOL 73/78, and the AFS Convention, there was general agreement that a review mechanism of the standards would be required to assist MEPC in its tasks identified in the draft Convention. The Working Group agreed that this mechanism, or procedure, should address the review of the proposed long-term standard and associated arrangements, but rejected anchoring the establishment of a technical group in an article of the Convention. Furthermore, the proposal by Italy to give the technical group an ongoing task was rejected, as this would add to an inflexible and bureaucratic arrangement. However, it was agreed to use the ideas contained in the Brazilian and Italian proposals when reviewing the current Regulation E-5 (see paragraph 2.73 below).
 
Article 6 - Sediment Reception Facilities
 
2.25 The Working Group further developed Article 6 concerning sediment reception facilities and approved an amended text, as shown in annex 2 to this report.
 
Article 7 - Scientific and Technical Research and Monitoring
 
2.26 The Working Group further developed Article 7 concerning scientific and technical research and monitoring and approved an amended text, as shown in annex 2 to this report.
 
Article 8 - Survey and Certification
 
2.27 The Working Group further developed Article 8.2 concerning survey and certification. Since no agreement could be reached, this text was retained in brackets, as shown in annex 2 to this report.
 
Articles 10, 10(bis), 10(ter) - Inspection, Detection and Notification
 
2.28 The delegation of the United States presented a proposal to amend the Articles 10, 10(bis) and 10(ter), which was a cleaned-up and more consistent version than the text contained in the report of MEPC 48/21, annex 2. After review of these proposals the Working Group adopted a new text for these articles, as set out in annex 2 to this report.
 
Article 12 - Regional Co-operation
 
2.29 The Working Group completed Article 12 concerning regional co-operation, by inserting changes conforming the agreed text in the preamble.
 
Article 18 - Entry into force
 
2.30 The delegation of Brazil presented its proposal for the entry into force of the Convention requiring a minimum of 25 States, with a combined merchant fleet of no less than 25% of the gross tonnage of the world's merchant fleet (MEPC-IBWWG 2/2). This proposal was based on Article 18 of the AFS Convention.
 
2.31 The Working Group recalled that the entry into force provision was usually decided at the diplomatic conference, when all the other issues had been resolved and a clearer picture emerged of all the obligations under a new treaty. Consequently, the Working Group agreed to keep the State/fleet requirement open and to insert the following paragraph under Article 18.1: "The Convention shall enter into force [to be developed]", to be followed by Articles 18.2 to 18.4 as proposed by Brazil for further consideration at MEPC 49.
 
Article 19 - Amendments
 
2.32 The Working Group considered two proposals for Article 19 concerning amendments to the Convention as submitted by Brazil and Japan. Both proposals were based on Article 16 of the AFS Convention (MEPC-IBWWG 2/2 and MEPC-IBWWG 2/2/7).
 
2.33 Some delegations expressed a preference for certain aspects of the text proposed by Brazil, but the Working Group agreed to include in brackets an amended version of this text, as a starting point for further review. The Working Group noted that the amendments Article would likely be one of the final aspects of the Convention to be agreed and discussed the possibility that slightly different amendment procedures, for example those used for Annex 1 to the AFS Convention, could be desirable for parts of the annex to the Ballast Water Convention. It was felt that the relevant Annex provisions could only be identified once the Annex itself was further developed.
 
Location of definitions
 
2.34 The delegation of Brazil proposed to move all definitions contained in Regulation A-1 to Article 2 of the Convention (MEPC-IBWWG 2/2). As there was no support for this proposal, the definitions relevant for the Annex were retained in Regulation A-1, with as introduction: "For the purpose of this Annex".







サイトに関するご意見・ご質問・お問合せ   サイトマップ   個人情報保護

日本財団会長笹川陽平ブログはこちら



ランキング
注目度とは?
成果物アクセスランキング
1,034位
(32,382成果物中)

成果物アクセス数
9,623

集計期間:成果物公開〜現在
更新日: 2020年7月4日

関連する他の成果物

1.海事の国際的動向に関する調査研究事業報告書(海上安全)
2.海事の国際的動向に関する調査研究事業報告書(海上安全) 別冊 AISの国際的動向に関する調査研究
3.海と安全(秋号)No.518 「どうする!放置船・艇」
  [ 同じカテゴリの成果物 ]


アンケートにご協力
御願いします

この成果物は
お役に立ちましたか?


とても役に立った
まあまあ
普通
いまいち
全く役に立たなかった


この成果物をどのような
目的でご覧になりましたか?


レポート等の作成の
参考資料として
研究の一助として
関係者として参照した
興味があったので
間違って辿り着いただけ


ご意見・ご感想

ここで入力されたご質問・資料請求には、ご回答できません。






その他・お問い合わせ
ご質問は こちら から