2.1 The Committee recalled that the issue of harmful aquatic organisms in ballast water was first raised at IMO in 1988 and has been a key issue on its agenda since MEPC 35 in 1994. Guidelines for preventing the introduction of harmful aquatic organisms in ballast water and sediment discharges were developed in the 1990s, the most recent being those contained in resolution A.868(20) adopted in 1997. In 2002, WSSD agreed that measures to address invasive alien species in ballast water should be accelerated and IMO was urged to finalize the draft ballast water convention (paragraph 34(b) of the WSSD Plan of Implementation). In November 2001, at the recommendation of the Committee, the Council approved, in principle, the convening of a Diplomatic Conference in 2003, subject to the Committee's confirmation in 2002 of satisfactory progress in the development of the draft Convention. At MEPC 48 in October 2002, the progress was reviewed again and the Committee concluded that many substantive issues had yet to be resolved. It, therefore, recommended to the Council to postpone the Diplomatic Conference on Ballast Water Management to early 2004 and to approve the holding of a second Intersessional Meeting of the Ballast Water Working Group in spring 2003, at no cost to the Organization. In November 2002, the Council approved these arrangements (C 89/D, paragraph 6.2).

　

2.2 The Committee noted that the organization of a Conference in February 2004, including the six-month period for circulation of the basic conference documents, meant that the Committee had only this session to agree on ballast water management standards and finalize the text of the draft Convention. An article-by-article review should therefore be conducted this week. The Committee could then advise the 22nd extraordinary session of the Council, in November 2003, to hold the Diplomatic Conference in February 2004, as planned.

　

2.3 MEPC 47 agreed that Ballast Water Exchange should be regarded as one of the tools to control harmful aquatic organisms in ballast water, which can and should be applied if certain conditions are met (MEPC 47/20, paragraph 2.12.3). The key issue then remained for the development of effective ballast water treatment methods and thereby establishing standards in this regard.

　

　

2.4 The Committee noted that the Intersessional Meeting of the Ballast Water Working Group was held from 3 to 7 March 2003 and was instructed to:

　

　

2.5 The report of the Working Group showed the progress achieved on the draft Convention (MEPC 49/2/3). Where no agreement could be reached, options had been formulated for consideration by this session. This resulted in no less than 45 submissions for this agenda item.

　

2.6 The Chairman invited the Committee to give general comments on the report of the Working Group, while recalling the agreement at MEPC 47 that it was essential that the draft Convention should address all the relevant issues so that it would be accepted by Member States, enter into force, and contribute to the control of harmful aquatic organisms in ballast water (MEPC 47/20, paragraph 2.12).

　

2.7 The delegation of Venezuela introduced document MEPC 49/2/1 by Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Honduras, Peru, Uruguay and Venezuela, in which a specific logical structure for the draft Convention was proposed. Although this document had been available during the Intersessional Meeting of the Ballast Water Working Group, its report showed that no consensus had yet been achieved on a logical structure. As set out in the annex to document MEPC 49/2/1, the objective of the Convention, all definitions and the basic principles should be contained in the articles of the Convention, whereas all technical and administrative provisions should be in the annex thereto. Once this structure had been agreed, most of the currently available texts could be adapted in the new setting.

　

2.8 Many delegations complimented the Working Group on the substantial progress made at the Intersessional Meeting and noted that it had managed to solve several outstanding issues. These delegations supported the thrust of the draft Convention as currently formulated. Nonetheless, several key issues still needed to be resolved at this session.

　

2.9 The Committee also noted the following views expressed during the general discussion on the report of the Working Group:

　

　

2.10 The Committee agreed to take the report of the Working Group (MEPC 49/2/3) as the basis for further discussion and the article-by-article review, whilst noting that a number of the issues identifie in the report still had to be resolved by the Committee.

　

　

2.11 The Committee noted all submissions to this session commenting on the draft Convention and carried out an article-by-article review. In so doing, specific comments were made as reflected in paragraphs 2.12 to 2.52 below.

　

　

2.12 The delegations of Argentina and Venezuela proposed that the expression "marine environment" in the first paragraph of the preamble should be changed into "aquatic environment" thereby giving it a broader meaning.

　

2.13 The Committee agreed to instruct the Working Group to review this proposal in more detail.

　

2.14 On the proposal by Italy, the Committee agreed to add the following phrase to the second paragraph of the preamble: "as well as decision VI/23 of the 2002 Conference of the Parties (COP 6) to the CBD on alien species that threaten ecosystems, habitats and species, including guiding principles on invasive species,".

　

　

2.15 The delegation of Japan proposed to delete the reference to "fixed platforms" in the definition of "ships" (article 1.9), as these structures did not conduct ballast water management, once fixed on their location.

　

2.16 The Committee instructed the Working Group to review this proposal and its repercussions for other provisions, e.g., regulation F-1.

　

　

2.17 The Committee considered the right in article 2.3 of port States to require more stringent measures concerning Ballast Water Management consistent with international law, and in particular, whether or not this right should be subject to approval from IMO. This article was currently kept in brackets.

　

2.18 The delegation of Brazil accepted both sentences of this article (MEPC 49/2/17). The delegation of the United States only accepted the first sentence (MEPC 49/2/18), whereas the delegation of Japan could only accept the second sentence, as the first sentence was not consistent with article 211.6 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (MEPC 49/2/26). This last view was supported by ICS (MEPC 49/2/22).

　

2.19 Several delegations supported the position of Japan, while some delegations supported the position by the United States. The delegation of ICS suggested replacing in the second sentence "seek approval from the organization" by "notification to the Organization".

　

2.20 The Committee agreed to retain the first sentence of article 2.3 for further review and to instruct the Working Group to further develop an alternative text for the second sentence along the lines suggested by ICS.

　

　

2.21 On the proposal by the United States (MEPC 49/2/18), the Committee agreed to include an additional article 2.7, which would replace the current text of regulation E-3.2:

　

　

　

2.22 The delegation of Germany expressed the view that the provisions in article 3.2(b), (c), and (d) were too general, too vague, whereas the representative of the United Nations regarded these as too permissive. The delegation of Japan expressed the view that it was unclear to which vessels these provisions would apply and suggested to consider this text in relation to article 2.6.

　

2.23 The Committee instructed the Working Group to review the articles 3.2(b), (c), and (d) in more detail.

　

　

2.24 The delegation of South Africa expressed the view that article 4 adequately addressed the control on board ships but that the control arrangements for coastal States should be included as a basis for the regulations in section C, possibly as a separate paragraph.

　

2.25 The Committee instructed the Working Group to develop language in this regard.

　

　

2.26 The delegation of Brazil expressed the view that the concept of "Acceptable Ballast Water" was a key concept for conducting ballast water management and should be incorporated in the Convention, while technological developments were still unclear. The text of article 4(bis) had been amended at the Intersessional Meeting of the Ballast Water Working Group, as shown in MEPC 49/2/3, in an attempt to accommodate diverging positions and with a view to reaching consensus. The concept should be accompanied by "application criteria for the acceptance of ballast water", including risk assessment, as proposed in article 4X, whereas the proposed article 4Y concerning "global and regional criteria and standards" would provide the basis for establishing basic standards under Tier One and more strict standards in designated areas under Tier Two. Subsequently, these criteria and standards should be further elaborated in a new section D of the regulations giving "Global Requirements for Ballast Water" (MEPC 49/2/17).

　

2.27 The Committee noted the conclusion of the Intersessional Meeting of the Ballast Water Working Group not to include the proposals for articles 4X and 4Y, and, subsequently, that the delegation of Brazil entered a reservation on this conclusion.

　

2.28 Many delegations indicated not to support the inclusion of the concept of "Acceptable Ballast Water":

　

　

2.29 Consequently, the Committee agreed not to include the articles 4(bis), 4X and 4Y as proposed by Brazil.

　

　

2.30 The Committee agreed to limit the survey and certification requirements by a coastal State and a flag administration in case of additional measures being taken under section C of the Regulations by removing the brackets around article 7.2, subject to editorial improvement by the Working Group.

　

　

2.31 With regard to inspection of ships, the Committee considered the extent to which sampling of ballast water might be part of routine and/or detailed inspections in ports when determining whether or not a ship was in compliance with the Convention.

　

2.32 The Committee instructed the Working Group to review the current texts held in brackets, as well as the proposal by Japan to include a separate paragraph concerning sampling for the purpose of scientific and technical research and monitoring in accordance with article 6 (MEPC 49/2/29).

　

　

2.33 With regard to notification of control actions, the delegation of Marshall Islands expressed the view that the master of a ship should on all occasions be notified, if inspections had indicated a violation of the Convention. In the event of any action being taken, firstly the administration of the ship should be informed in writing, and secondly the diplomatic representative of the flag State in order to prevent that the information might not get through to the administration in time.

　

2.34 The Committee agreed to adapt article 11, paragraph 2, in light of this proposal and to instruct the Working Group to review paragraph 1 in more detail.

　

　

2.35 The delegation of Italy proposed to include the following phrase in article 13 concerning regional co-operation: "with special regards to those Parties bordering enclosed and semi-enclosed seas" (MEPC 49/2/10).

　

2.36 The observer from FOEI expressed the view that an emphasis on enclosed and semi-enclosed seas might deviate from the obligation to co-operation for the purpose of protecting the high seas.

　

2.37 The Committee instructed the Working Group to find the required balance on this issue.

　

　

2.38 The Committee noted that the Working Group had developed a text for article 19 (Amendments) based on proposals by Brazil and Japan and on article 16 of the AFS Convention and put it in brackets for consideration by the Committee. Brazil proposed in MEPC 49/2/17 further refinements to this text, which were linked to its proposal for an additional article 4Z concerning amendments to the Annex of the Convention.

　

2.39 The Committee instructed the Working Group to review article 19 in conjunction with the proposed article 4Z.