4.1
The Working Group recalled that it had considered the relevant parts of all documents submitted under items 3 and 5 for inclusion in the list of subjects for further elaboration.

　

　

4.2
The ISWG recalled that definitions for piracy and armed robbery are given in resolution A.922(22) Code of practice for the investigation of the crimes of piracy and armed robbery against ships.

　

4.3
Recalling the Secretary-General's opening remarks on the matter the ISWG recognized that the definition for terrorism might be a complex issue, if not unnecessary at this stage, and agreed not to pursue this issue further.

　

　

4.4
The ISWG noted the information provided by the Philippines (MSC 75/ISWG/INF.6, paragraphs 25 and 26) on the need for, technical co-operation in combating threats to maritime security in terms of technology, expertise and hardware to cope with the challenges, should the threat become real. International or regional co-operation in form of information exchange, pooling of equipment and training of enforcement personnel, seafarers and port personnel was to be aimed at, as part of the assistance programme.

　

4.5
Recalling the Secretary-General's opening remarks informing the ISWG that a TC programme on maritime security was being launched to respond to operative paragraphs 4 and 5 of Assembly resolution A.924(22), the Director TCD explained that the programme aimed at "Capacity building for maritime security" and it recognized the need of developing countries for assistance in enhancing port and ship security. In accordance with the authorization of the Assembly, the programme would draw £1.5 million from the TC Fund and its initial contents comprised:

　

As the programme developed, it would take into account the output of the ISWG, MSC and other bodies and, indeed, the needs of the users of the programme. In the beginning "maritime domain awareness building" would certainly be a focus. Cooperation and support would be sought from Member States, UN and intergovernmental organizations both international and regional and NGO's in consultative status with IMO.

　

In gaining experience in the implementation of the programme and from evaluating the uptake of advisory services and workshops, a long term TC programme and the funding requirement could be developed, since maritime security would continue to remain a significant component of IMO's technical co-operation strategy and the programme.

　

The initial contributions from the TC Fund might be viewed as seed money, which should attract counterpart funding from bilateral and multilateral sources. Contributions in kind would also be sought, for example, expertise, host facilities, fellowships and on the job training.

　

With the recent focus on maritime security and combating terrorism, companies and individuals with the relevant maritime security experience had offered their expertise to the Organization. It would, however, be appreciated if IMO Member States and organizations could assist in identifying such experts.

　

4.6
The TCC Chairman welcomed the information on the timely response of the Organization to the immediate need for Technical Co-operation on maritime security issues, and advised the ISWG that TC 51 (12 and 13 June 2002) would give appropriate consideration to this matter.

　

4.7
It was stressed that, following the adoption by the Conference and entry into force of the maritime security measures in 2004, further technical co-operation was needed to help developing countries to implement these new provisions and that donations of all kinds would be needed for such activities in due course.

　

4.8
The ISWG expressed appreciation for the information provided by the Philippines and the Director TCD, and agreed to include an item on Technical Co-operation in the list of subjects for further elaboration and the work plan under item 6.

　

4.9
The ISWG instructed the Secretariat to prepare a complete list of subjects for further elaboration as MSC 75/ISWG/WP.2 for consideration by the ISWG under item 6 -preparation of a work plan and time frame for further work.

　

　

5.1
The ISWG, in concurring with the proposal by the Chairman, agreed to use document MSC 75/ISWG/5/7 by the United States as the basic document for the discussion.

　

5.2
The various submissions under this agenda item were dealt with in the following order:

　

　

5.3
The ISWG considered the first proposal by the United States (MSC 75/ISWG/5/7, paragraph 3) on amendments to SOLAS regulation V/19.2.4 to shorten the current installation period from 2002 to 2008, depending on ship type and tonnage, to 2002 to 2004, taking into account documents MSC75/ISWG/5/6 (Russian Federation) and MSC 75/ISWG/5/ll,paragraph 7, (ICS).

　

5.4
While a number of delegations supported the United States proposal, as submitted, others considered that uncertainties regarding the supply and installation of AIS equipment merited consideration of a timescale to 2006 and possibly longer. Particular concern was expressed to avoid repeating the difficulties experienced in meeting the requirement for fitting GMDSS equipment. CIRM indicated that their initial assessment was that industry could provide the required equipment against a 2004 deadline. Many delegations considered that while a 2004 implementation date could be possible, particularly if the requirement was restricted to vessels on international voyages, some flexibility should be allowed as to the precise date in 2004 when the requirement would take effect. The ISWG noted that the final details of the guidelines for the display of the AIS information on ECDIS and Radar/ARPA equipment were to be agreed by NAV 48 (8 to 12 July 2002).

　

5.5
The Chairman summed the ensuing discussion up as follows, namely that the ISWG, in view of the above information provided by CIRM on the availability of the equipment in the time frame under consideration, and the discussion on the availability of sufficient time for its installation and certification and the need for training of ship board personnel in its use in the shortened period, had agreed:

　

　

5.6
The ISWG considered the second proposal by the United States on work for the practical use of a long range interface in shipborne AIS equipment (MSC 75/ISWG/5/7, paragraph 4) and related proposals and information by Australia (MSC 75/ISWG/5/2 and MSC 75/ISWG/INF.4),the Republic of Korea (MSC 75/ISWG/5/5/) and the Russian Federation (MSC 75/ISWG/5/6,paragraph 2.1).

　

5.7
The Chairman summed up the ensuing discussion as follows namely that the ISWG agreed:

　

　

5.8
The ISWG considered the proposal by the United States (MSC 75/ISWG/5/7, paragraphs 5 and 6) to amend the title of SOLAS chapter XI to read "Special measures to enhance maritime safety and security" and to incorporate a new regulation on carriage requirements for ship and offshore facility security plans, supported by requirements for the development of such plans to be prepared from the provisions contained in MSC/Circ.443.

　

5.9
The ISWG considered related proposals by France (MSC 75/ISWG/5), Russian Federation (MSC 75/ISWG/5/6), Spain (MSC 75/ISWG/5/4), ICS, ISF, IPTA, INTERCARGO,INTERTANKO and SIGTTO (MSC 75/ISWG/5/11, paragraph 6), ISC (MSC 75/ISWG/INF.l)and the Secretariat (MSC 75/ISWG/3, paragraph 18).

　

5.10
There was general support for the proposed amendment to the title of SOLAS chapter XI and for the incorporation of a new regulation requiring the carriage of ship security plans. It was agreed that MSC/Circ.443, related MSC Circulars, the work of the SPI Working Group and the information submitted to the ISWG, provided the appropriate basis for the development of the requirements for such plans. The need for such plans to be ultimately incorporated in the ISM Code was acknowledged. It was considered essential that the mandatory requirements relating to such plans should be developed prior to the Diplomatic Conference on Security. A number of delegations questioned whether it was appropriate to include provisions requiring security plans for Fixed Platforms in SOLAS.

　

5.11
The delegation of the Bahamas supported by some delegations suggested that ship security plans should become an integral part of the ISM approval system. Other, delegations considered that inclusion in the ISM system could be taken forward in the longer term.

　

5.12
The Chairman summed up as follows, namely that the ISWG had agreed: