|
Means of ship alerting
5.39
The ISWG considered the proposal by the United States (MSC75/ISWG/5/7, paragraph22) for the NAV and COMSAR Sub-Committees to be requested to consider means for providing a capability for seafarers to activate an alarm to notify authorities and other shops of a terrorist hijacking including a recommendation on whether such an alarm should be surreptitious.
5.40
The ISWG considered also a related proposal by the Marshall Islands(MSC 75/ISWG/5/1, paragraph 16) on the use of GMDSS to broadcast a request for assistance and other proposals from the floor.
5.41
Following the concurrence of the MSC Chairman, the ISWG requested COMSAR 6(meeting next week) and DE 45 (meeting in March) to consider the issue initially with priority and to report them on to MSC 75.
5.42
The ISWG invited MSC 75 to instruct NAV 48 to start work on this issue on a priority basis.
5.43
The ISWG noted that the deadline for submissions of non bulky documents to MSC 75 was 12 March 2002 and that a relaxed deadline for documents relating to this session of the ISWG and its report was given as 12 April 2002 however with no additional deadline for comment submission thereon
Container Inspection and Co-operation with WCO
5.44
The ISWG considered the proposals by the United States on Port of origin container inspection and co-operation with WCO (MSC 75/ISWG/5/7, paragraphs 18 to 20) together since they were directly connected with each other.
.1 The MSC should be invited to revisit its decision regarding mandatory inspection of freight containers, taking into account any technological advances in portable detection equipment that may be available for shipboard and dockside container inspection applications, and to discuss in depth the issue with the objective of establishing appropriate measures that would significantly enhance our confidence level in deterring the use of freight containers for terrorist or other illegal activities, including electronic sealing or other acceptable technology.
.2 The IMO should work together with WCO through an appropriate mechanism with the aim for establishing international measures that would enhance the integrity of all cargo. This should include advancing the concepts and principles of industry partnership programmes, through which administrations engage the trade community in a co-operative relationship to improve the security of cargo movement
5 45
The ISWG also considered related proposals and information by Marshall Islands(MSC 75/ISWG/5/1, paragraphs 18 and 19), ILO (MSC 75/ISWG/5/10), ICS, ISF, IPTA, INTERCARGO, INTERTANKO and SIGTTO (MSC 75/ISWG/5/11, paragraphs 9 to 11), ISO(MSC 75/ISWG/INF.2), the Philippines (MSC 75/ISWG/INF.6, paragraphs 23 & 24), Singapore(MSC 75/ISWG/INF.8) and the Secretariat (MSC 75/ISWG/3, paragraphs 16. 1, 22, 26 & 27).
5.46
In view of the annual volumes of containers being moved globally (about 150 million full and 40 million empty container movements in 2001), the ISWG considered this issue to be a particularly complex and difficult one to solve in the short term. Facilitation of maritime traffic needed to be balanced against the desire for maritime security. Risk and vulnerability assessment and sharing/exchanging of intelligence/information was required to ease the burden of examination of containers on a total or random basis in ports. Co-operation between all parties involved in the transport chain was the way forward; partnerships between industry, workers' unions and administrations needed to be developed and implemented (concept of trusted agents, verification of container contents, sharing of cargo information electronically, trusted shipper programmes). New technologies (e.g. container scanning, electronic sealing, etc.) and collective workers' interests had to be taken into account.
5.47
The ISWG agreed that direct, immediate and closer co-operation between IMO and WCO was necessary to implement the partnership concept. Such co-operation should be implemented with immediate effect while a formalization thereof should be the final goal. The MSC was invited to take appropriate action thereon.
5.48
The matter should be further considered at MSC 75 on the basis of substantive proposals submitted, commenting on the issues discussed above.
5.49
The Chairman summed up as follows, namely that the ISWG agreed to:
.1 the need to maximize co-operation between all parties involved in the transport chain;
.2 encourage targeting through information exchange;
.3 the need to strike of balance between facilitation of maritime traffic and maritime security requirements;
.4 recommend to the IMO Secretariat to commence or improve co-operation with other relevant organizations involved without delay,
.5 recommend also the formalization of co-operation agreement with WCO, without prejudice to the decisions by the Council thereon;
.6 encourage further discussion on above topics at MSC 75; and
.7 urge delegations and observers to submit substantive documents thereon to MSC75.
Ship Security Equipment
5.50
The ISWG considered the proposal by the United States (MSC 75/ISWG/5/7,paragraph23) for the MSC to consider the need for ship security equipment for ships in ports and at sea and, if determined to be appropriate, to incorporate new regulation in SOLAS chapter XI requiring ship security equipment.
5.51
The ISWG recalled that the relevant guidelines and recommendations to prevent and suppress piracy and armed robbery against ships (MSC/Circs.622/Rev.1 and 623/Rev.2) do provide for such equipment to be used.
5.52
It was recognized that the kind of equipment to be used on board would largely depend again on risk assessment (e.g. ship types, trading areas, etc.) and impacted on the SSP and the interface between SSO and CSO.
5.53
The ISWG agreed that the issue should be further discussed at MSG 75, based on substantive proposals submitted thereon.
5.54
Following the concurrence by the MSC Chairman, the ISWG instructed DE 49 (meeting in March) to consider the issue of maritime security equipment to prevent unauthorized boarding in ports and at sea in the widest sense, if sufficient time was available, and to report to MSC 75,without pre-empting the Committee's decisions thereon.
Long term goal
5.55
The ISWG considered the proposal by the United States (MSC 75/ISWG/5/7,paragraph25) for the MSC to discuss how best to integrate maritime security into the long term objectives of the Organization and to ensure that it remains a high priority item for the foreseeable future. In this regard, the MSC should review the current organizational structure to determine how best to integrate maritime security into the work of IMO, as a high priority.
5.56
The ISWG also considered the related proposal by the Marshall Islands(MSC 75/ISWG/5/1, paragraph 15) to broaden the scope of the SPI Working Group to include the maritime security.
5.57
The Chairman recalled, in this context, the opening remarks of the Secretary-General on the restructuring of the Navigation Section by establishing a new Navigational Safety and Maritime Security Section.
5.58
The MSC Chairman informed the ISWG of the current on-going work of the MSC and MEPC, with terms of reference approved by the last Assembly, on the review of the Sub-Committee structure. Within that review the new topic of maritime security would be included in the forthcoming debate between the MSC, MEPC, TC and FAL committee and sub-committee Chairmen, planned to be held the day after closure of MSC 75, for consideration by MSC and MEPC and the Council and final approval by the Assembly.
5.59
The ISWG endorsed the proposal of the United States in general and agreed that the MSC 75 was the right body to consider the issue of how best to integrate maritime security in the long term goal and work plan of the Organization and to develop a strategy on maritime security.
5.60
The ISWG recalled in this context that its task to develop a work plan and timeframe for further work to be undertaken on this matter, including follow-up action of the December Security Conference, would be addressed under agenda item 6.
Terms of reference for the drafting group
5.61
The ISWG established a drafting group and instructed it to prepare the texts for:
.1 a draft Conference Resolution for the adoption of amendments to the 1974 SOLAS Convention;
.2 a draft amendment to regulation V/19;
.3 a first draft of amendments to chapter XI;
.4 a first draft of an instrument containing the remaining issues, identified by the Ad Hoc Guidance Group, as mandatory which have not been included in the proposed amendments to chapter XI; and
liaise closely with the d-hoc group on the mandatory requirements and report to the Plenary on Friday.
Terms of reference to the ad-hoc group
5.62
The ISWG established an ad-hoc group and instructed it to:
.1 prepare texts on requirements to support the relevant new regulations XI/5 to 9 from the provisions contained on MSC/Circs.443 and 754;
.2 identify which parts of these requirements should be of a mandatory and which of a recommendatory nature;
.3 liaise with the drafting group on the mandatory parts; and
.4 report to the Plenary on Friday.
|
