1.1
As instructed by the Intersessional Working Group on Maritime Security, the Ad Hoc Guidance Group met from 12 to 14 February 2002 under the chairmanship of Mr. B. Streeter (Canada).

　

1.2
The session was attended by delegations from the following Member Governments:

　

　

by observers from the following intergovernmental organization:

　

and by observers from the following non-governmental organizations in consultative status:

　

　

2.1
Using MSC/Circ.443 as the basis, and taking into account discussions and decisions of the Intersessional Working Group, the ad hoc Guidance group was requested to establish which provisions in MSC/Circ.443, in the outcome of the SPI Working Group (MSC 75/ISWG/3) and in MSC/Circs.623 and 754 should be guidance and which provisions should form the basis of draft amendments to the SOLAS Convention.

　

　

3.1
The ad hoc Guidance Group considered provisional draft amendments to SOLAS chapter XI (MSC 75/ISWG/J/4 and 8), which had been developed by the ad hoc drafting group, in order to determine whether the elements of MSC/Circ.443 in the draft amendments were appropriate to be made mandatory or should remain as guidance.

　

3.2
The group discussed the definitions given in regulation 5 (MSC/Circ.443, annex, paragraphs 2.2 to 2.9) and the view was expressed by some members of the group that offshore facilities should be included in the definition of the port facility area. In response to concerns that the requirements would extend to a large number of ports, it was noted that only those handling international traffic on a regular basis would be affected by the proposed draft regulations. It was also agreed that the definition of company should be that from chapter IX and references to 'operator' in the draft amendments and guidance removed

　

3.3
ICS drew attention to the need to revisit some definitions as company security officers should liaise with all port facility security officers and port security officers should liaise with other port users.

　

3.4
In regulation 6 (Application) concerns raised by members of the group over the inclusion of fixed and floating platforms were noted. The issue of whether the security measures should apply to pleasure craft was raised but it was noted that SOLAS did not apply to such craft and the group had not been requested to consider this issue.

　

　

3.5
It was agreed that the regulations should deal with general requirements only (MSC/Circ.443, annex 2, paragraphs 3.1 to 3.4) and that the detailed provisions in MSC/Circ.443 covering restricted areas, deck and overside lighting, access control and identification and security alarms and communication systems should be in the guidance document. In considering the guidance on access control and identification, concern was expressed over the lack of identity documents for all inspectors, government officials and others visiting ships in ports. Concerns were raised by members of the group over the inclusion of offshore facilities in this part.

　

　

3.6
In discussion on ship, mobile offshore drilling unit [and offshore facility] security plan (MSC/Circ.443, Annex, paragraphs 5.1 to 5.4), several delegations expressed concern over the difficulty of meeting the requirements to prevent weapons and other dangerous devices from being introduced on board, particularly in containers. As the group was, at this stage, not preparing detailed drafts of the regulations or guidance, delegations were urged to submit papers addressing this and other issues to MSC 75 for consideration.

　

3.7
In response to a suggestion that the ship security plan be posted in various areas of the ship, it was agreed that the need for security of the plan and the need for the crew to be familiar with the plan had to be balanced. It was also agreed that vulnerability assessment should form part of the security planning process.

　

3.8
Some delegations considered that the regulations should include a requirement for approval of plans by the Administration, possibly in accordance with guidelines for developing such plans to be agreed by the Organization; other delegations considered that plans should be available for review and inspection only. The group agreed that a requirement related to training of crew in the use of the plan was necessary. The group also agreed that the plan might be combined with the Safety management system on board and that in identifying the ship's security officer a name was not required.

　

3.9
The Russian Federation considered that the regulations should expressly include a provision for plans in an electronic format but the group considered that this should be included in the guidance as an option.

　

　

3.10
After discussion, it was agreed that the duties and responsibilities of the company security officer (MSC/Circ.443, annex, paragraph 5.5), should be made mandatory.

　

3.11
In considering training requirements (MSC/Circ.443, annex, paragraph 4.1) some delegations considered them too detailed. The group agreed that the requirements should be re-ordered in priority order. Some concern was expressed over the ability of company security officers, without guidance from governments, to recognize characteristics and behavioural patterns of persons likely to commit unlawful acts. The group agreed that "appropriate staff' referred to shore-based company personnel and that knowledge of searching techniques should be included in training.

　

　

3.12
The group agreed that the duties and responsibilities of the ship, mobile offshore drilling unit [and offshore facility] security officer (MSC/Circ.443, annex, paragraph 5.6) should be made mandatory. The group agreed that any mandatory requirements developed should not be too prescriptive.

　

3.13
In response to a proposal from the United Kingdom delegation that all training requirements be put in an annex, it was noted that the proposals in document MSC 75/ISWG/5/7 included a stipulation for "specific training" in a regulation. Several delegations expressed the view that the detailed training requirements should be in the form of guidance.

　

3.14
In considering the proposed training requirements (MSC/Circ.443, annex, paragraph 4.2) the group agreed that they should be made mandatory.

　

　

3.15
The group agreed that the training requirements (MSC/Circ.443, annex, paragraph 4.4) should be made mandatory.

　

　

3.16
The group agreed that the definition of "designated authority" should be included in the mandatory requirements.

　

3.17
In considering general requirements, the group agreed that port facilities security is an integral part of the overall port security system. The group also agreed that, at this time, any security plans to be developed should only address those facilities at the ship/port interface. The group noted that levels of threat will influence security measures and therefore the requirements related to levels of threat should be identified internationally and made mandatory. Further consideration should be given at MSC 75 to the detail of any mandatory measures commensurate with the identified threat levels, including the requirements for security personnel (MSC/Circ.443, annex 2, paragraphs 2.1 and 2.2). The United Kingdom advised the group that it would be making proposals to the Intersessional Working Group based on mandatory measures adopted by IAEA.

　

3.18
In considering the port facility [and fixed and floating platform] security plan, the group agreed that the level of threat, port facility vulnerability assessments and level of risk should all be taken into account in developing the plan. The group also agreed that it was important for mandatory requirements to distinguish between measures and equipment for legitimate use and those used in unlawful acts. The group agreed that persons working in port facilities with responsibility for aspects of security should be evaluated for 'trustworthiness" and mandatory provisions should be included to this effect. The group identified appropriate mandatory text (MSC/Circ.443, annex, paragraphs 4.1 to 4.4). The group also noted that the mandatory requirements should, in addition to passenger terminals, cover other port facilities related to the ship/port interface.

　

　

3.19
In reviewing draft mandatory provisions prepared by the ad hoc drafting group(MSC 75/ISWG/J/8), the group agreed that it should be clarified whether the assessments should be approved, and by whom, and consideration given to including a requirement for periodic re-assessment. Member Governments and interested organizations were invited to submit proposals on vulnerability assessment methodology and other issues to MSC 75.

　

　

3.20
The group agreed that the duties and responsibilities of the port facility [and fixed and floating platform] security officer (MSC/Circ.443, annex, paragraphs 4.5 to 4.7) should be made mandatory. The group further agreed that the provisions should be extended to include reporting to the designated authority; co-ordination with company and ship security officers and communication and exchange of information with other port users.

　

3.21
The group agreed that training requirements should be made mandatory (MSC/Circ.443,annex 3, paragraph 3.1) and noted that they should be harmonized, as appropriate, with ships and company security officer training requirements. The group also agreed that all port personnel should receive basic training in security awareness so as to promote a security culture at the facility.

　

　

3.22
In considering exchange of information, the group agreed that guidance on this issue was appropriate and the provisions in MSC/Circ.443, annex 4, paragraphs 1 and 2 should be expanded to clarify the appropriate levels of information exchange to avoid unintended dissemination of information. The group also identified, and placed emphasis on, the importance of appropriate protection of security information. Since there was a well-established exchange of information process between agencies with responsibility for counter-terrorism, the group did not consider mandatory requirements necessary. However, the group recognized that there was a need to improve information exchange between all those involved in security issues.

　

3.23
In discussing the guidance on exchange of information (annex, paragraphs 2.11 and 2.12) the group was invited to consider and clarify the actions to be taken by the Secretary-General and the Organization on receipt of the information required to be submitted on security issues.

　

　

3.24
The group agreed that mandatory provisions should be developed which should include provisions on the frequency of training and drills in security measures.