4.1
The group considered the definition of a port for the purposes of the regulations and guidance, including draft text proposed by a number of delegations. A number of delegations, noting that port issues had been discussed for many years without the term being defined, suggested no definition was necessary. Other delegations drew attention to the need to define port limits in order to establish the boundaries of port operations with respect to the ship/port interface.

　

4.2
The group agreed that a definition of port was required and prepared draft text, to be maintained in square brackets, for the purpose of identifying the mandatory requirements related to port security. The group agreed that the definition should provide scope for the designated authority to define the limits of the port.

　

4.3
In discussing the definition of port facilities, the group agreed that the definition in MSC/Circ.443, paragraph 2.2, amended to include reference to ship/port interface activities, was an appropriate working definition as it was important not to inhibit the ability of the designated authority to determine which facilities should be covered by security measures.

　

4.4
The group agreed that the definition should relate to the activities involved rather than the location within a port. The group also agreed that the activities should be determined by the designated authority and should relate only to ships engaged on international voyages.

　

4.5
The group proposed that the ad hoc drafting group should base its work on the provisional draft definitions and agreed that they should be included within the mandatory requirements.

　

　

5.1
MSC/Circ.443 was further reviewed to ensure that all provisions that the group considered should be made mandatory had been addressed and that no additional provisions were necessary. The Group recommended that MSC/Circ.754 be appended to the draft guidance document and also included some provisions from the report of the SPI Working Group(MSC 75/ISWG/3) in the draft guidance.

　

5.2
On the basis of the discussions, draft guidance on Measures to prevent terrorism and other unlawful acts against ships, passengers and crews on board ships, port personnel, ports and port facilities was prepared by the group and is given at annex.

　

　

6.1
The group noted with concern information from some delegations that existing IMO guidance was not always made available to ports, notwithstanding the usual invitation to Governments in IMO guidance for them to bring such guidance to the attention of those concerned. The group agreed that existing IMO security guidance should be promulgated on the IMO public website.

　

　

7.1
Noting that the training for security officers ashore and on ships had been identified, but that it was not sufficiently detailed to be used as a training programme, the group recommended that the knowledge, understanding and proficiency involved with respect to the mandatory duties and responsibilities identified in the regulations be developed, on a priority basis, for inclusion in part A of the STCW Code, where appropriate.

　

7.2
The group noted that the mandatory provisions identified thus far were chiefly directed at ports and ships but the obligations on Governments were not fully addressed and further work was required to develop appropriate regulations and invited Member Governments and other interested international organizations to submit proposals to MSC 75.

　

7.3
The group noted that, in due course, the Recommendations on the safe transport of dangerous cargoes and related activities in port areas and the IMO/ILO UN ECE Guidelines for packing of CTUs and other instruments related to maritime security (MSC 75/ISWG/3, annex) may need to be reviewed in light of any security measures developed by IMO.

　

　

8.1
The Intersessional Working Group is invited to: