|
Conference resolutions
65 |
The MSWG considered briefly the draft conference resolutions contained in documents MSC 75/WP.7/Add .1 and MSWG 11 and agreed that they needed updating in accordance with the work done and progress made at the current session, including addressing the issues of encouraging States to consider applying the security requirements to fixed and floating platforms; allowing CSOs and SSOs to communicate with relevant port officials, if and when threat arises, in ports not covered by the new regulations; and other forms of threat, etc. It would return to this matter if and when the revised texts were available. |
66 |
Due to time constraints the MSWG was not able to finalize the draft conference resolutions, agreed however to the principles they addressed and invited the Committee to approve them for circulation to the MS Conference for finalization and adoption, as set out in annex 5. |
Instructions to other IMO bodies
67 |
The MSWG, recalling the requests for instructions to other IMO bodies by the ISWG, agreed that the relevant requests needed revising in light of the work done and progress made at the current session. Subsequently the MSWG, noting that the FAL Committee was identified by resolution A.924(22) to participate in the review and would therefore be informed of the ongoing work accordingly, agreed to request the Committee to: |
.1 instruct NAV 48 to complete the technical specifications for all AIS related-standards in time for the December Conference;
.2 instruct NAV 48 to consider the issue of security of the AIS equipment against outside interference, taking into account the work done by DE 45 (MSC 75/17/2/Add .1) in this respect;
.3 instruct STW 34 to address the issue of training of ship board personnel in the use of AIS equipment;
.4 instruct the NAV and COMSAR Sub-Committees to start work on a system for long-range tracking and identification, taking into account the functional requirements, developed by the MSWG in this respect (paragraph 69 and annex 8);
.5 consider and invite ILO, subject to adoption of the corresponding draft conference resolution, to establish a joint ILO/IMO Working Group to undertake more detailed work on comprehensive Port Security requirements;
.6 instruct NAV 48 to start work on the means of raising alarm on ships under terrorist attack on a priority basis, taking into account the work done by COMSAR 6 and DE 45 (MSC 75/17/2 and Add .1) and the draft regulation [XI/5] developed by the MSWG (paragraph 46 and annex 1);
.7 instruct COMSAR 7 to prepare a draft performance standard for a ship security alarm based on the draft prepared by the MSWG (paragraph 46 and annex 6), with a view to adoption by MSC 77; and
.8 instruct STW 34 to develop training guidance such as model courses for the SSO, CSO and PFSO.
Survey and Certification
68 |
The MSWG agreed that the draft ISPS Code should be a stand-alone instrument and therefore, contain certification requirements together with the appropriate format for a certificate and the procedures for survey and certification, in accordance with the Harmonized System for Survey and Certification, adopted by the Organization. There would, therefore, be no need to amend SOLAS chapter IX or the ISM Code in this context. |
68bis A new provision for survey and certification was developed by MSWG which needed to be further considered in detail at the national level and at the September ISWG session.
Long-range identification system
69 |
The MSWG, in considering the functional requirements for a long-range identification system for submission to NAV 48 to enable that Sub-Committee to consider the issue and advise the Maritime Security Conference accordingly, agreed on a more general approach to the functional requirements, thereby requesting the experts at NAV 48 to advise on the different scenarios with regard to the interrogation intervals, the polling distance and costs of the various options. The agreed draft functional requirements including some notes by the small group which developed them for clarification is given in annex 8. |
70 |
The MSWG was also made aware (MSC 75/17/7) that AIS may be used by ships under threat for sending an alarm to a shore station. It is possible that this station may be a VTS Centre. This possibility should be taken into account by the NAV and COM Sub-Committees when developing guidelines regarding the means of ship alerting. |
Control
71 |
The MSWG was informed by the authors that draft regulation 13 on Control attempted to find an appropriate balance between the need to protect the port facility and to protect the rights of a ship. The reference to Chapter I Regulation 19 sets Regulation 13 apart from Port State Control. However, there are parallels and it has been tried to use wording that may be familiar to many delegates. For that reason text such as "when there are clear grounds for believing that a violation has occurred" appear in the draft resolution. |
The first paragraph sets out that every ship to which this Chapter applies is subject to control and may be inspected, consistent with international law, by officers duly authorised by a Contracting Government for the purposes of determining compliance. When there are no grounds for believing that a violation has occurred the inspection is limited to checking that the ship is carrying a valid Ship Security Certificate. The reference to the Certificate assumes that such certification will also become a requirement.
Sub-paragraph 2.1 sets out the first of the triggers for taking control measures when there are clear grounds to believe that a ship is in violation. Those control measures are set out in the last sentence of the second paragraph and may include but are not limited to, the ships delay, detention and other operational restrictions including expulsion from the port or denial of entry into port. For denial of entry reasons the words "intending to conduct a ship port interface" appear in sub-paragraph 2.1. Although a Contracting Government can only exercise controls within its jurisdiction, a ship may announce its intent to enter a port well in advance and the Contracting Government may wish to warn the ship well before it arrives that it is considering imposing controls because it has grounds for believing that the ship is in violation.
The third paragraph provides the resolution procedure that would be followed. Firstly to establish whether the ship was in fact in violation and secondly to try to resolve the violation, hopefully in advance of the ship actually arriving at the port. It is for the Contracting Government to be satisfied that that the violation is resolved, taking into account proposals made by the ship.
When a Contracting Government had decided to impose a control and is no longer just thinking about doing so, it must, as described in the fourth paragraph, inform the Administration, the ship's company and the Contracting in whose port facility the violation has occurred. Hence the reference to the second trigger, sub-paragraph 2.2, which deals with violations at the ship port interface, either at a port facility previously visited by the ship or while the ship is already at a port facility. It is reasonable for the Contracting Government to inform another Contracting Government in whose jurisdiction the port facility was in violation so as to give the port facility the opportunity to put its house in order. There is also a requirement to inform any other State whose interests might be directly involved, e.g. when a ship to ship transfer had occurred.
The third trigger for taking control measures is at sub-paragraph 2.3 referring to possible violations of security during ship to ship transfers. Which, if not addressed, may be a possible gap in the work of the MSWG.
Finally, in the fifth paragraph, there is a reference to the emergencies when a Contracting Government may need to take control measures immediately and only subsequently inform those listed in the fourth paragraph.
72 |
The MSWG further noted that the authors of the draft regulation are aware that it is delicate and any drafting amendments would need to be carefully considered and perhaps might not be easily dealt with in Committee. |
73 |
The MSWG considered draft regulationl3 briefly. It was noted that guidelines would be necessary to rule out any subjectivity in the implementation of this provision; it was not clear how Governments would get the information on a port facility being in violation of the security requirements; the timeframe in which such a violation occurred back in time was not defined, as well as when a Contracting Government would give notice of its intention to initiate or apply a control measure; the issue of detention vis-a-vis delay needed further clarification; consideration needed to be given to the issue of all reasonable efforts being made to avoid undue delays and the compensation for any undue delays. |
74 |
The MSWG noted that this regulation was not a straight port State Control provision and represented a significant new extension of control to the concepts hitherto developed by the Organization. Concern was expressed about the precedent that may be set and the possible implications of setting such a precedent. Detail consideration was needed in capitals on both a technical and political level. |
75 |
The regulation was therefore kept in square brackets, and since there was not sufficient time to consider it at the national level during the current session, the Committee was invited to leave the text in square bracket and approve it only for circulation to the Conference but with no further endorsement at this time. With a view to consideration and decision at that time, when Governments had time to look at it in their capitals. Further discussion of the draft regulation by the MSWG or indeed by the Committee would serve no purpose at this time, but the matter will have to be considered at the forthcoming ISWG meeting. |
Port personnel ID
76 |
The MSWG considered the proposal in document MSC 75/17/38, paragraph 8 for a photo ID for all persons boarding a ship in port. |
77 |
It was noted that without such a measure the ship would not be able to exercise control over persons boarding and leaving the ship and would therefore be unable to ensure the ship security as required by the SSP. |
78 |
Although the principle of the requirement was acknowledged, the MSWG did not agree on the inclusion of such a regulation in the security provisions but felt that, since it impacted considerably on port workers regulations, it was a matter for the future joint IMO/ILO work in the wider context of port security requirements to take this proposal forward. |
Provision of resources
79 |
The MSWG agreed to include new proposed regulation on the provision of necessary resources by the company and the port facility management for the implementation of the security measures. |
Declaration of security
80 |
The MSWG agreed on the principle of a declaration of security and revised the corresponding proposed requirements. |
Ship security assessment
81 |
The MSWG agreed for consistency reasons to change the term "ship security survey" to "ship security assessment" as used for the port facility assessment procedure. |
82 |
The term "ship board operations" was considered to be inclusive of locations and assets. |
Communication of information
83 |
The MSWG, in considering requirements for the communication of information on PFSPs, recalled the provision in the PFSP requirements for the possibility to combine PFSPs with the PSP are one PFSP for more than one port facility and agreed that the concept of a PSP was an issue for the joint IMO/ILO work to take further. |
84 |
The information would be submitted to IMO as soon as possible and as comprehensive as possible and would be followed by the administration of the country concerned and should contain only the list of the ports facilities that have an approved PFSP, their location and contact details of the designated authority(ies) concerned. |
85 |
The above information was needed by the shipping industry almost immediately to enable it to operate and it was therefore necessary to have the above list updated frequently and be readily accessible, e.g. on the web-site. |
Seafarers ID
86 |
The MSWG, as instructed by the Committee, developed a draft conference resolution on co-operation and further work with ILO on the issue of the accelerated development of a new seafarer's ID and the establishment of a joint ILO/IMO Working Group to undertake more detailed work on comprehensive port security requirements, based on terms of reference attached to that resolution, as set out in annex 5. |
87 |
The MSWG proceeded on the basis that the original Plan B would not be taken further and that this meant that proposals relating to that approach would also not be taken forward. |
|
