2.40 In light of its earlier decision not to include article 4(bis), the Committee noted that a definition of "Acceptable Ballast Water", as proposed by Brazil, would no longer be relevant.

　

2.41 The Committee instructed the Working Group to review the bracketed texts in regulation A-1 and the proposals by the United States for deletion of regulation A-1.1 and A-1.2 in relation to its proposal for regulation B-3 concerning ballast water management for ships in accordance with their ballast water capacities (MEPC 49/2/5).

　

　

2.42 At a proposal by the United States, the Committee instructed the Working Group to edit regulation A-2, as necessary.

　

　

2.43 The observer from ICS proposed to include a new first paragraph under regulation A-3 excluding the uptake and discharge of ballast water on the high seas, i.e., outside territorial waters or EEZs from control, on the understanding that the main concern of the Convention was the uptake and discharge of ballast water in coastal waters (MEPC 49/2/22). The delegations of Japan and Singapore supported these proposals, whereas the delegation of the United States rejected these proposals.

　

2.44 On a proposal by Liberia, the Committee agreed to instruct the Working Group to clarify the text of regulation A-3.4.

　

　

2.45 The Committee noted that the Working Group had developed regulation A-4, as reported in MEPC 49/2/3, paragraphs 2.39 and 2.40, but that no agreement could yet be reached as to whether the discharge of unmanaged ballast water should be subject to specific limitations. It was also noted that regulation A-4 was closely connected with any decision concerning article 4(bis) on Acceptable Ballast Water.

　

2.46 The delegation of the United States in MEPC 49/2/18 proposed to delete regulation A-4 altogether, as this provision was against the objective of the Convention, while the delegations of Brazil and Norway proposed to keep regulation A-4, albeit with amendments (MEPC 49/2/17 and MEPC 49/2/20).

　

2.47 The Committee agreed to retain this regulation, to review the linkage with section D of the regulations at a later stage, and to instruct the Working Group to review the text in light of the concerns expressed by the United States.

　

　

2.48 The Committee noted that the Working Group had developed regulation A-5 on equivalent compliance for pleasure yachts, but that no full agreement could yet be reached.

　

2.49 The observer from ISAF provided further clarifications and proposed deletion of the phrase "not engaged in trade", as well as Guidelines concerning Ballast Water Management aimed at recreational vessels (MEPC 49/2/7). The observer noted further that this regulation might also need to include lifeboats and/or search and rescue vessels, as these vessels sometimes depended on ballast water.

　

2.50 The Committee instructed the Working Group to consider a definition of "yachts" and which other categories of vessels should be included in this regulation (e.g., lifeboats and/or search and rescue vessels).

　

　

2.51 The Committee considered editorial improvements proposed by ICS on regulation B-1, and instructed the Working Group to consider these proposals, as well as the issue of possible safety problems associated with Ballast Water Exchange, as raised by the observer from IACS (MEPC 48/21, paragraph 2.23 and 2.24.)

　

2.52 Due to lack of time at this stage of the proceedings, the Committee instructed the Working Group to review, as necessary, all proposals made for the remainder of the regulations in the Annex to the draft Convention, as well as the Appendices.

　

　

2.53 In presenting the report of the Ballast Water Working Group (MEPC 49/WP.16 and MEPC 49/WP.16/Add.1), the Chairman of the Working Group, Mr. Mike Hunter (United Kingdom), drew the attention of the Committee to the substantial progress achieved at this session and to the points reflected in paragraphs 2.54 to 2.57 below.

　

　

2.54 The Working Group:

　

　

　

2.55 The Working Group:

　

　

　

2.56 The Working Group:

　

　

2.57 The Working Group continued work on the following substantive issues

　

　

　

　

2.58 The Working Group considered for these guidelines, which should be directed to shipping companies and mariners, submissions by United Kingdom (MEPC 49/2/8), Japan (MEPC 49/2/28), ICS (MEPC 49/2/23) and an input by ISAF (MEPC 49/2/7) from the perspective of pleasure yachts. Further comments were provided by IACS in MEPC 49/2/11.

　

2.59 The Working Group noted that all three Ballast Water Exchange methods should be addressed in these guidelines and that much of the contents would depend on the final text of the Convention.

　

2.60 The Working Group agreed that further work on these guidelines should be carried out in the intersessional period under the lead of the United Kingdom (contact Mr. Graham Greensmith at: graham.greensmith@lr.org).

　

　

2.61 The Working Group considered detailed texts and comments for developing these guidelines as submitted by the Netherlands (MEPC 49/2/15), Norway (MEPC 49/2/24) and Japan (MEPC 49/2/27).

　

2.62 The Working Group considered making a distinction between elements to the regulations and to the guidelines and ways of arriving at a single document for further development. It was agreed that a general approach should be followed. Once treatment equipment would have been identified the guidelines could be made more specific.

　

2.63 The Working Group agreed that further work on these guidelines should be carried out in the intersessional period under the lead of the Netherlands (contact Mr. Frans Tjallingii at: f.j.tjallingii@dnz.rws.minvenw.nl).

　

　

2.64 The Working Group considered elements for developing these guidelines as submitted by the GloBallast Programme, in particular, how to conduct port surveys (MEPC 49/INF.36), and by Australia in an informal document.

　

2.65 It was suggested to include materials from the GloBallast Programme and TRAIN-SEA-COAST programmes and the CRIMP protocols developed in Australia. It was further suggested to develop these guidelines in relation to the risk assessment guidelines for discharge of unmanaged ballast water under regulation A-4, as proposed by Norway (MEPC 49/2/20).

　

2.66 The Working Group agreed that further work on these guidelines should be carried out in the intersessional period under the lead of Australia (contact Mr. Michael Wilson at: michael.wilson@affa.gov.au).

　

　

2.67 The Working Group considered proposals for these guidelines as submitted by the GloBallast Programme (MEPC 49/INF.35 and MEPC 49/WP.2), and comments by India (MEPC 49/2/12).

　

2.68 The Working Group agreed that the guidelines should identify all purposes of sampling, but that the primary focus should be verification of compliance with the Convention explaining tests that are simple to operate by port State control officers.

　

2.69 The Working Group agreed that further work on these guidelines should be carried out in the intersessional period under the lead of Germany (contact Mr. Stephan Gollasch at: sgollasch@aol.com).

　

　

2.70 The Working Group considered proposals for these guidelines as submitted by ISAF (MEPC 49/2/7) and comments by Israel (MEPC 49/2/30) based on the proposed regulation A-5. Initial ideas for further development were discussed, but as the outcome of regulation A-5 was not yet clear, firm arrangements were not yet developed. However, delegations were invited to provide comments in the intersessional period to ISAF (contact Mr. Michael Devonshire at: isaf@mike-devonshire.co.uk).

　

　

2.71 The Working Group acknowledged the importance of early identification of issues, which might be submitted to the Diplomatic Conference in the format of a draft resolution and identified the following issues:

　

　

2.72 The Working Group recommended the Committee to accept its report and to complete the article-by-article review on the basis of that report.

　

　

2.73 The delegation of Brazil appreciated the work carried out on the draft Convention at this session. However, substantial work was still needed to complete it. The concern was expressed that there was limited reliable information available about the efficiency of ballast water management. Brazil had made a contribution by conducting experiments under realistic conditions to show the efficiency of ballast water exchange as demonstrated this week. Further work on the Appendices and guidelines would be necessary intersessionally on these important tools for compliance with the Convention. The delegation regretted that the World Health Organization had not yet provided an input in the discussion on standards for pathogens and encouraged the Secretariat to continue seeking their advice on this issue.

　

2.74 The delegations of Chile and Ecuador shared the views of Brazil.

　

2.75 With regard to regulation E-5 (Review of Standards by the Organization) and a possible phase out of ballast water exchange, the observer from ICS proposed, as a reversal, to accept ballast water exchange until it would have been proven redundant. Only then should the Convention be revised.

　

　

2.76 The Committee continued with the article-by-article review of the draft Convention based on document MEPC 49/2/3 and the report of the Working Group (MEPC 49/WP.16 and MEPC 49/WP.16/Add.1).

　

　

2.77 The Committee noted that article 211.6 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (pollution from vessels) referred to consultations, through the competent international organization, when coastal States were considering more stringent measures, whereas under article 196.1 of the same Convention (Use of technologies or introduction of alien or new species), States themselves could "take all measures necessary to prevent, reduce and control the intentional or accidental introduction of species, alien or new, to a particular part of the marine environment, which may cause significant and harmful changes thereto". It was also noted that under article 25.2 of the same Convention, States have the authority to impose requirements as a condition of port State entry.

　

2.78 The delegation of China proposed the deletion of the alternative text developed by the Working Group contained in the last sentence of article 2.3, as this would contradict the authority States have under article 25.2 of UNCLOS, as mentioned above.

　

2.79 This proposal was not supported and the Committee agreed to retain article 2.3 in brackets as shown in the annex to this report.

　

　

2.80 The Committee noted that regulation C-1.7 was an empty placeholder for the "concept of liability burden", as proposed by Cyprus at MEPC 48. The Chairman of MEPC undertook to prepare a submission on this issue for future consideration.

　

　

2.81 At the proposal by the delegation of the Netherlands, supported by others, the Committee agreed to put the newly developed regulation B-3.4.3, together with the associated definition of "Concerted areas" under regulation A-1 in brackets for future consideration.

　

　

2.82 The Committee agreed to delete the brackets around regulation E-2.1, so that only the brackets around the figures in the standard remained.

　

　

2.83 After completion of the article-by-article review, the Committee agreed to accept the draft International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships. Ballast Water and Sediments for circulation to the Diplomatic Conference. The revised and renumbered text of the draft Convention is set out in annex 2 to this report.

　

2.84 The Secretary advised the Committee that the Diplomatic Conference on Ballast Water Management would be held at IMO Headquarters, London, from 9 to 13 February 2004.

　

2.85 The Committee instructed the Secretariat to start with the necessary arrangements for the Diplomatic Conference and to distribute the basic documents for the Conference before the end of July 2003, including:

　

　

2.86 The Committee endorsed the Working Group's intersessional arrangements for further work on the guidelines in support of the draft Convention (see paragraphs 2.58 to 2.70 above), as well as the issues, identified by the Working Group for submission to the Diplomatic Conference in the format of a draft resolution (see paragraph 2.71 above).

　

2.87 The Committee noted the concerns raised by IACS on safety aspects in relation to ballast water exchange operations, e.g., maintaining bridge visibility standards, propeller immersion and minimum draft forward (MEPC 49/2/11) and endorsed the recommendation of the Working Group that the Committee and the Maritime Safety Committee be invited to confirm the acceptability of transitory non-compliance of safety regulations when conducting ballast water exchange in the belief that any deviations from the relevant legal instruments should be addressed directly within those instruments.

　

2.88 The Committee took note of document MEPC 49/2/6 by the Secretariat and acknowledged the substantial contribution by the GloBallast Programme in addressing ballast water related problems in a global context and in assisting developing countries with the preparation for the implementation of the Convention once adopted.

　

2.89 The Committee endorsed the recommendation of the Working Group that IMO should approach UNDP, GEF and other potential donors and partners to explore the possibility of continuation and expansion of the activities initiated during the pilot phase of the GloBallast Programme.

　

　

2.90 The delegation of the Netherlands drew the attention of the Committee to the sudden death on Tuesday, 4 March 2003, of Mr. Tomas Moll (Netherlands), while attending the Intersessional Meeting of the Ballast Water Working Group. Mr. Moll, who represented the Royal Association of Netherlands' Shipowners (KNVR) in the Dutch delegation, was a familiar figure in that Working Group and in MEPC. On behalf of Mr. Moll's family, the delegation expressed the sincere appreciation to the members of the Committee for the cards and condolences they had sent to the family.