3.1 The Committee recalled that at MEPC 47 it was generally agreed that IMO has an important role to play in ship recycling, including preparation of a ship before recycling commences, and a co-ordinating role towards the ILO and the Basel Convention in recycling matters. The Committee also recalled that MEPC 47 had agreed that IMO, for the time being, should develop recommendatory Guidelines to be adopted by an Assembly resolution.

　

3.2 The Committee further recalled that MEPC 48, having considered the report of the Correspondence Group (MEPC 48/3) and the report of the Working Group (MEPC 48/WP.12, MEPC 48/WP.12/Add.1), agreed to re-establish the intersessional Correspondence Group on Ship Recycling to continue its work on the draft IMO Guidelines on ship recycling, with particular emphasis on outstanding items that need further development or consideration, and requested the BLG, DE and FSI Sub-Committees to provide input to the relevant chapters of the draft IMO Guidelines.

　

3.3 The Committee also noted that it would be necessary for this session to finalize the draft Guidelines and the associated Assembly resolution in order to be submitted to the twenty-third session of the Assembly for adoption and to that end, as already agreed at MEPC 48, agreed to re-establish the Working Group.

　

　

3.4 In introducing the report of the Correspondence Group (MEPC 49/3/1), the co-ordinator of the Group, Captain Moin Ahmed (Bangladesh), stated that annex 2 of the report presents a further draft of the proposed IMO Guidelines on the Recycling of Ships which endeavours to take into account all the comments received during the intersessional period. He also mentioned that although considerable progress had been made there were still issues, outlined in annex 1 of the report, which were difficult to be resolved by correspondence and warranted further discussion by the Committee, while other issues listed in appendix 1 of annex 1 of the report relate mainly to drafting points and therefore can be resolved at this session.

　

3.5 The co-ordinator of the Correspondence Group also stated that the informal Drafting Group on the editorial improvement of the draft Guidelines, which the Committee had agreed to establish at this session prior to the plenary discussion, made significant progress on a number of issues.

　

3.6 The Committee agreed to consider the issues raised in annex 1 of the report on which advice was sought by the Committee once all the other related documents commenting on the report of the Correspondence Group ha been introduced.

　

3.7 In this regard, the Committee considered submissions by India (MEPC 49/3/3), Japan (MEPC 49/3/5) and Greenpeace International (MEPC 49/3/2 and MEPC 49/3/4) providing comments to the report of the Correspondence Group.

　

3.8 In introducing its document (MEPC 49/3/3), the delegation of India offered a number of comments and suggestions on the further development of the draft IMO Guidelines and in particular with regard to phase-out programmes for hazardous materials; criteria for ships "Ready for the final voyage to recycling"; port State control routines for ships destined for recycling; and insurance extension to cover maritime lien claims for a reasonable period from the date of delivery of ship for recycling. India stressed also the need for the Guidelines to be specific in restricting sale of the ship by registered shipowners to registered ship recycling yards only and proposed that the shipowner's responsibilities should be addressed on mandatory terms. India stressed further that the "Beaching Method" is a practical and cost effective solution to ship recycling and should be also accepted, subject to adherence to all requirements for the safety, health and environmental protection.

　

3.9 Japan (MEPC 49/3/5) supported the adoption of the IMO Guidelines on Ship Recycling, noting the interim nature of the Guidelines and was of the opinion that the policy objectives of IMO with regard to recycling should be to secure smooth recycling and to reduce the environmental and occupational safety risk involved. Japan proposed that the Guidelines should be streamlined to focus on practical and effective measures while those items relating to enforcement and implementation by the flag and port States (mainly the "certificate of deletion" and the concepts of prior notice and consent mechanism) should be set aside for the time being. Japan further proposed that the Committee should, after the adoption of the Guidelines, evaluate the practice of ship recycling and in case this evaluation suggests that the implementation of the Guidelines on a voluntary basis does not function satisfactorily, then to consider the enforcement and implementation mechanism for ship recycling.

　

3.10 In introducing documents MEPC 49/3/2 and MEPC 49/3/4, the observer from Greenpeace International expressed the view that the requirements of the Basel Convention, and the principles and guidelines subsequently developed pursuant to its requirements, are not fully reflected in the draft IMO Guidelines on Ship Recycling and presented summaries of cases involving scrapping of ships in support of Greenpeace's view that there is an urgent need for mandatory requirements for ship recycling.

　

　

3.11 The co-ordinator of the Correspondence Group introduced the principal areas of concern in the draft IMO Guidelines, as outlined in annex 1 of the report, which were difficult to be resolved by correspondence and presented orally the outcome of the discussion held in the informal Drafting Group, referred to in paragraph 3.5. The Committee considered the main outstanding issues in the draft Guidelines and took action as follows.

　

　

3.12 The Committee reviewed the section "Key principles" in the Preamble of the Guidelines, which briefly outlines the objectives of the Guidelines, and agreed that this section of the Preamble covers adequately the main principles contained in the actual text of the draft Guidelines.

　

　

3.13 The Committee considered whether the Green Passport should contain an inventory of potentially hazardous materials or of all materials used in the construction of a ship and agreed that this document should list only the potentially hazardous material utilized in the construction of the ship, its equipment and systems.

　

　

3.14 The Committee noted that in accordance with the draft Guidelines, shipowners should, in selecting a recycling facility, consider the working practices and facilities in question, and agreed that there is a need for an assessment by the competent authorities in recycling States of the capabilities of the recycling facilities operating under their jurisdiction, making the results of those assessments available to the shipping industry.

　

　

3.15 The Committee noted that paragraphs 5.2, 6.1, 6.1.2 and 6.9.3 of the draft Guidelines outline a possible procedure, paralleling the provisions of the Basel Convention in respect of the movement of information on the transboundary movement of hazardous wastes, whereby a "Notice and Consent" system is established dealing with the movement of ships destined for recycling.

　

3.16 The Committee also noted that Japan in its document MEPC 49/3/5 proposed that the concepts of prior notice and consent mechanism should be set aside for the time being and that the relevant parts from the Guidelines should be deleted.

　

3.17 The delegation of Bahamas supported by the majority of those who spoke agreed with the proposal of Japan and stated that there might be a difference in the way the IMO and the Basel Convention considers ships towards the end of their operating life since IMO would not tend to define the ship delivered for recycling as a waste but as resource containing some contaminants.

　

3.18 Germany, supported by some delegations, stated that the issue of a "Ship recycling reporting system" should be the subject of future consideration by the Organization and suggested that it would be beneficial to discuss further the issue of information exchange with regard to ship recycling. It was also pointed out that areas exist where the existing legal systems under the IMO and the Basel Convention with regard to ships need further consideration both in the IMO and under the Basel Convention (for example that the Basel Convention may not be applicable when a ship becomes a waste in the high sea, the overlapping of applicable legislation in case a ship becomes a waste in the area of a State). Germany expressed the view that the consideration of these issues should not delay the adoption of the IMO Guidelines.

　

3.19 As a result, the Committee, having decided to set aside the issue of "Ship recycling reporting system" for the time being and revisit it in the future, agreed that the relevant parts from the draft Guidelines should be deleted while the issue of information exchange with regard to ship recycling should be further considered taking into account the recommendations of FSI 11 for the need to avoid the issue of "phantom ships".

　

　

3.20 The Committee noted the concerns expressed with regard to the risks associated with the towing of a vessel to the recycling yard and agreed that this operation should be considered on a case-by-case basis and that the relevant part of the draft Guidelines should be reviewed accordingly.

　

　

3.21 The Committee recalled that, at MEPC 47, it was agreed that IMO, for the time being, should develop recommendatory Guidelines to be adopted by an Assembly resolution (MEPC 47/20, paragraph 3.12), while at MEPC 48 it was confirmed the view that the voluntary guideline approach should be followed before considering mandatory requirements (MEPC 48/21, paragraph 3.14).

　

3.22 Having noted these points, the Committee agreed that the terminology to be used throughout the text should be adjusted in line with the recommendatory nature of the Guidelines.

　

　

3.23 The Committee noted that the role and responsibilities of the last owner of the ship has also been an issue on which the Group could not reach agreement and that it had been proposed by one delegation that the draft Guidelines should be specific in restricting sale of the ship by registered shipowners to registered ship recycling yards only.

　

3.24 The Committee further noted that in accordance with the definition given in the draft Guidelines for the "Shipowners", this term also includes those who have ownership of the ship for a limited period pending its sale to a recycling yard and agreed that the last owner of the ship must assume the responsibility, whether he is a cash buyer or a temporary owner and notwithstanding the short time of such ownership.

　

3.25 The Committee, having noted the concerns of India with regard to the definition of the "shipowner" in cases when the ship is not registered, agreed that the definition for the "owner" provided by article I(3) of the CLC Convention should be considered for the purpose of the draft Guidelines on Ship Recycling.