12.1 The Committee noted the information on the status of IMO conventions and other instruments relating to marine environment protection, especially the current status of MARPOL 73/78 and it various amendments provided in document MEPC 49/12 as follows:

　

　

12.2 The Committee also noted the following information provided by the Secretariat since MEPC 49/12 was issued on 4 June 2003:

　

　

12.3 The Committee noted further the statements by a number of delegations that their Governments were expected to ratify the OPRC-HNS Protocol, MARPOL 73/78 Annexes IV and VI in the near future.

　

　

　

13.1 The Committee recalled that, at MEPC 48, it agreed to provide information regarding the particulars of the Statement of Compliance (SOC), issued in accordance with the provisions of the Condition Assessment Scheme (CAS), to the EQUASIS Secretariat for further dissemination through the EQUASIS System.

　

13.2 In this context the Committee noted that IMO's Legal Office, taking into account the restrictive wording of paragraph 14.2 of CAS, which stipulates that the CAS electronic database shall be accessible only to Parties to MARPOL 73/78, could not support the transfer of CAS data to EQUASIS.

　

13.3 The Committee also noted the information provided in document MEPC 49/13/4 submitted by France, Singapore, Spain and the United Kingdom regarding the decision of the EQUASIS Supervisory Committee to reiterate its request for a full supply of CAS information for further d to the public in order to achieve full transparency.

　

13.4 In introducing document 49/13/4 the United Kingdom stated that the four co-sponsoring countries noted the advice of IMO's Legal Office regarding the contradiction between the decision of MEPC 48 and paragraph 14.2 of the CAS. However, with a view to promoting quality shipping, the United Kingdom urged the Committee to agree with the transmission of CAS information to EQUASIS. This proposal was supported by a number of delegations.

　

13.5 One delegation, however, cautioned on the legal aspects of such a decision and requested clarification on whether, under the anticipated CAS extension, all the information derived from the surveys made during the life of the ship should be made available to EQUASIS.

　

13.6 After an exchange of views, the Committee re-affirmed its decision at MEPC 48 to make available the CAS information under the current MARPOL Annex I to EQUASIS and agreed that there was no need to amend paragraph 14.12 of CAS at present. However, the Committee noted that this decision might need to be reviewed in light of the proposed amendments to regulation 13G of MARPOL Annex I in the wake of Prestige.

　

　

13.7 The Committee noted the information provided by OECD in documents MEPC 49/13/1 and MEPC 49/INF.7 regarding the unfair competitive advantage that unscrupulous shipowners/operators could gain over their law-abiding competitors through non-compliance with environmental regulations developed by IMO. The Committee also noted the recommendation to avoid the use of heavy fuel oils (HFO) and to move towards cleaner sources of energy. The Committee thanked OECD for the information.

　

　

13.8 The Committee recalled that, in accordance with operative paragraphs 2 and 3 of resolution MEPC.88(44), the Parties to Annex IV of MARPOL 73/78 should implement the revised Annex IV immediately after the entry into force of the existing Annex IV as only the provisions of the revised Annex IV are to be observed in the future and recognized that the earliest opportunity for adoption of the revised Annex IV is at MEPC 51, which was scheduled to meet from 29 March to 2 April 2004.

　

13.9 The Committee agreed with the proposal by Singapore (MEPC 49/13/2) regarding the urgent need to develop standards for the establishment of the rates of discharge for sewage that has been stored in holding tanks on board ships as required by paragraph 1.1 of regulation 11 of the revised Annex IV of MARPOL 73/78 and invited delegations to submit proposals to MEPC 51 for consideration.

　

13.10 The Committee also agreed with the proposal by Australia to review the Recommendation on international affluent standards and guidelines for performance tests for sewage treatment plants adopted by resolution MEPC.2(VI) in 1976 and invited delegations to submit documents on the matter to MEPC 51.

　

　

13.11 The Committee noted the information provided by SPREP in document MEPC 49/13/3 on the main findings of a review of ships. waste reception facilities in the South Pacific region. It further noted that none of the five selected countries fully meets its obligations to provide adequate ships. waste reception facilities and only three ports of the region currently have adequate reception facilities. The Committee was informed that the obligation to provide adequate reception facilities is a major impediment to adoption of MARPOL and the reason why many Pacific island countries have not become Parties to the Convention.

　

13.12 The Committee recalled that the requirements for reception facilities are mandatory under MARPOL 73/78 and noted that the Convention does not specifically refer to the situation where "regional agreements" may be concluded among the countries of a particular region.

　

13.13 The Committee considered the utility of "regional agreements" bearing in mind that in certain areas management of ships. waste generated from international shipping is virtually non-achievable, and following interventions by a number of delegations, agreed that "regional arrangements", such as the one proposed by SPREP for the South Pacific region, is an acceptable way to satisfy the MARPOL 73/78 obligations to provide adequate reception facilities for ships.

　

13.14 Based on the unique circumstances described in document MEPC 49/13/3 and the support from a number of delegations, the Committee generally agreed that this approach would have the potential to resolve obstacles for many counties to ratify the MARPOL Convention. Therefore the Committee agreed to give favourable consideration to the proposed regional arrangements for providing reception facilities but, taking into account the provisions of the MARPOL Convention on providing reception facilities as a condition for ratification of the Convention, agreed to further consider:

　

　

13.15 Australia offered to develop, together with SPREP and other interested delegations, the draft text of such an MEPC resolution for consideration by the Committee at its next regular session.

　

　

13.16 The Committee noted the information provided by Australia in document MEPC 49/INF.5 on the interpretation given to the word "damage" by the High Court of Australia, which found that "damage" means a sudden change in the condition of the ship or its equipment that was the instantaneous consequence of some event, whether the event was external or internal to the ship or its equipment.

　

　

13.17 The Committee noted the information in MEPC 49/WP.3 that, in accordance with the amendments to regulations 9(7) and 16(6) of MARPOL Annex I, which were adopted by resolution MEPC.51(32) and entered into force on 6 July 1993, the use of 100 ppm oily-water separating equipment on board ships is no longer permitted since 6 July 1998. As a consequence, three references to 100 ppm equipment were deleted from the Form of the Oil Record Book Part I in the Consolidated Edition 2002 of MARPOL 73/78, and the relevant items were renumbered accordingly.

　

13.18 The Committee further noted that this consequential editing in the 2002 Consolidated Edition of MARPOL 73/78 has created some unforeseen problems during port State control, as some Administrations and port State control Authorities are using the Form of the Oil Record Book Part I contained in the 2002 Consolidated Edition, while others are still using the Form contained in the 1997 Consolidated Edition taking into account that the consequential editorial changes have not been specifically approved by the Committee.

　

13.19 The Committee agreed that the Form of Oil Record Book Part I as contained in both the 1997 and 2002 Consolidated Editions of MARPOL 73/78 should be accepted for port State control purposes and requested the Secretariat to issue an MEPC circular in this respect.

　

　

　

14.1 The Committee recalled that at its last session it was agreed to include the item "Follow-up to UNCED and WSSD" among the substantive items for MEPC 49, MEPC 50 and MEPC 51.

　

14.2 The Committee noted the information provided in document MEPC 49/14 regarding IMO's participation, both in the work of the Summit and in the side events organized on that occasion, and the paragraphs relevant to the work of the Organization in the Plan of Implementation adopted by the WSSD.

　

14.3 The Committee also noted the important role played by IMO in the global endeavour towards sustainable development and invited Member States to be guided by the provisions of the Plan of Implementation in their future activities.

　

　

14.4 In considering document MEPC 49/14/1 the Committee noted that the Plan of Implementation adopted by the Summit reaffirmed the commitment to the Rio principles and the need for the full implementation of Agenda 21.

　

14.5 The Committee also noted that among numerous paragraphs of the Plan of Implementation relevant to the work of IMO, Paragraph 34 directly addresses the objectives of the Organization.

　

14.6 Following discussions, the Committee approved the draft Assembly resolution on follow-up to UNCED and WSSD, which is set out at annex 18, and requested the Secretariat to submit it to the twenty-third session of Assembly for adoption.