|
General discussion in plenary
16.18 In the general discussion of the proposal by the European Union, the Committee noted that the Report of the Expert Group (MEPC 49/INF.34), and the Report of the Heavy Oil Sub-Group of the Expert Group (MEPC 49/INF.34/Add. 1) had been presented at lunchtime thus there being no need for their formal introduction in plenary.
16.19 The Committee agreed to focus the discussion of the European Union proposals at this stage on the following points:
.1 general comments on the proposed amendments contained in document MEPC 49/16/1;
.2 discussion on the following specific items:
.1 advancing the phasing out dates for Category 1, Category 2 and Category 3 tankers;
.2 prohibition of the carriage of Heavy Grades of Oil; and
.3 whether a Working Group should be established.
16.20 A total of 31 delegations took the floor in the discussion that followed. The delegations of India, Japan, Brazil, BIMCO and INTERTANKO introduced their documents providing comments to the proposals by the European Union.
16.21 The following is a summary of the discussions:
.1 many delegations thanked the Secretary-General for his initiative, including the holding of an extra session of the MEPC in December, if the Committee should so decide, and in re-activating the Informal Group of Experts;
.2 several delegations welcomed the action by the European Union for having brought forward its proposal to IMO, and expressed their support, in principle, for the European Union's proposal;
.3 the majority of delegations expressed the view that the acceleration of the phasing-out of Category 1 tankers from 2007 to 2005, would pose no major problems to the industry in general, including the shipbuilding and ship recycling sectors;
.4 the majority of delegations expressed concern at the exceedingly high peak that accelerated phase-out for Category 2 and Category 3 tankers would create in 2010 if the proposal was accepted. Some delegations stated that retirement for ships of as young as 14 years old was unacceptable;
.5 the extension of CAS to double-hull tankers and to all tankers of 15 years or more, was seen as a positive development by many delegations, though some slightly different approaches to its implementation were also put forward by some delegations;
.6 some delegations expressed support for the proposal by Japan to flatten the high peak created in 2010 by the proposal, by making phasing-out mandatory for single-hullers at 20 years of age or 2015, whichever is earlier; thus recognizing the fact that Nakhokda, Erika, and Prestige, all were ships of 25 years of age, or more;
.7 several delegations highlighted the fact that the majority of recent incidents had involved structural failure in way of ballast tanks adjacent to heated cargo tanks and that this was the real issue that should be addressed by IMO;
.8 the ban on the carriage of HGO on single-hull tankers was supported, in principle, by many delegations. However, different views were expressed as to the extent and scope of its application, as well as to the need to exempt small tankers of 600 to 5,000 DWT from implementation of this measure until 2008, or 2015;
.9 several delegations expressed concern on the possible impact of the proposals upon specific regions, including the effect that early phase-out would produce on the tanker fleets of specific countries;
.10 a few delegations also expressed concern over the HGO definition. These delegations held the view that density and kinematic viscosity parameters should be adjusted to allow for the heavy crude oils produced by several Latin American countries. The careful examination of a more adjusted combination in terms of density and kinematic viscosity for the definition of HGO, would help solve some of the difficulties envisaged by the Expert Group Impact Study;
.11 a number of delegations did not agree with the proposal to amend regulation 13G of MARPOL Annex I only two years after its adoption, and less than one year since its entry into force. In the view of these delegations, the oil transport industry needs a fair and level playground with a stable regulatory environment that is not changed every two years;
.12 the overwhelming majority of the delegations who took the floor, agreed to the establishment of a Working Group to consider this complex issue, including the points raised in plenary;
.13 the Committee noted that, notwithstanding the fact that MSC had agreed to consider a deeper involvement of IMO in the setting up of survey standards for ships from new, this did not preclude the consideration of the possible extension of CAS to double-hull tankers, or to tankers of 15 years and above. Standards for survey for all ships was a long-term task for the Organization and, once the new survey regime had been decided, there would be time to adapt the CAS, or to discontinue its implementation in favour of the application of a more comprehensive regime.
16.22 In support of document MEPC 49/16/1, the Spanish delegation reminded the Committee that, if the proposed amendments to regulation 13G of MARPOL Annex I in document MEPC 45/7/5 on the enhancement of tanker safety submitted by Spain in 2000 had been accepted, the accident of the tanker Prestige would have never occurred. Spain stated that, from that time, three tankers of similar characteristics (Castor, Kristal and Prestige) have suffered accidents in Spanish waters causing loss of human lives and serious pollution. This fact, added to other considerations, justifies the adoption of the new proposed amendments as submitted in document MEPC 49/16/1.
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE WORKING GROUP
16.23 After the general discussion, the Committee agreed to establish a Working Group with the following terms of reference:
Taking into account all relevant submissions and discussion at plenary,
.1 to discuss further the proposed earlier phasing-out of Category 1, Category 2 and Category 3 tankers with a view to preparing a text of MARPOL amendments;
.2 to discuss further whether the Heavy Oil Carriage Ban for single-hull tankers could be accepted as global measures under MARPOL Annex I;
.3 to discuss the issue of application of the Condition Assessment Scheme; and
.4 to report back to the plenary on Thursday, 17 July.
16.24 The Committee agreed to discuss whether to hold an extra session of the Committee in December, once the report of the Working Group had been received.
OUTCOME OF THE WORKING GROUP
16.25 Following introduction of the report of the Working Group (MEPC 49/WP.8), the Committee noted the main points of its deliberations as follows:
Category 1 tankers
The group recognized that the early phase-out of Category 1 tankers under the proposed amendments would not create major problems for the shipping industry and recommended the Committee to agree on an accelerated phase-out schedule by advancing the deadline from 2007 to 2005.
Category 2 and Category 3 tankers
The group was unable to reach agreement on an accelerated phase-out schedule for these tankers. The findings of the Expert Group Impact Study (MEPC 49/INF.34 and Add.1) with regard to the exceedingly high peak of around 67 million DWT (700 tankers) phased-out tonnage in 2010 created by the proposed amendments by the European Union Member States, was frequently cited as unacceptable by industry observers and several delegations in the course of discussions by the group.
The EU proposal co-sponsors indicated that they may be prepared to consider extending the operational life of relatively new built tankers, at the discretion of the Administration, to a maximum of 25 years after date of delivery, or 2015, whichever is the earlier date, provided compliance with CAS and the right to deny port entry; however, compromise was not possible.
The delegation of Japan, supported by several delegations, finally decided to go ahead with its alternative proposal to amend MARPOL regulations 13F and 13G incorporating inter alia phase-out provisions for "Heavy grade oil tankers", thus there being no need for a new additional regulation.
Heavy Grades of Oil (HGO)
The group agreed that it was necessary to provide a definition of HGO in such a way so as to include only those heavy grades of oil which do not disperse after a spill or which do not react to currently available dispersants. The group agreed that further work should be carried out on this matter regarding the possible combined use of parameters "density" and "kinematic viscosity" in the definitions of heavy crude and fuel oils.
The group could not agree on the proposed ban date in 2008 in the EU proposal for small tankers carrying HGO. The strict double-hull requirements in the proposal for small tankers of 600 to 5,000 DWT, also proved to be an obstacle to consensus. The group dealt with the possible extension to domestic trade of the exemption granted, under the EU proposal, to tankers exclusively engaged in ports, however it decided that it was more a matter of policy that should be decided by the Committee in December 2003.
Application of the Condition Assessment Scheme (CAS)
The group agreed on the application of CAS requirements from 2005 to Category 2 and Category 3 tankers of 15 years of age and above. The group recognized that extended application beyond current requirements entailed amendments to CAS as a consequence to the proposed amendment of MARPOL regulation 13G, and invited the Committee to circulate proposed amendments to CAS for consideration and adoption at the extra session of the MEPC.
The group discussed further enhancement of CAS to include in its scope double-hull tankers and a stricter survey regime for those areas more prone to corrosion in tankers, such as ballast tanks adjacent to heated cargo tanks. The group recognized that this development entailed further intensive work and noted with appreciation the offer by the delegation of the United Kingdom to host a meeting with industry and interested Administrations to progress the complex issues related to this measure.
Other issues
The group suggested that the Committee should consider requesting the Secretary-General to reactivate the Expert Group with a mandate to review and update the Impact Study in the light of the proposals to amend MARPOL Annex I.
The group recognized that consequential amendments to the IOPP Certificate would be needed, however, due to lack of time was unable to consider this matter at this session.
Extra session of the MEPC
The group recommended that the Committee should hold and extra session, as approved by the Council, in conjunction with the twenty-third Assembly with a view to consideration and adoption of proposed amendments to MARPOL Annex I.
COMMENTS ON THE OUTCOME OF THE WORKING GROUP
16.26 Several delegations commented on the outcome of the Working Group. The following is a summary of the discussions.
16.27 Japan reiterated that the proposed ban for the carriage of HGO in the EU proposal was, in reality, a phase-out provision and, therefore, a combination of amendments to both regulations 13F and 13G seemed to be the most adequate way of implementing the proposal in the current structure of MARPOL Annex I. The proposal set out at annex 1 to the report of the Working Group was the basic document for consideration at the possible extra session of the MEPC in December, however, Japan stressed that its own proposal in annex 2 of that document should also be included for information by the extra session.
16.28 The Italian delegation, on behalf of the 15 Member States of the European Union, stated that annex 1 of the report of the Working Group had been developed from the proposal contained in document MEPC 49/16/1, which had been agreed by the majority of delegations that participated in the group. The text in annex 1 is a good basis for further discussion by the extra session in December on the two outstanding issues, namely, phase-out for Category 2 and Category 3 tankers, and carriage of HGO in single-hull tankers. The consequential proposed amendments to the Condition Assessment Scheme in annex 3 should also be sent to the extra session for further discussion.
16.29 In the debate that followed, the following main points were made:
.1 the industry representatives reaffirmed their commitment to quality shipping and their willingness to participate and contribute to the intended meeting on the enhancement of CAS;
.2 several delegations expressed the view that the issue of the carriage of HGO by single-hull tankers in domestic trades could be dealt with in the way that regulation 2(7) of MARPOL Annex II allows Administrations to relax application of more stringent regulations in justified cases.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE COMMITTEE
16.30 The Committee reviewed the report of the Working Group (MEPC 49/WP.8) and, following debate, approved the report in general and took action as indicated hereunder.
16.31 The Committee agreed with the recommendation on the accelerated phase-out schedule for Category 1 tankers.
16.32 The Committee noted the progress made on the accelerated phase-out schedule for Category 2 and Category 3 tankers.
16.33 The Committee, recalling approval by the Council, at its ninetieth session (MEPC 49/11/9, paragraph 21), agreed to hold an extra session during the twenty-third Assembly in December (see paragraph 19.14).
16.34 The Committee concurred with the Working Group's view that the Condition Assessment Scheme (CAS) should be applied to single-hull tankers of 15 years, or older.
16.35 The Committee approved the proposed amendments to CAS (MEPC 49/WP.8, annex 3) and agreed to circulate the amendments, which are set out at annex 19, with a view to further consideration for adoption at the extra session.
16.36 The Committee noted the views of the group on the proposed enhancement of CAS. The Committee further noted that in order to meet future challenges such as its possible application to double-hull tankers or enhanced requirements for tankers carrying heated cargoes, intensive work is needed and, in this respect, noted with appreciation the offer by the delegation of the United Kingdom to host an informal meeting with industry and interested Administrations, prior to the extra meeting of the Committee in December. Interested delegations wishing to participate in the informal meeting are invited to contact the focal point of the United Kingdom.*
16.37 The Committee noted the progress made on the consideration of draft regulation on the carriage of Heavy Grades of Oil in single-hull tankers, and noted the views expressed on the issue of tankers engaged in domestic trades.
16.38 The Committee agreed to request the Secretary-General to reactivate the Expert Group on Impact Assessment with a mandate to review and update the Impact Study in the light of the proposed revised regulation 13G and proposed new regulation 13H.
16.39 The Committee, noting the views of some participants in the group on the issue of HGO domestic trades in small tankers (paragraphs 32 and 36 of MEPC 49/WP.8), agreed that this was a matter of policy for the Committee to decide at a later stage.
16.40 The Committee agreed that the proposed amendments to regulation 13G and new proposed regulation 13H of MARPOL Annex I (MEPC 49/WP.8, annex 1) should constitute the basic document for further discussion at the extra session of the Committee in December in view that these proposed amendments presented the views of the majority of the working group. The Committee instructed the Secretariat to process these proposed amendments, which are set out in annex 20, for further consideration with a view to adoption by MEPC 50. Member States and interested organizations are invited to submit comments on this basic document to MEPC 50.
16.41 The Committee noted the views of the group (MEPC 49/WP.8, paragraphs 52 to 54) and agreed that the supplement to the IOPP Certificate (Form B) should be amended at the time of adoption of the proposed amendments when it would be easier to identify which amendments would be needed.
16.42 The Committee noted the position of Saudi Arabia with regard to the proposed amendments (MEPC 49/WP.8, annex 4).
16.43 The delegation of Japan stated that Japan and all or some co-sponsors would submit the alternative proposal (MEPC 49/WP.8, annex 2) to MEPC 50.
OTHER MATTERS UNDER ITEM 16
Water in cargo tanks-Improvement of Unified Interpretation 4.1.1
16.44 The Committee noted the joint submission by INTERTANKO and OCIMF (MEPC 49/16) proposing to add two more cases to the list of exceptions to the prohibition to introduce water into the cargo tanks as set out in Unified Interpretation 4.1.1 of regulation 13(3) of MARPOL Annex I. The proposed additions being:
.1 close-up inspection or/and steel thickness measurements using rafts where permitted by the rules; and
.2 tank hydrostatic pressure tests.
16.45 The Committee recalled that, at MEPC 47, the same proposal was discussed by the Committee and, after some debate, it agreed to review the issue at a future meeting and invited interested delegations to submit relevant documents and studies for consideration and action as appropriate. The matter, however, was not raised again at MEPC 48.
16.46 During the discussion of the issue, an opinion was expressed that the two additional cases to be included in Unified Interpretation 4.1.1 in respect of regulation 13(3) of MARPOL Annex I were not exceptional cases required by operations of oil tankers which were the intention of the Unified Interpretation, but as a consequence of surveys required by resolution A.744(18). Therefore, the two additional cases should not be included in the Unified Interpretation.
16.47 After an exchange of views, the Committee approved the amendments to the Unified Interpretation as proposed by INTERTANKO and OCIMF in document MEPC 49/16. The text as approved by the Committee is set out in annex 21.
Recording disposals of cargo residues (Annex V)
16.48 The Committee recalled that this issue had been discussed at MEPC 43 (28 June-2 July 1999) where a similar proposal by the Republic of Korea (MEPC 43/11/4) on the categorization of "operational wastes", including "cargo residue", was considered. On that occasion, the Committee agreed that, whilst supporting the proposal in principle, it was premature to issue a clarification by means of an MEPC circular, as then requested, as the Garbage Record Book had only been in use for one year and insufficient experience in its use had been gained so far.
16.49 The Committee also recalled that MEPC 43, nevertheless, agreed that several operational wastes, among them cargo residue, should be included in the six garbage categories shown in the Record of Garbage Discharges and referred to in paragraph 1.7.7 of the Guidelines for the implementation of Annex V of MARPOL 73/78, to the effect, as regards "cargo residue", that "since garbage are classified according to their nature, Cargo residue can be classified as any of categories according to what cargo the ship was carrying" (MEPC 43/21, paragraph 11.16).
16.50 The Committee further recalled that, at MEPC 48, a similar proposal by Australia was submitted (MEPC 48/14/1) but was not discussed, since it was subsequently withdrawn.
16.51 In introducing its document MEPC 49/16/3, Australia pointed out at the problem caused by the non-inclusion of the term "cargo residues" in any of the six categories classifying garbage in the form of Garbage Record Book of Annex V in that, as there is no clear guidance on which category is intended to cover cargo residues, in their experience details of cargo residues are not being entered in Garbage Record Books. Australia emphasized that recording these discharges would also alleviate difficulties currently being encountered when investigating reports of oil spill sightings that subsequently are discovered to be legal cargo residue discharges.
16.52 After discussion, the Committee approved the proposed amendments to the Appendix to MARPOL Annex V as proposed by Australia in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of document MEPC 49/16/3, which are set out at annex 22. The Committee requested the Secretary-General to circulate the proposed amendments for adoption at MEPC 51 in accordance with article 16 of the MARPOL Convention.
Implementation of MARPOL Annex IV
16.53 The Committee noted that MARPOL Annex IV will enter into force on 27 September 2003, however it took 29 years since its adoption and ratification or acceptance by 88 countries, to achieve this.
16.54 The Committee recalled that it was only after MEPC 44 had approved modifications to the existing text of Annex IV by relaxing some of its original requirements, that the conditions for the entry into force had been met. These modifications are contained in the revised text of Annex IV approved by MEPC 44 which also adopted resolution MEPC.88(44) resolving that Parties to MARPOL should implement the revised Annex IV immediately after entry into force of the existing Annex IV with a view to avoiding the creation of a dual treaty regime between both the existing and the revised Annex IV texts.
16.55 The Committee further recalled that, following some doubts expressed by one delegation at MEPC 48 on the legality of implementing the revised Annex IV immediately after the entry into force of the existing Annex IV, it agreed to discuss this issue further at the current session and requested the views of other Governments and the Legal Office of the IMO Secretariat.
16.56 The Committee noted that document MEPC 49/16/5 by the Secretariat provided the views of the Legal Office of the Organization which, in synthesis, is that since on 27 September 2003 the existing Annex IV comprising a set of international requirements covering the same subject matter of the revised Annex IV will be in force, the issue of applying the revised Annex IV is not simply a matter of provisional application of new requirements on the basis of consensus among the Parties. There is a complication to the extent there is potential for conflict, or at least inconsistency, between both sets of requirements, in which case the provisions of the existing Annex IV would prevail as a matter of international law.
16.57 In this connection, the Committee considered document MEPC 49/WP.6, which provided a draft MEPC circular aiming to clarify possible confusion with regard to implementation of Annex IV. After discussion, the Committee approved the draft MEPC circular and requested the Secretariat to issue the circular as MEPC/Circ.408 as soon as possible.
Harmonized System of Survey and Certification (HSSC) in MARPOL Annex IV
16.58 The Committee noted that FSI 11 had considered the issue of introduction of the HSSC with regard to MARPOL Annex IV and had invited the Committee to consider this issue and take action as appropriate (FSI 11/23, paragraph 16.9 and MEPC 49/10/4, paragraph 3.7).
16.59 In this connection, the Committee noted that FSI 11 was referring to the existing regulation 3(3) of MARPOL Annex IV when it considered the HSSC issue and, therefore, there was no need to take any action.
16.60 The Committee also noted that, although the text of the revised MARPOL Annex IV (MEPC 44/20, annex 10) did not specifically mention the HSSC, the redrafted regulations 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 generally followed the same wording of the relevant provisions as in MARPOL Annexes I and II.
16.61 The Committee noted further that there were no provisions for annual and intermediate surveys in the revised Annex IV. In this connection, the Committee recalled that MEPC 44, in considering the revised Annex IV prepared by the intersessional correspondence group, agreed with the proposal of one delegation and deleted annual and intermediate survey from the text.
16.62 The delegation of the Netherlands raised the question of whether the draft text of the revised Annex IV was HSSC compliant and suggested that the text should be reviewed before adoption. In this regard, the Committee noted that the text of the revised Annex IV would be circulated after MEPC 49 for adoption by the regular session of the MEPC in spring 2004, and invited the delegation of the Netherlands to submit a proposal to that session of the Committee for consideration, so that the concern of the Netherlands could be dealt with.
Protection of fuel tanks
16.63 The Committee recalled that, following an instruction by MEPC 46 (MEPC 46/23, paragraph 20.18) and a proposal by the Netherlands, DE 46 had included the item "Protection of fuel tanks" in its provisional agenda for DE 47 with a target completion date of 2005.
16.64 In introducing its document MEPC 49/16/6, Norway emphasized that the Committee should establish the guiding principles for an amendment of MARPOL Annex I with regard to protection of fu tanks. In Norway's opinion, the proposed measures should:
.1 not be less stringent than those set up for cargo oil;
.2 relate to double hull protection;
.3 require the level of protection outlined in regulation 13F(7) of MARPOL Annex I (for ships with fuel oil capacity between 300 and 5,000 m3) or in regulation 13F(3)(a), (b) and (c) (for ships with fuel oil capacity of 5,000 m3 and above); and
.4 apply to new ships only.
16.65 The Committee noted that Norway proposed a completion date of 2004 instead of 2005 as proposed by DE 46 for this item.
16.66 In the ensuing discussion, some delegations held the view that all the elements and related issues proposed by Norway should be considered, while other delegations preferred to give priority to some of them.
16.67 The Committee decided to refer document MEPC 49/16/6 to DE 47 for consideration and invited other delegations to also submit documents on the issue to DE 47. With regard to the completion date for the item, the Committee agreed to consider it under agenda item 19 when the environmental items of the DE Sub-Committee's work programme would be discussed.
* The contact for this meeting is: peter.parr@dft.gsi.gov.uk.
|
