2.1 The Committee noted that the International Conference on Ballast Water Management for Ships (9 to 13 February 2004) adopted the "International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments, 2004" as well as three resolutions outlining the tasks ahead for MEPC and one resolution concerning the promotion of technical co-operation and assistance on capacity building for ballast water management issues.

　

2.2 The Committee noted further that the Ballast Water Management Convention will be open for signature from 1 June 2004 to 31 May 2005 and urged all national delegations that contributed to the successful completion of the Convention to sign the instrument as soon as possible to facilitate its early entry into force.

　

2.3 The delegation of Australia stated that the Decision VI/23 of the Convention on Biological Diversity adopted at the 6th Conference of Parties in April 2002 and referred to in the Preamble of the Ballast Water Convention was not considered validly adopted as Australia formally objected to its adoption at the April 2002 meeting. Australia objected on the basis that the Guiding Principles included in the Decision contained language that could be misused for trade protectionist purposes. Australia's position was that one formal objection to a proposed decision at a Conference of Parties was sufficient to prevent that proposal from being adopted by consensus. Australia advised the Committee of the likelihood that should it ratify or accede to the Ballast Water Management Convention an interpretative statement similar to the present one would be lodged.

　

2.4 The United States associated itself with the Statement made by Australia and brought to the attention of the Committee that the CBD Bureau attaches a footnote to all references to Decision VI/23 to reflect the reservations of some CBD representatives regarding the procedures leading to the adoption of that decision.

　

2.5 The Committee took note of the interpretative statement of Australia and the information provided by the United States regarding the footnote of Decision IV/23.

　

　

2.6 The Committee agreed to concentrate at this session on the development and approval of an Action Plan in preparation for implementation of the Ballast Water Convention on the basis of document MEPC 51/2 concerning the "Outcome of the International Conference on Ballast Water Management for Ships and Follow-up Action"

　

2.7 The delegation of Brazil expressed the view that the list of guidelines contained in Resolution 1 did not include any reference to emergency situations and proposed to develop such guidelines.

　

2.8 The Committee agreed to instruct the Working Group to consider the development of such guidelines together with the guidelines for "Additional Measures" under Regulation C-1.

　

2.9 The Committee noted the following views on the outcome of the Diplomatic Conference and the suggested follow-up action:

　

2.10 The Committee agreed to re-convene the Ballast Water Working Group under the Chairmanship of Mr. Mike Hunter (United Kingdom) with the following terms of reference:

　

　

2.11 Having considered the report of the Working Group (MEPC 51/WP.4), the Committee:

　

2.12 The delegation of Saudi Arabia invited the Committee to note the development, by one of its shipping companies, of a method for built-in ballast water exchange and their intention to submit a detailed paper in this respect to the DE Sub-Committee.

　

3.1 The Committee recalled that MEPC 49 finalized the IMO Guidelines on Ship Recycling, which were subsequently adopted at the twenty-third session of the Assembly by resolution A.962(23).

　

3.2 The Committee further recalled that MEPC 49, having considered and approved a list of future work items on ship recycling (MEPC 49/22/Add.1, annex 4) agreed, in principle, to establish at this session a working group to continue its work on ship recycling.

　

3.3 The Committee also recalled that MEPC 50, having realized that the amendments to MARPOL Annex I in the wake of Prestige would increase the number of the vessels to be recycled within a specific period of time, which implies an increased need for ship recycling facilities and capabilities, adopted resolution MEPC.113(50) recommending that initiatives should be taken to maintain adequate ship recycling facilities at world-wide level and to promote research and development programmes to improve environment and safety level in ship recycling operation.

　

　

3.4 The Committee noted the outcome of the twenty-third session of the Assembly concerning the IMO Guidelines on Ship Recycling, as reported in paragraphs 6 to 9 of document MEPC 51/11/4, and agreed to take it into consideration during its deliberations on this issue.

　

　

3.5 The Committee noted document MEPC 51/3/1 by the Secretariat listing the future work items on ship recycling, as approved by MEPC 49, and considered submissions on this issue by Canada (MEPC 51/3/2), Japan (MEPC 51/3/4), France (MEPC 51/3/5) and Greenpeace International (MEPC 51/3/6 and MEPC 51/INF.11).

　

3.6 The Committee considered document MEPC 51/3/2, submitted by Canada, providing further technical details and advice to assist in developing a Ship Recycling Plan in accordance with section 8.3.2.6 of the IMO Guidelines on Ship Recycling and agreed to refer it to the working group for further consideration and adjustment in order that the technical considerations for the preparation of a ship for recycling, contained in this document, be in full compliance with the provisions of the Guidelines.

　

3.7 Japan, in its document MEPC 51/3/4, provided comments and proposals on the method to be applied for the consideration of the mechanisms or measures to promote the implementation of the IMO Guidelines on Ship Recycling. In Japan's view, the implementation of the Guidelines could be promoted by different mechanisms depending on the characteristics of each action item provided for in the Guidelines, taking into account the practicability of each proposed mechanism as well as a cost-benefit analysis in comparison with possible alternatives. Examples of possible measures for promoting the implementation of some of the key action items are set out in annex 1 to document MEPC 51/3/4. Japan stressed also that in case a mandatory scheme were regarded as necessary then its application would necessitate a careful consideration of a number of issues and parameters such as those listed in annex 2 to this document.

　

3.8 The majority of the delegations who spoke supported the proposal by Japan and considered it as a well-balanced approach offering a useful methodology for the Committee to efficiently progress the issue of ship recycling, especially on the consideration of possible mechanisms to promote the implementation of the Guidelines.

　

3.9 A substantial number of delegations, whilst not objecting to the basic principle behind the Japanese proposal, referred to the recent decision by the Assembly at its twenty-third session adopting the IMO Guidelines on Ship Recycling as a non-mandatory instrument and were of the opinion that any consideration on making the Guidelines mandatory is rather premature at this stage. They suggested that, until sufficient experience had been gained from their implementation, the Committee should refrain from considering the possibility of developing the Guidelines into a mandatory regime.

　

3.10 The Committee, after considerable discussion, agreed to instruct the working group to use the methodology and information provided in document MEPC 51/3/4 as the basis for further consideration in the group with the aim of identifying appropriate mechanisms for promoting the implementation of each of the key action items of the Guidelines. The Committee instructed the working group to refrain, at this stage, from considering proposals on making the Guidelines or some parts of them mandatory. However, in case a mandatory scheme were regarded as the only suitable option for the implementation of a specific action item of the Guidelines then this should be brought to the attention of the Committee for its consideration.

　

3.11 France (MEPC 51/3/5) proposed the compulsory preparation of ships destined for recycling, including the removal of hazardous waste, the introduction of a mandatory requirement for the flag State to issue a "certificate of preparation for recycling" for every ship which is nearby the recycling facility waiting to be scrapped. Making the "Green passport" compulsory for all ships was also proposed so that this document could be checked during port State control. As a precondition for requiring a "certificate of preparation for recycling", France suggested the introduction by the recycling State of a licensing system authorizing the operation of only those recycling facilities having the capability to recycle a ship in an environmentally sound way. France considered also that international co-operation and assistance is necessary to improve infrastructure and working practices in the recycling facilities and proposed that the establishment of an international co-operation fund, financed by the fines imposed in cases of non-compliance with the requirements for ship preparation, should be examined.

　

3.12 In introducing document MEPC 51/3/6, the observer from Greenpeace International expressed the view that neither the IMO Guidelines on Ship Recycling nor the Industry Code of Practice on Ship recycling are adequate to protect workers or the environment at recycling facilities since neither text contained effective mechanisms to monitor or ensure compliance and, in addition, both documents lacked real State involvement and basic elements such as the obligation for shipowners to report on the "export" of the vessel and the presence of hazardous materials. Document MEPC 51/INF.11, submitted by Greenpeace, provided an analysis in support of its views that the IMO Guidelines were in conflict with the requirements of the Basel Convention and the principles and guidelines subsequently developed pursuant to its requirements. Greenpeace, based on the results of its research in two shipbreaking countries which showed a lack of compliance with the already agreed voluntary measures within the shipping industry since 2001, invited the Committee to carry out the necessary preparation work and assessments to turn the Guidelines into a mandatory regime and proposed the introduction of an effective reporting system for ships destined for recycling requiring State involvement and the submission of specific documentation.

　

3.13 The Committee, having noted the proposals contained in documents MEPC 51/3/5 and MEPC 51/3/6, agreed to refer these documents to the working group to be considered during the group's deliberations on the identification of the mechanisms to promote the implementation of the Guidelines and on the development of detailed criteria for ships to be declared "Ready for Recycling", on the understanding that elements of these proposals related to the mandatory application of the Guidelines and on legal issues should be set aside for the time being, and that the discussion should focus on technical matters associated with the practical application of the Guidelines.

　

　

3.14 The Committee recalled that MEPC 49 agreed that the IMO Secretariat should continue a close liaison role and dialogue with ILO and the Basel Convention Secretariats on the issue of ship recycling.

　

3.15 The Committee further recalled that with regard to the request of the sixth meeting of the Conference of Parties to the Basel Convention to the Secretariat of the Basel Convention (SBC) to explore the development of an inter-agency technical assistance project on ship dismantling together with IMO and ILO, and to consider the establishment of a joint working group with IMO and ILO as a means of achieving a common understanding of the problem and character of the required solutions, MEPC 49 was, in principle, supportive of these proposals and requested the Secretariat to liase with ILO and the SBC in order to prepare draft project objectives for the inter-agency technical assistance project and draft terms of reference for the joint working group for consideration at this session.

　

3.16 The Secretariat introduced document MEPC 51/3 presenting the report of the joint meeting between the Secretariats of the IMO, ILO and the Basel Convention which was held at the ILO Headquarters in Geneva from 13 to 14 January 2004, in order to advance the inter-agency co-operation on the issue of ship recycling and, in particular, to consider the proposal for a Joint ILO/IMO/Basel Convention Working Group on Ship Recycling and the issue of inter-agency technical assistance.

　

3.17 The representative of the Secretariat of the Basel Convention expressed the view that in the last few years the relevant bodies of IMO, ILO and the Basel Convention have worked hard to deliver high quality input into the preparation of technical guidelines that provide the most comprehensive worldwide set of preventive and protective measures for the recycling of ships. The co-operation between IMO, ILO and the Basel Convention has been instrumental and essential to build the required coherence at the international level in order to improve the protection of human health and the environment at ship recycling facilities and to mobilise the resources to achieve these goals. It was also stated that ship recycling will remain a priority on the international agenda and, therefore, this fruitful co-operation should continue in order to meet the challenges ahead for the benefit of people and the environment.

　

3.18 The Committee, having considered the report of the joint meeting between the Secretariats of the IMO, ILO and the Basel Convention (document MEPC 51/3), agreed to the establishment of a Joint ILO/IMO/Basel Convention Working Group which should act as a platform for consultation, co-ordination and co-operation in relation to the work programme and activities of ILO, IMO and the Conference of Parties to the Basel Convention with regard to issues related to ship recycling. The Joint Working Group should pursue a co-ordinated approach to the relevant aspects of ship recycling with the aim of avoiding duplication of work and overlapping of responsibilities and competencies between the three Organizations.

　

3.19 It was also agreed that the Joint ILO/IMO/Basel Convention Working Group should not be construed as taking precedence or superseding the Committee's working group on ship recycling, which should continue to work on matters referred to it by the Committee on the issue of ship recycling.

　

3.20 With regard to the terms of reference and the working arrangements for the Joint ILO/IMO/Basel Convention Working Group, the Committee instructed the working group to consider the relevant proposals, as contained in paragraphs 9 to 12 of the annex to document MEPC 51/3 and put forward to the Committee any necessary fine-tuning.

　

　

3.21 The Committee noted Decision II/4 on the "Legal aspects of the full and partial dismantling of ships", adopted by the Open-ended Working Group (OEWG) of the Basel Convention at its second session.

　

　

3.22 The Committee noted also the outcome of the ILO Interregional Tripartite Meeting of Experts on Safety and Health in Shipbreaking for Selected Asian Countries and Turkey, held in Bangkok (7-14 October 2003), as presented in document MEPC 51/INF.4 and, in particular, the adoption of the draft text on Safety and health in shipbreaking: Guidelines for Asian countries and Turkey.