3.23 Following the above discussion, the Committee agreed to establish the working group on ship recycling with the following terms of reference:

　

　

3.24 The Working Group on Ship Recycling met on 30 and 31 March 2004 under the chairmanship of Captain Moin Ahmed (Bangladesh). Having received the report of the Group (MEPC 51/WP.5), the Committee took the following actions.

　

　

3.25 The Committee noted that the Group considered the terms of reference of the Joint ILO/IMO/Basel Convention Working Group (hereafter referred to as the Joint WG), as proposed in paragraph 9 of the annex to document MEPC 51/3, and made some minor editorial amendments. The text as amended by the Group is set out at annex.

　

3.26 The Committee noted also that a number of delegations in the Group, taking into account that the Joint WG 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 ILO, IMO and the Conference of Parties to the Basel Convention, expressed the view that there is a need for further review and clarification of the various responsibilities and competencies of the three Organizations with regard to ship recycling.

　

3.27 With regard to the working arrangements for the Joint WG, proposed in paragraphs 10 and 11 of the annex to document MEPC 51/3, the Committee noted that the Group agreed that participation in the Joint WG should ensure representation of all geographical regions of the world with an interest in the subject matter as well as representation of all countries with various positions and concerns on the issue of ship recycling such as those with shipping, shipbuilding and ship recycling interests.

　

3.28 It was also noted that the Group, taking into account the need to ensure an efficient and cost-effective working arrangement, agreed to suggest that five countries should be appointed from each Organization to participate in the Joint WG with the understanding that representatives of other Member States, and intergovernmental or non-governmental organizations may attend the Joint WG and participate as observers.

　

3.29 The Committee noted also the Group's suggestion that the Joint WG's reports should be posted to the public web site of the three Organizations in order to be easily and timely accessible to all interested parties.

　

　

3.30 The Committee noted that the Group, using as a basis the methodology suggested in document MEPC 51/3/4 submitted by Japan, prepared, as a starting point, an initial list of key action items provided for in the Guidelines and developed a set of possible mechanisms for the promotion of their implementation, identifying also the responsible stakeholders.

　

3.31 The Committee noted also that the outcome of the Group's work on this issue, which is set out at annex 2 to document MEPC 51/WP.5, should be considered as a starting point for the future work that is needed in order to prepare a comprehensive analysis of all the possible and suitable mechanisms for the promotion of the implementation of all the key action items provided for in the Guidelines and the subsequent development of the identified mechanisms.

　

3.32 It was also noted that the Group, in order to facilitate the earliest possible implementation of the Guidelines, in particular the recommendations set out in paragraph 8.1.3, agreed to recommend to the Committee to invite recycling States to provide information about the point of contact for the competent authorities for issues related to ship recycling.

　

　

3.33 With regard to the development of further technical considerations to assist in developing a ship recycling plan, the Committee noted that the Group, in considering document MEPC 51/3/2 submitted by Canada, agreed that although the technical considerations proposed in this document contained a lot of useful information and advice, further work was needed in order that these considerations be suitably adjusted to the particular characteristics of the ship recycling operations and to the relevant provisions of the Guidelines.

　

3.34 The Committee noted the view of the Group that the technical considerations to be developed in order to assist in the preparation of the ship recycling plan should reflect that this plan is to be developed by the recycling facility in consultation with the shipowner, and that they should contain an element of flexibility in order to accommodate the various scenarios and situations that may be applicable in the ship recycling process such as specific contract provisions, the location where the ship preparation will take place, the ship's final voyage and the capabilities of the recycling facility for the handling of hazardous materials.

　

3.35 The Committee noted also that the Group, having agreed to consider first the basic contents of a ship recycling plan and identify the necessary accompanying technical data and advice, developed, as a starting point, a draft skeleton for the ship recycling plan, outlining its basic contents, which is set out at annex 3 to document MEPC 51/WP.5. The Committee noted further that the contents of this draft skeleton are illustrative and that further work is needed for their finalization.

　

　

3.36 With regard to Appendices 1 to 3 of the Guidelines, the Committee noted that the Group, having acknowledged that the review and further development of these Appendices should be mainly based on the experience gained in the implementation of the Guidelines, agreed to suggest to the Committee to invite the ship recycling and shipping industry and other stakeholders to submit to the Committee any information on the practical implementation of the provisions of the Guidelines with regard to the identification of potentially hazardous materials on board ships and the preparation of the relevant inventory.

　

3.37 The Committee noted also that the Group agreed that, based on any information provided, further work may be needed for the review and the consideration of the need for any further development of these Appendices.

　

　

3.38 Regarding the criteria for ships to be declared "Ready for recycling", the Committee noted that the Group had an in-depth discussion on this issue and that it was generally acknowledged that these criteria should be applied by the Administration and that, as provided for in paragraph 9.2.1 of the Guidelines, the basic criteria would be the work to prepare a ship for recycling in accordance with section 8 of the Guidelines.

　

3.39 The Committee further noted that a number of delegations in the Group suggested that it would be rather premature, at this stage, to develop a set of these criteria and that, as a result of the discussion, the Group agreed that further work is needed for the consideration of the approach for and the subsequent development of such criteria.

　

　

3.40 The Committee noted that the Group briefly considered a proposal by India on the introduction of a specific ship reporting system for ships destined for recycling and that, taking into account the limited time available and the significant number of important and complex issues involved, the Group invited India to submit its proposal for an in-depth consideration to the correspondence group proposed in paragraph 8.1 of document MEPC 51/WP.5.

　

　

3.41 The Committee noted that the Group considered the proposed framework of inter-agency technical assistance on the issue of ship recycling, as contained in paragraphs 18 and 19 of the annex to document MEPC 51/3, and having expressed its support for the proposals, invited the Committee to endorse them.

　

　

3.42 The Committee approved the report of the Working Group (MEPC 51/WP.5) in general and, in particular:

　

3.43 The Committee, in response to the objection expressed by IACS on the inclusion at this stage of the Classification Societies as a "stakeholder" in the table of "Possible mechanisms and measures to promote the implementation of the IMO Guidelines on Ship Recycling" contained in annex 2 of document MEPC 51/WP.5, invited IACS to participate and submit its views to the intersessional correspondence group.