|
8.46 The Committee noted that the Group, in undertaking the review of the proposed PSSA for the Baltic Sea area, had commented as follows:
.1 the Group found that the application, as well as further information provided, met all but one of the ecological criteria in the PSSA Guidelines as shown in annex 3 to the Group's report;
.2 in relation to the identified vulnerability of the area from international shipping activities, the Group noted that the area was vulnerable to transport of oil and hazardous noxious substances carried as cargo and bunker oils, as well as that the existing traffic volume and its projected increase creates a risk to the area;
.3 the Group noted that a legal basis is required for any APM to address the identified vulnerability. In relation to the question of any IMO measures already in place to protect the area from the identified vulnerability, Sweden indicated that all existing measures together (e.g., 15 traffic separation schemes) served to protect the whole Baltic Sea area. The Group noted the specific information given on each of the existing IMO measures and agreed that such information should generally be provided in future applications. Sweden indicated that no new APMs had been included in the current application but that the Baltic States would submit such proposals to the NAV Sub-Committee in 2005 with the appropriate legal basis;
.4 in relation to the description of the proposed PSSA, Sweden provided additional information with the assistance of the Secretariat. The Group noted that some of the co-ordinates of the proposed PSSA might need to be re-examined and the map included in document MEPC 51/8/1, annex 4, may need to be corrected;
.5 in relation to vessel traffic characteristics, the Group noted the additional information provided. However, one delegation considered that there was still insufficient information on this criterion; and
.6 no determination was given to the questions 5.3 to 5.6 of the review form since no new APM was proposed. The Group agreed that, in future applications, it should be specified how existing and proposed APMs would apply to ships, to link such measures with the identified vulnerability.
8.47 Having noted the above comments, the Committee:
.1 noted, in general, the discussion and results of the Informal Technical Group and approved its report;
.2 approved in principle the designation of the waters of the Canary Islands as a PSSA, and noted that Spain would submit detailed proposals for the APMs to the NAV Sub-Committee in 2005, which should provide recommendations to the Committee; and
.3 approved in principle the designation of the Galapagos Archipelago as a PSSA, and noted that Ecuador would submit detailed proposals for the APM to the NAV Sub-Committee in 2005, which should provide recommendations to the Committee.
8.48 Having noted the report of the Informal Technical Group with regard to the proposed PSSA designation of the Baltic Sea area, the delegation of the Russian Federation queried how the report of the Group should be seen in the light of the PSSA Guidelines under resolution A.927(22), in particular, the duty under the Guidelines to consider all interests thoroughly (paragraph 1.4(b)), and to consult between States with a common interest in a particular area for formulation of a co-ordinated PSSA proposal (paragraph 3.1).
8.49 The delegation of the Russian Federation further advised the Committee not to approve in principle the designation of the Baltic Sea area as a PSSA as this would ignore the interests of the Russian Federation. It preferred PSSA designation for parts of the Baltic Sea but not for the Baltic Sea as a whole.
8.50 The delegation of Panama supported the views of the Russian Federation.
8.51 The delegation of Sweden informed the Committee that the Russian Federation had been consulted and invited to join in making the PSSA application, which had been noted in the report by the Group (MEPC 51/WP.9, annex 3, question 2.6), but that the Russian Federation had declined. The delegation reiterated that the Baltic States proposing the PSSA designation would provide the appropriate legal basis when submitting proposals for associated protective measures to the NAV Sub-Committee in 2005.
8.52 The Chairman stated that the Informal Technical Group had acted in accordance with the current PSSA Guidelines and advised the Committee to accept the Group's expertise in reviewing the applications.
8.53 Having noted the above comments, and the views of a majority of delegations, it was agreed to approve in principle the designation of the Baltic Sea area as a PSSA, and noted that the countries concerned would submit detailed proposals for APM(s) to the NAV Sub-Committee in 2005, which should provide recommendations to the Committee.
8.54 The delegation of the Russian Federation stated that this decision violated the PSSA Guidelines under resolution A.927(22) and was contrary to the spirit and practice of IMO. The delegation reserved its right not to implement this decision. As requested, the statement by the Russian delegation is attached at annex 8.
8.55 Finally, the Committee reiterated its decision that all future PSSA applications should include full and comprehensive information on the specific issues to comply with the PSSA Guidelines, including the legal basis for any APM and nautical charts on which the PSSA and any APMs are marked.
8.56 The delegation of Cuba expressed its appreciation that the Committee had approved in principle to designate the Galapagos Archipelago, the Canary Islands and the Baltic Sea as PSSAs.
9 INADEQUACY OF RECEPTION FACILITIES
9.1 The Committee recalled that, at MEPC 48, it noted that very few returns had been submitted to IMO on alleged inadequacy of reception facilities. It also noted that the overall purpose of making reports about waste reception facilities is to encourage improvement in the availability of the facilities to shipping and use by ships in order to minimize/prevent illegal discharge/dumping of waste materials as defined by MARPOL 73/78. As a result, the Committee instructed the FSI Sub-Committee to consider relevant issues, including the reporting procedure, in order to improve the situation.
9.2 The Committee recalled also that FSI 11 requested the Secretariat to prepare a document on waste reception facilities reporting requirements including availability, use and purpose of reporting as provided in Annexes I, II and V of MARPOL 73/78 and the Guidelines for ensuring the adequacy of port waste reception facilities for consideration by FSI 12, which was done as document FSI 12/18.
Outcome of FSI 12 on reception facilities
9.3 The Committee noted the report on the outcome of FSI 12 (MEPC 51/WP.11) concerning the present reporting system for port reception facilities under the provisions of MARPOL 73/78 and the Guidelines for ensuring the adequacy of port waste reception facilities adopted by resolution MEPC.83(44). FSI 12 also reviewed the summary of the reports received by the Organization in 2002 and 2003 on alleged inadequacy of port reception facilities in accordance with MEPC/Circ.349 as contained in the document FSI 12/3/2 prepared by the Secretariat.
9.4 The Committee also noted that FSI 12 agreed that the report format contained in MEPC/Circ.349 should be updated in order to include sewage (MARPOL Annex IV) and ozone-depleting substances and exhaust gas cleaning system residues (MARPOL Annex VI) and requested the Secretariat to prepare an appropriate submission for consideration at FSI 13.
9.5 The Committee noted further the low level of implementation of the existing reporting requirements in accordance with MEPC/Circ.349, as summarized in document MEPC 51/WP.11, and that FSI 12, with a view to promoting the implementation of waste reception facilities reporting requirements, requested the Secretariat:
.1 to prepare a draft MEPC circular, for consideration at FSI 13, listing the waste reception facilities reporting requirements based on the information contained in document FSI 12/18;
.2 to launch a study with the aim of identifying causes, problem areas and difficulties which may be accountable for the low level of implementation of the waste reception facilities reporting requirements and proposing measures to be taken in order to alleviate this problem and the results of this study should be submitted to FSI 13;
.3 to gather information with regard to linking the data on port reception facilities with the Global Integrated shipping Information System (GISIS), in order that information on the availability of waste reception facilities could be automatically updated by the reporting port States and made available to the IMO website as a close-to-real time data, and prepare an appropriate submission for consideration at FSI 13.
9.6 The delegation of Norway drew the attention of the Committee to document FSI 12/3/2 containing a summary of the reports received by the Organization in 2002 and 2003 on alleged inadequacy of port reception facilities, which also appeared in document FSI 12/WP.8, paragraph 3.10.
9.7 The delegation of Norway also indicated that only 19 reports had been received from four Member States over a two-year period concerning 19 ports, which did not fully match up with the information provided to IMO (FSI 12/3, annex 3). That delegation suggested that the Committee consider the issue of low reporting rate and requested flag States to urge their ships to report inadequacies and, in turn, report this to the Committee.
9.8 The delegation of Panama indicated that at FSI 12, one of the identified causes for the low reporting rate by ships was the perceived "fear of retaliation" for reporting alleged inadequacies of port reception facilities. The delegation of Liberia expressed the view that reporting the inadequacies of port reception should be made by the port State. The delegation of Australia pointed out that the number of deliberate discharges of waste should also be considered in such reporting.
9.9 The Chairman observed that the full report of FSI 12 will be available before MEPC 52 and that the issue raised by the delegation of Norway will be revisited at MEPC 52 for consideration by FSI 13.
9.10 The Committee agreed to revisit the issue of reporting on alleged inadequacy of reception facilities at MEPC 52 and endorsed the instructions of FSI 12 to the Secretariat on the matter.
9.11 The Committee noted the statement of the delegation of Nigeria regarding the completion of a technical assistance project on port reception facilities carried out under the auspices of the IMO's ITCP.
HELCOM information system on waste reception facilities in Eastern Baltic Ports
9.12 The Committee noted the information provided by the Helsinki Commission (MEPC 51/INF.9) on the HELCOM information system on waste reception facilities in Eastern Baltic ports, which is a system that provides information on the possibilities to deliver ship-generated waste in approximately 100 ports in Denmark, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and the Russian Federation.
10 REPORTS OF SUB-COMMITTEES
Outcome of DSC 8
10.1 The Committee noted that the Sub-Committee on Dangerous Goods, Solid Cargoes and Containers (DSC) held it eighth session from 22 to 26 September 2003 and that its report had been circulated as DSC 8/15.
10.2 The Committee considered those issues referred to it by the Sub-Committee (MEPC 51/10) and took action as described hereunder.
10.3 The Committee agreed that the criteria adopted by the UN should also be adopted under MARPOL Annex III and reflected in the IMDG Code to define substances as hazardous to the aquatic (marine) environment.
10.4 In taking this decision, the Committee noted that the criteria, adopted by the UN TDG Sub-Committee, had been extracted from the GHS for defining products, which are Hazardous to the Aquatic Environment and deemed to be appropriate for the transport of packaged goods by all modes of transport.
10.5 The Committee agreed that chapter 2.9 of the proposed amendments to the IMDG Code, which were shown in square brackets in annex 6 to DSC 8/3/Add.1, should be deleted at this time, whilst recognizing that the amendments related to GMMOs and GMOs should be included in the text.
10.6 In this context, it was noted that chapter 2.9 of the proposed amendments to the IMDG Code included various aspects associated with the proposed new criteria for defining marine pollutants, which required consideration by the Committee before they could be included in the IMDG Code, and this was the reason for agreeing that the whole of chapter 2.9, other than the amendments related to GMOs and GMMOs, should deleted at this time, pending the decisions being made in relation to marine pollutants.
10.7 The Committee agreed that, until the issues associated with making appropriate amendments to the IMDG Code were resolved, it would be inappropriate to make recommendations for the associated amendments to MARPOL Annex III. In this context it was noted that DSC was still working on aspects associated with environmentally substances including the problem of defining which products should be labelled during transport.
10.8 The Committee also agreed that there would be no need to identify Severe Marine Pollutants once the criteria adopted by UNCOE on the transport of dangerous goods in compliance with the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals has also been adopted in the relevant IMO instruments.
10.9 In this context it was noted that DSC had recognized that the application of the GHS criteria to the IMO definition of Marine Pollutants would result in there being no need to distinguish Severe Marine Pollutants from the general definition of Marine Pollutants.
10.10 It was agreed that the deletion of Severe Marine Pollutants would have an effect on the International Convention relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Oil Pollution Casualties (1969) and the related Protocol (1973) which, at that time, applied to Severe Marine
Pollutants only but, in future would have to be amended to cover all Marine Pollutants. The Committee also noted that this issue would be brought to the attention of LEG 88.
10.11 It was recognized that the DSC Sub-Committee had noted the view of the Working Group on the Review of Annex III of MARPOL 73/78, established at its eighth session, that the identification of new substances as "Marine Pollutants", under the system adopted by the UNCOE on the transport of dangerous goods and the globally harmonized system of classification and labelling of chemicals in the 13th edition of the UN Recommendations on the transport of dangerous goods should be done by Self-Classification in general which was in line with the original concept of the new GHS system.
10.12 Having noted the views of the Sub-Committee, the Committee agreed that, at that time, there was no role for GESAMP/EHS to act as an advisory body when disagreements arose under the Self-Classification system. In this context, it was also noted that there had been general agreement between DSC and BLG, in that there was no role for GESAMP/EHS other than the one it was performing at that time.
10.13 The Committee also agreed that the points to be made to the UNCOE on the transport of dangerous goods and the globally harmonized system of classification and labelling of chemicals regarding the harmonization with aspects related to the definition of environmentally hazardous substances should include the following:
.1 IMO wishes to harmonize its criteria for defining Marine Pollutants with the UN TDG definition of environmentally hazardous substances;
.2 IMO is concerned about the UN TDG regulations under which many products in classes 1 to 9 are also deemed to be environmentally hazardous. This would not allow IMO to distinguish products in classes 1 to 9 as being marine pollutants for stowage requirements and reporting to authorities in the event of loss overboard. However, it was noted that the UN TDG Sub-Committee had since agreed that ALL substances, hazardous to the aquatic environment should be identified with a GHS label, whether they fall into Classes 1 to 8 or just Class 9; and
.3 IMO considers that it would be highly desirable for all modes of transport to bring the new criteria into force at the same time.
10.14 Having recognized the effects that the above changes would have on other IMO instruments, it was agreed that it would be more appropriate to consider such consequential amendments once the IMDG Code amendments had been finalized.
10.15 The Committee also agreed with the provisional timetable, as shown below, for amending the IMDG Code and MARPOL Annex III, whilst recognizing that this might need to be amended in light of the ongoing discussions on the issue.
PROVISIONAL TIMETABLE FOR THE REVISION OF ANNEX III
TO MARPOL 73/78 AND THE IMDG CODE
| Action to be taken |
Meeting |
Date |
| Agree the revised text of the IMDG Code and Annex III of MARPOL 73/78 |
DSC 9 |
September 2004 |
| Approve the revised text of the IMDG Code and Annex III of MARPOL 73/78 |
MEPC 52 |
October 2004 |
| Circulation of amendments to the IMDG Code and Annex III of MARPOL 73/78 by the Secretary-General |
|
November 2004 |
| Adoption of the amendments to the IMDG Code and Annex III of MARPOL 73/78 |
MEPC 53 |
July 2005 |
| Tacit acceptance of amendments to the IMDG Code and Annex III of MARPOL 73/78 |
|
April 2006 |
| Entry into force of the amendments to the IMDG Code and Annex III of MARPOL 73/78 |
|
October 2006* |
|
|
* In order to harmonize with other modes of transport, this date could be extended to January 2007.
|
|
