3.1 The Committee recalled that, at MEPC 51, it continued its work on ship recycling and established a working group, which considered a number of issues such as the inter-agency co-operation, the mechanisms to promote the implementation of the IMO Guidelines on Ship Recycling (hereafter referred to as the Guidelines), the development of a ship recycling plan, the review of Appendices 1 to 3 of the Guidelines and the criteria for ships to be declared "ready for recycling".

　

3.2 The Committee further recalled that MEPC 51, having considered the report of the Working Group on Ship Recycling (MEPC 51/WP.5), agreed to establish a correspondence group to further progress the work in the intersessional period and to re-establish the Working Group on Ship Recycling at this session.

　

3.3 The Committee also recalled that MEPC 51 approved the terms of reference (MEPC 51/22, annex 3) and the working arrangements for the 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 ship recycling issues.

　

　

3.4 In introducing the report of the Correspondence Group (MEPC 52/3), the co-ordinator of the Group, Captain Moin Ahmed (Bangladesh), stated that the Group, in accordance with its terms of reference (MEPC 51/22, annex 4), continued the preparation of a set of possible and suitable mechanisms for the promotion of the implementation of each of the key action items provided for in the Guidelines, developed further the ship recycling plan, agreed that a single and definite list of potentially hazardous substances should be developed replacing the existing Appendices 1, 2 and 3 of the Guidelines and, lastly, prepared an initial draft set of the criteria for ships to be declared "ready for recycling".

　

3.5 The Committee noted the report of the Correspondence Group and agreed to consider the actions requested of it once all the other documents, which were related to the work of the Correspondence Group, had been introduced.

　

3.6 In this regard, the Committee considered submissions by the Netherlands (MEPC 52/3/1), India (MEPC 52/3/4), Japan (MEPC 52/3/8), Greenpeace International (MEPC 52/3/2) and a joint submission by BIMCO, ICS, INTERCARGO, INTERTANKO and IPTA (MEPC 52/3/9).

　

3.7 The Netherlands (MEPC 52/3/1) proposed a phased approach to ship recycling in which the recycling process was separated into the phases of preparation, pre-cleaning, dismantling and deregistering. For each phase the introduction of a certification and a notification system was proposed with responsibilities specified for the last shipowner, the recycling yard and the competent authorities of the flag State and the recycling State.

　

3.8 India (MEPC 52/3/4) proposed an outline of a reporting system for ships destined for recycling involving the shipowner, the recycling yard and the competent authorities of the flag State, the recycling State and the port State(s) involved. India also advocated the necessity for the application of mandatory regulations in respect of ship recycling, especially for a reporting system when a ship is finally sent for recycling.

　

3.9 Japan, in its document MEPC 52/3/8, presented a summary of a research project to develop a system that could facilitate the preparation of the Green Passport and contribute to minimization of hazardous substances used in the construction of new ships through the development of hazardous material databases for ship equipment. The Committee noted the information provided and invited Japan to keep the Committee informed of the progress and the results of this project.

　

3.10 In introducing document MEPC 52/3/2, the observer from Greenpeace International argued for the immediate need of making certain aspects of the Guidelines mandatory, in particular the "green" or "environmental" design and construction, the Green Passport and the "gas-free ready-for-hot-work" certification. Greenpeace also provided comments with regard to the mechanisms for the promotion of the implementation of the Guidelines and proposed that issues such as the elimination of toxic inputs in new ships and the prior-decontamination, to the extent feasible, before recycling should also be included in the proposed actions. It was also proposed that a reporting system, with compulsory notification by shipowners, State involvement and the introduction of specific documentation that would be required prior to the final voyage of the vessel, should be established in accordance with the principles of the Basel Convention. Greenpeace International further expressed the view that some elements of the Guidelines were in conflict with the requirements of the Basel Convention and proposed that the Committee should start, on a priority basis, the consideration of these potential legal inconsistencies with the aim of achieving, through the inter-agency co-operation, a coherent and decisive global approach to the ship recycling issue.

　

3.11 The observer from ICS, in introducing document MEPC 52/3/9 on behalf of the co-sponsors, offered a number of comments on the proposed outline of a reporting system for ships destined for recycling submitted by India (MEPC 52/3/4) and proposed for consideration an alternative outline for this reporting system highlighting the corresponding reporting obligations of the recycling facility. ICS further stated that although the shipping industry organizations could, in principle, support a number of the objectives of the proposal put forward by India, considerable work remained to be done to make these objectives achievable.

　

3.12 The Committee, having noted that the report of the Correspondence Group and the related documents had identified a number of important issues for which further consideration and advice was needed before referring them to the working group, took action as follows.

　

　

3.13 The Committee, having noted that the Correspondence Group had developed a set of possible and suitable mechanisms for the promotion of the implementation of each of the key action items provided for in the Guidelines, identifying responsible stakeholders, and highlighting priorities, instructed the Working Group to consider the outstanding issues and questions for each implementation mechanism, as indicated in the column "Further Consideration on Possible Mechanisms" of the table set out in annex 1 of document MEPC 52/3 and to continue to refine the contents of this table.

　

　

3.14 The Committee recalled that at the twenty-third session of the Assembly a number of delegations expressed the view that the Committee, at some time in the future, should consider the possibility of developing a mandatory regime on ship recycling.

　

3.15 The Committee further recalled that MEPC 51 instructed the Working Group established at that session that in case a mandatory scheme was 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.

　

3.16 The Committee, having considered the need for developing mandatory measures for ship recycling, agreed that certain parts of the Guidelines might be given mandatory effect and instructed the Working Group to start identifying the elements of the Guidelines for which a mandatory scheme might be regarded as the most suitable option for their implementation. In this regard, the Committee agreed that the objective should not be to turn the Guidelines into a mandatory instrument but, at this stage, to identify which elements of the Guidelines could justify mandatory application with a view to developing mandatory measures.

　

3.17 The Committee, having taken into account the need for advance planning of the Organization's work plan and budgetary appropriations, instructed further the Working Group to give preliminary consideration on how the development of such a mandatory scheme could be achieved.

　

　

3.18 The Committee noted that proposals for the development of a "reporting system" for ships destined for recycling had been submitted in documents MEPC 52/3/1 (Netherlands), MEPC 52/3/2 (Greenpeace International), MEPC 52/3/4 (India) and MEPC 52/3/9 (BIMCO, ICS, INTERCARGO, INTERTANKO and IPTA).

　

3.19 The Committee, having noted that these proposals contain a number of different and in some cases divergent positions, agreed to refer them to the Working Group for further consideration. The Committee instructed the Working Group to start the development of an outline for a reporting system for ships destined for recycling, with the aim of developing a workable and effective reporting system, which would cater for the particular characteristics of world maritime transport.

　

　

3.20 The Committee, having noted that the latest working draft of the ship recycling plan was attached at annex 2 of the report of the Correspondence Group (MEPC 52/3), instructed the Working Group to continue its development and, if possible, to finalize it at this session.

　

　

3.21 The Committee in considering the outcome of the Correspondence Group on the review of Appendices 1, 2 and 3 of the Guidelines, agreed that a "single list" of potentially hazardous materials should be developed replacing the existing Appendices 1, 2 and 3. The "single list" would provide guidance on the identification of potentially hazardous materials on board ships and the preparation of the relevant inventories.

　

3.22 The Committee instructed the Working Group to consider the outstanding issues listed in annex 4 of the report of the Correspondence Group (MEPC 52/3) and, if time permitted, to start developing the "single list" of potentially hazardous materials.

　

3.23 Taking into account that the "single list" should replace the existing Appendices 1, 2 and 3 thus requiring an amendment to the Guidelines adopted by Assembly resolution A.962(23), the Committee agreed that any amendments to the Guidelines should be finalized and approved at MEPC 53 so as to be forwarded for adoption by the Assembly at the end of 2005.

　

　

3.24 The Committee, having noted the initial draft set of the criteria for ships to be declared "ready for recycling", set out at annex 5 of the report of the Correspondence Group, instructed the Working Group, if time permitted, to further develop these criteria.

　

　

3.25 In introducing document MEPC 52/3/3, the observer from Greenpeace International urged the Organization to start, as a matter of urgency, a review of the implementation of the Guidelines in the field by investigating whether, since their adoption, they had been applied in all cases where ships had been recycled. In addition, Greenpeace International proposed that the Committee should develop and explore actions and mechanisms that do not only promote implementation but also penalize parties that fail to comply with the Guidelines, leading to severe pollution and health damage of workers.

　

3.26 The Committee, having taken into account its earlier decisions on the issue of the mandatory application of some parts of the Guidelines, agreed that the proposed review of the implementation of the Guidelines was not deemed necessary at this stage.

　

3.27 The observer from ICS, in introducing document MEPC 52/3/9 on behalf of the Industry Working Party on Ship Recycling, expressed the Industry's concerns in respect of certain details of the Guidelines and recommended consideration of amendments to them in order that the Guidelines become more generally acceptable, practical, effective and be fully supported by the Industry.

　

3.28 The Committee, having noted the proposals contained in document MEPC 52/3/9, agreed to refer them to the Working Group for further consideration.

　

　

3.29 Bangladesh in its document (MEPC 52/3/6), taking into account that for some developing countries the implementation of the relevant guidelines on ship recycling would necessitate massive investment and that the transfer of technology or aid funding was necessary to improve the infrastructure and working practices in the recycling facilities, proposed the establishment of an International Ship Recycling Fund with the aim of facilitating the technical co-operation activities for capacity building and the necessary funding mechanisms.

　

3.30 The Committee, having considered the proposal by Bangladesh, agreed, in principle, to the need for the establishment of an International Ship Recycling Fund to promote the safe and environmentally sound management of ship recycling through the Organization's technical co-operation activities. However, it was agreed that the working arrangements and funding mechanism of such a Fund would require further consideration and clarification.

　

3.31 The Committee, having noted that the purpose of the Organization's Integrated Technical Co-operation Programme (ITCP) was to assist countries in building up their human and institutional capacities for uniform and effective compliance with the Organization's regulatory framework, agreed:

　

　

3.32 The Committee noted that document MEPC 52/3/7 submitted by the Secretariat of the Basel Convention summarized the developments that took place on the issue of ship dismantling at the third session of the Open-ended Working Group of the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal (OEWG 3), held in Geneva from 26 to 30 April 2004. In particular, OEWG 3 agreed to the terms of reference and working arrangements of the Joint ILO/IMO/BC Working Group on Ship Scrapping, as amended and agreed by MEPC 51. The Committee also noted that the issue of ship dismantling was included in the agenda of the seventh meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Basel Convention (COP 7) to be held from 25 to 29 October 2004.

　

3.33 The Secretariat informed the Committee about the latest developments with regard to inter-agency co-operation on ship recycling and, in particular, the arrangements for the first Joint ILO/IMO/BC Working Group on Ship Scrapping, scheduled to take place at IMO Headquarters from 15 to 17 February 2005.

　

3.34 India, taking into account that the Joint ILO/IMO/BC Working Group on Ship Scrapping 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 was a need for further review and clarification of the various responsibilities and competencies of the three Organizations and the appropriate terminology to be used with regard to ship recycling.

　

3.35 Japan, supported by the majority of delegations that spoke, commented on paragraph 6 of document MEPC 52/3/7 and expressed its concerns on the proposal under consideration at COP 7 under which the "flag State" is proposed to be regarded as the "State of export" for the purposes of the application of the Basel Convention. Japan, having stressed that the consideration of flag States responsibilities falls within the IMO competency, expressed the view that a firm decision should not be pursued at COP 7 without the prior consultation with the Organization through the Joint ILO/IMO/BC Working Group on Ship Scrapping.

　

3.36 Some delegations, in considering the views expressed by Japan, were of the view that the Committee in its deliberations on this issue should respect the competence of the Conference of Parties to the Basel Convention to consider and regulate issues related to the application of the Basel Convention.

　

3.37 The Committee, having decided that its views on this issue should be brought to the attention of COP 7, instructed the Working Group to draft appropriate text reflecting the Organization's position. The Committee further instructed the Secretariat to present the outcome of its consideration to COP 7 and to the first session of the Joint ILO/IMO/BC Working Group on Ship Scrapping.

　

3.38 The Committee noted document MEPC 52/INF.12 which provided the response made by the Industry Working Party on Ship Recycling to a request for comments by the Secretariat to the Basel Convention on the application of the Basel Convention to ships destined for recycling. It was also noted that the paper attached to document MEPC 52/INF.12, outlining the Industry's views that the Basel Convention did not apply to a ship on its way, under its own power, to the recycling facility which had purchased the vessel, had been submitted for consideration at COP 7.

　

　

3.39 Following the above discussion, the Committee agreed to establish the Working Group on Ship Recycling with the following terms of reference: