日本財団 図書館


8.30 The Informal Group further noted that the objective of this review was to clarify and, where appropriate, strengthen the PSSA Guidelines. To facilitate the work of the Correspondence Group, the Informal Group had a preliminary exchange of views on some of the questions raised in the submissions to MEPC 52 to develop a better understanding of these issues.
 
8.31 The points of discussion in the Informal Group were as follows:
 
.1 Should a proposing Member Government have to show clearly in its application the characteristics of a proposed area, how such characteristics are vulnerable to damage from international shipping, and how APMs would address that vulnerability?
 
.2 If there is not already an IMO measure within the proposed PSSA, should a Member Government be required to submit a proposal for an APM at the time of its application and, if so, should it be required to submit a draft of its APM proposal with its application? Should it be possible for the Committee to designate a PSSA in principle, either (1) by allowing a Member Government to submit an APM at a later time specified in the Guidelines or (2) when awaiting approval of an APM by a Sub-Committee, or Committee?
 
.3 Should the three options for establishing a legal basis for an APM as set forth in paragraph 7.4.2.1(a)2 of the PSSA Guidelines be clarified?
 
.4 Should a proposing Member Government be required to consider establishing core and buffer zones in its proposal?
 
.5 Should PSSA designation be allowed if there are already IMO measures in place to protect an area and which address the specific environmental vulnerabilities of the area? And, if there are such measures, should a proposing Member Government have to show that these measures are insufficient before a PSSA proposal can be considered?
 
.6 To what extent should an APM be linked to the size and location of the proposed PSSA?
 
.7 Should a proposing Member Government submit a separate proposal for its APM to the appropriate Sub-Committee or Committee?
 
.8 Should PSSA designation be allowed anywhere within a closed sea or semi-enclosed sea area without the consensus of all Member Governments that border that area?
 
.9 Should a proposing Member Government be asked to bring a full-scale nautical chart to MEPC upon which its proposal is marked?
 
.10 Should a proposing Member Government be asked to show that at least one criterion exists throughout the entire area, although not necessarily the same criterion throughout the entire area?
 
.11 Should the existing descriptive language regarding the ecological, socioeconomic, and scientific criteria be clarified? Should the scope of data required be more specified in the Guidelines?
 
.12 Should the ecological, socio-economic, and scientific criteria be prioritized and, if so, how?
 
.13 Should a PSSA application be referred to an independent scientific advisory body, such as GESAMP, to inform the Committee's decision regarding designation?
 
.14 Should the Guidelines include an invitation to those Member Governments that have a PSSA designated to provide the Organization, at a later specified time, with relevant information pertaining to the PSSAs?
 

2
(i) any measure that is already available in an existing instrument; or
(ii) any measure that does not yet exist but that should be available as a generally applicable measure and that falls within the competence of IMO; or
(iii) any measure proposed for adoption in the territorial sea or pursuant to Article 211(6) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

 
.15 Should there be a general reference to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea included in the Guidelines?
 
Action taken by the Committee
 
8.32 The Committee approved, in general, the report of the Informal Group on the PSSA Guidelines (MEPC 52/WP.12) and, in particular:
 
.1 established the intersessional Correspondence Group on the PSSA Guidelines and approved the terms of reference for the Group as set out in annex 15 (see also paragraph 8.27); and
 
.2 invited Member Governments and observers to submit by 15 November 2004 specific comments on the base document MEPC 52/8, taking into account documents MEPC 52/8/1, MEPC 52/8/2, MEPC 52/8/3, and MEPC 52/8/4, as well as the discussions and direction given in the report of this session to the Co-ordinator of the Correspondence Group.
 
8.33 The Committee noted that a "Technical Group on the PSSA Guidelines" would be convened at MEPC 53 to further the review at that session (see also item 20 of this report).
 
8.34 The Committee expressed its appreciation to the members of the Informal Group for their efforts and spirit of co-operation and, especially, to Ms. Johnson for the skilled and tactful manner in which she had guided the Group to a successful completion of this stage in the review of the PSSA Guidelines.
 
9 INADEQUACY OF RECEPTION FACILITIES
9.1 The Committee recalled that the Sub-Committee on Flag State Implementation, at its twelfth session (FSI 12), had considered an analysis of the present reporting system for port reception facilities and a summary of the reports on alleged inadequacy of port reception facilities received by the Organization in 2002 and 2003 in accordance with MEPC/Circ.349. The Sub-Committee agreed that the report format contained in MEPC/Circ.349 should be updated in order to include sewage (MARPOL Annex IV), 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.
 
9.2 The Committee also recalled that FSI 12 requested further the Secretariat to:
 
.1 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;
 
.2 prepare a draft MEPC circular, for consideration at FSI 13, listing the waste reception facilities reporting requirements; and
 
.3 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.
 
9.3 The Committee further recalled that, at its last session, it noted the outcome of FSI 12 on this issue and agreed to endorse the instructions given by the FSI Sub-Committee to the Secretariat.
 
9.4 The Secretariat informed the Committee that, on 7 July 2004, it circulated by means of MEPC/Circ.417, a questionnaire on the low level of reporting on alleged inadequacy of port reception facilities with the aim of utilizing the received information as background material for the study mentioned in paragraph 9.2.1 above.
 
9.5 In document MEPC 52/9, BIMCO, ICS, INTERTANKO and INTERCARGO expressed their concerns that the operation of many port reception facilities was still not conducted in accordance with the provisions of MARPOL 73/78. They were of the view that this situation was not only due to the lack of facilities, but also to the fact that port States and ports were introducing administratively burdensome and costly port reception facility fee schemes. Having stressed the fact that the ability for ships to comply with MARPOL 73/78 depends basically upon the availability of adequate reception facilities, they:
 
.1 urged all flag States to actively promote the reporting of alleged inadequacies in port reception facilities by ships, and to encourage shipmasters to use the current reporting form available in MEPC/Circ.349;
 
.2 encouraged States to take swift action to respond to MEPC/Circ.417 in order to facilitate the Organization's work on port reception facilities; and
 
.3 urged the port States to encourage their ports to make use of the available publications and guidelines, especially IMO resolution MEPC.83(44) "Guidelines for Ensuring the Adequacy of Port Waste Reception Facilities", in order to assess and assist ports in ensuring availability of adequate port waste reception facilities.
 
9.6 The Chairman stressed that the issue of the provision of adequate port reception facilities is of paramount importance for the successful implementation of the MARPOL Convention.
 
9.7 Having considered document MEPC 52/9 and the comments made in plenary, the Committee:
 
.1 strongly encouraged Member States, particularly those Parties to the MARPOL Convention as port States, to fulfil their treaty obligations on providing adequate reception facilities;
 
.2 agreed to await the outcome of FSI 13 on the issue of port reception facilities reporting requirements prior to giving it further consideration;
 
.3 urged Member Governments and interested intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations to respond to MEPC/Circ.417 (the deadline is 31 October 2004), so that the Secretariat can process and analyse the results of this enquiry for submission to FSI 13; and
 
.4 in view of the urgent and important need for the Committee to tackle the long-standing problem of the inadequacy of port reception facilities, invited submissions to MEPC 53 with the aim of identifying problem areas and developing a future action plan.
 
10 REPORTS OF SUB-COMMITTEES
10.1 The Committee noted that documents MEPC 52/10/2 (Outcome of NAV 50) and MEPC 52/10/3 (Australia and Papua New Guinea) were on the PSSA issue and had already been discussed under agenda item 8.
 
Outcome of FSI 12
 
10.2 The Committee noted that the FSI Sub-Committee held its twelfth session from 15 to 19 March 2004 and that its report had been circulated as FSI 12/22.
 
10.3 The Committee, recalling that MEPC 51 had considered urgent matters emanating from FSI 12, approved, in general, the report of that session (FSI 12/22) and, having noted MSC's relevant decisions, as outlined in document MEPC 52/11, took action on all remaining items (MEPC 52/10), as indicated hereunder.
 
10.4 The Committee noted the outcome of the analysis of the mandatory reports submitted by Parties to MARPOL 73/78 for 2002, in accordance with MEPC/Circ.318, and endorsed the instructions of FSI 12 to the Secretariat to prepare a FSI circular urging Member States to fulfil their reporting requirements and to update the list on the status of mandatory reports under MARPOL 73/78 to show which Parties had submitted their reports for the last five years and which Parties had failed to do so.
 
10.5 In the context of the FSI Sub-Committee's consideration of the difficulties encountered by Member States in the conduct of casualty investigations and the ways in which this Organization could provide the necessary assistance, the Committee endorsed the decision of FSI 12 that the technical co-operation programmes should not necessarily focus on the conduct of the investigation itself but on the means to communicate with the Organization, in general, and, in particular, on reporting the requested findings.
 
10.6 As requested by the FSI Sub-Committee, the Committee, in order to assist the Organization in receiving the information needed on casualties, endorsed the Sub-Committee's reminder to Member States on the provision of casualty-related information, and invited Members to:
 
.1 ensure that the information on reports of marine casualties and incidents are provided to the Secretariat in accordance with the reporting requirements and the revised format annexed to MSC/Circ.953-MEPC/Circ.372;
 
.2 provide information on whether the human element was an underlying cause of a casualty or injury;
 
.3 provide the Secretariat with information on the number of fishing vessels, fishermen, total losses and lives lost, so that updated information on the matter can be incorporated in the relevant circulars;
 
.4 provide the Secretariat with preliminary information on casualties derived from RCCs, according to MSC/Circ.802-MEPC/Circ.332, to enable the Organization to release timely and accurate information on casualties;
 
.5 indicate in the reports of investigations into casualties whether fraudulent certificates have been involved; and
 
.6 submit reports involving thermal oil systems accidents.
 
10.7 The Committee agreed to the proposed amendments to MSC/Circ.953-MEPC/Circ.372 on Reports on marine casualties and incidents, set out in annex 1 to FSI 12/22, and endorsed the instruction of FSI 12 to the Secretariat to prepare a new MSC/MEPC circular, incorporating the proposed amendments and the DE Sub-Committee's comments on the proposed life-saving appliance casualty record, as appropriate, for submission to MSC 80 and MEPC 53 for approval.
 
10.8 The Committee noted the outcome of the consideration by FSI 12 of the report of the 2nd IMO Workshop for Port State Control MoU (Agreement) Secretaries and Directors of Information Centres regarding the potential needs for additional training to be organized for PSCOs. The Committee also noted that the 3rd Workshop on the same issue, which was held at IMO in June 2004, reaffirmed this perspective.
 
10.9 The Committee, having agreed that it would be appropriate to start the training of PSCOs for implementation of MARPOL Annexes IV and VI, the 2001 AFS Convention and the BWM Convention, agreed that this training should be included in the future thematic priorities of the Organization's Integrated Technical Co-operation Programme and invited TCC to consider making adequate provisions within the ITCP. The Committee also invited donors, international organizations and the shipping industry to contribute financial, human and/or in-kind resources to the ITCP for these activities.
 
10.10 The Committee, subject to the concurrence of MSC, approved the draft MSC/MEPC circular on Transfer of ships between States.
 
10.11 The Committee agreed to the draft amendments to the Guidelines for the authorization of organizations acting on behalf of the Administration (resolution A.739(18)), as set out in annex 5 to FSI 12/22.
 
10.12 The Committee concurred with the decision of MSC 78 to endorse the agreement of the FSI Sub-Committee to commence the revision of the Revised Guidelines on the Implementation of the ISM Code by Administrations (resolution A.913(22)) at FSI 13.
 
10.13 The Committee noted the course of action taken by the FSI Sub-Committee on the future development of a draft MSC/MEPC circular on carriage requirements of the publications on board ships.
 
10.14 The Committee agreed with the FSI Sub-Committee's recommendation that the one-week course on flag State implementation be included in the IMO Programme of Model Courses, thereby ensuring that it is regularly updated, translated into French and Spanish and made available to all. In this connection, noting that translation of the course into Arabic would also benefit many countries, the Committee agreed that this issue could be raised in Council when addressing the matter of languages at C 93.
 
10.15 The Committee noted that, following the adoption of resolution A.948(23) on the Revised Survey Guidelines under the Harmonized System of Survey and Certification, FSI 12 agreed that timely preparation of relevant amendments to the Guidelines based on new requirements should become a priority under the FSI Sub-Committee's relevant work programme item.
 
10.16 In this context, the Committee endorsed the FSI Sub-Committee's instruction to the Secretariat to prepare, for every session, a list of requirements which were adopted during the intersessional period, in order to allow the identification of those which might necessitate the preparation of appropriate amendments to the Survey Guidelines under the HSSC.
 
10.17 The Committee, subject to the concurrence of MSC, approved the draft MSC/MEPC circular on Marking the ship's plans, manuals and other documents with the IMO ship identification number, having amended the application date from 1 January 2005 to 1 July 2005.
 
10.18 Regarding the issue of the IMO unique company and registered owner identification number scheme, the Committee noted that MSC 78:
 
.1 adopted resolution MSC.160(78) on Adoption of the IMO unique company and registered owner identification number scheme; and
 
.2 approved Circular letter No.2554 on Implementation of the IMO unique company and registered owner identification number scheme.
 
10.19 In agreeing in principle to the FSI Sub-Committee's draft objectives and terms of reference, the Committee noted that neither these nor the terms of reference for the other sub-committees contained environmental protection elements, and that all them should have the same format. The Committee agreed to request the Maritime Safety Committee to take these issues into account when reviewing the terms of reference of the sub-committees.
 
10.20 The FSI Sub-Committee's proposed revised work programme and the provisional agenda for FSI 13 were dealt with under agenda item 20.
 
Review of the Code for the investigation of marine casualties and incidents
 
10.21 The Committee noted that document MEPC 52/10/1 contained a proposal by Australia, Canada and Vanuatu, submitted to MSC 79 (MSC 79/20/4) to amend the Code for the Investigation of Marine Casualties and Incidents adopted by resolution A.849(20), and a request was made to task the FSI Sub-Committee to conduct the review over its next two sessions (FSI 13 and FSI 14).
 
10.22 Following some debate as to the appropriateness of considering a document submitted to a forthcoming session of the MSC, the Committee recalled that, in adopting resolution A.849(20), the Assembly had recognized the recommendations made by both Committees and, therefore, the contents of document MSC 79/20/4 should have also been submitted to the MEPC for consideration. Members were requested to observe the Guidelines on the organization and method of work when submitting proposals which should be considered by both Committees.
 
10.23 Notwithstanding the above, and in order to expedite the revision of the Code, the Committee agreed that the proposals should be forwarded to the FSI Sub-Committee for consideration subject to the concurrent decision of MSC 79 and that, if MSC 79 decided to add a new item to the work programme of the Sub-Committee to enable it to carry out the revision work, the Committee would have no objection.


前ページ 目次へ 次ページ





日本財団図書館は、日本財団が運営しています。

  • 日本財団 THE NIPPON FOUNDATION