11.1 Under this agenda item, the Committee had before it eight documents: MEPC 52/11, MEPC 52/11/1, MEPC 52/11/2, MEPC 52/11/3, MEPC 52/11/4, MEPC 52/11/5, MEPC 52/11/6 and MEPC 52/INF.2, all submitted by the Secretariat reporting on the outcomes of MSC, TCC, Council, FAL, LEG as well as GESAMP and GMA.

　

　

11.2 In documents MEPC 52/11/1 and MEPC 52/INF.2 concerning the "New GESAMP, Science for Sustainable Oceans", the Committee was invited to review the direction which the Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection (GESAMP) was planning to take and to reflect on IMO's interests in GESAMP.

　

11.3 The Committee noted that GESAMP, as the joint advisory body for the UN system, had provided independent scientific advice on marine pollution and marine environmental protection issues since 1969. Since then it had produced 43 reports on technical topics related to marine pollution, protection and conservation and four global state of the marine environment reports, which give an authoritative reference when assessing the effectiveness of international agreements such as MARPOL 73/78. IMO had fulfilled, since the early 1970s, the Administrative Secretariat function for and on behalf of all Sponsors of GESAMP and was also a regular user of GESAMP's advice. At the request of the Committee, the GESAMP/EHS Working Group had continually evaluated, since 1974, the hazards of noxious liquid substances and had thus been instrumental in assisting the Committee with its review of MARPOL Annexes II and III. In fact, the Committee not only requested GESAMP to prepare the three oil reports listed in paragraph 6 of document MEPC 52/11/1, but also the reference document for all the work done in the GESAMP/EHS Group, which was published in 2002 as the "Revised GESAMP Hazard Evaluation Procedure for Chemical Substances Carried by Ships" (GESAMP Reports & Studies No.64). In other words, IMO had benefited substantially from GESAMP.

　

11.4 The Committee noted also that the strategic vision for the New GESAMP (MEPC 52/INF.2) provided concrete mechanisms to ensure GESAMP's professionalism, including its effectiveness, efficiency, transparency, and accountability. A GESAMP Office would be established to provide centralized management and a focal point for its interaction with governments and other major groups. The IAEA had offered to host the GESAMP Office at its Marine Environment Laboratory facilities in Monaco, as well as covering the overhead costs. A "Pool of Experts" would be set up as the primary mechanism for participation in GESAMP. Participation of pool experts in GESAMP's work would actively engage a large number of scientists from governments, NGOs and industry, enhancing GESAMP's interactions with these groups. In keeping with its strategic vision and mission statement, GESAMP had offered to play a lead role in the organization of the scientific work of the so-called GMA-process.

　

11.5 The Committee was made aware that the Joint Secretariat of GESAMP had developed a draft Memorandum of Understanding to govern it (MEPC 52/11/1, annex 2) and noted that this new MoU could become a binding agreement to be approved, as necessary, by all sponsors.

　

11.6 The Committee noted further that GESAMP's core activities would be financed from a Trust Fund, with an initial yearly budget of $600,000. The current contribution by IMO to GESAMP was indicated in paragraph 14 of the document under review. Compared with the contributions from most other sponsors, IMO was a major contributor to GESAMP. Nonetheless, combining all the contributions of the current sponsors amounted to $200,000 annually, resulting in a substantive shortfall of $400,000 each year. This meant that major new sponsors should be found within the UN system, through new partnerships or from other funding sources.

　

11.7 Following some debate on the above issues, the Committee reiterated its position that the work currently carried out by GESAMP was very important and useful to the work of IMO, in particular in its role as independent and impartial adviser when it evaluates the hazards of noxious liquid substances under MARPOL Annex II and the IBC Code. It, therefore, agreed that the arrangement should be guaranteed through the continuation of current funding.

　

11.8 Concerning the proposed New GESAMP, the Committee was not in a position to have a conclusive opinion on the new strategic vision and direction presented in documents MEPC 52/11/1 and MEPC 52/INF.2, since it needed more information and explanation on several issues, such as the need for more transparent budget appropriations with a clear itemized breakdown, as well as clear plans in the event that additional funding could not be secured. Therefore, at this stage, the Committee could not recommend to the Council to provide additional funding for the new GESAMP while these questions remained unanswered. The Secretariat was thus requested to collect the necessary information and advise MEPC 53 accordingly.

　

11.9 With regard to the draft Memorandum of Understanding for the New GESAMP shown in annex 2 to document MEPC 52/11/1, the Committee was of the view that it could be referred to the Council for further negotiation, but would not be recommended for signature until all the questions surrounding the New GESAMP had been answered. The Secretariat was requested to find out what the other sponsoring Organizations were doing in this respect and report the findings to the Council as soon as these were available.

　

　

11.10 In reviewing the progress made towards establishing "Global Marine Assessments" under the United Nations (MEPC 52/11/2), the Committee noted that the WSSD in 2002 had agreed to "establish by 2004 a regular process, under the United Nations, for global reporting and assessment of the state of the marine environment, including socio-economic aspects, both current and foreseeable, building on existing regional mechanisms", in short the "GMA-process". The UN General Assembly later had endorsed this activity and requested the UN Secretary-General to prepare a report on modalities for the GMA.

　

11.11 After a group of experts had prepared an initial draft document in March 2004 on the scope of the GMA-process, a general framework and outline of the regular process, peer review, secretariat, capacity building and funding issues, the group's report and the comments received thereon had been subsequently discussed at the GMA International Workshop, held in June 2004 in New York. At that occasion, Governments had had the first opportunity to discuss the practical implications of the GMA. There was wide support for the establishment of the GMA and general agreement on the principle of launching the start-up phase of the GMA-process, in particular a so-called "Assessment of Assessments". This would provide, inter alia, a critical appraisal of existing assessments from a variety of sources; would identify what had worked well; and would help States identify areas where quality data were available and those regions where data or institutional capacity for undertaking marine assessments needed to be improved.

　

11.12 However, the Committee noted that no agreement could be reached on the basic elements of this start-up phase, and that other important issues had not yet been discussed, such as (1) the costs of the start-up phase; (2) who would finance it; and (3) the timing of its implementation.

　

11.13 Following considerable discussion, the Committee noted the status report on the development of the GMA-process under the United Nations and, while welcoming the initiative in principle and being supportive of its aims and goals, considered that it was too early to give any firm views on the GMA-process itself, as so many issues on the scope of the process, the modalities, timing and funding arrangements were yet to be resolved.

　

11.14 Notwithstanding the above, the Committee noted that the GMA-process could play an important role in bringing marine science to bear effectively on policy makers, improve inter-agency co-operation within the UN System on marine issues and help capacity-building efforts in developing countries. It followed that IMO had an important role to play in the process of improving oceans management and, therefore, the Organization should take the opportunity to call for a dialogue on the GMA to be resumed at the UN General Assembly in 2004, with a view to developing, through appropriate and constructive negotiations, a common position setting out the modalities of establishing the GMA, including its scope and role vis-à-vis GESAMP.

　

11.15 The Committee was at the same time of the clear opinion that, in any event, any possible overlap or duplication of work between the GMA-process and GESAMP should be avoided and that GESAMP should be well positioned to co-operate with, and play an effective role in, the GMA-process.

　

　

11.16 The Committee noted that the seventy-eighth session of the Maritime Safety Committee was held from 12 to 21 May 2004 and its report on that session had been circulated as MSC 78/26. The issues of relevance to the Committee were summarized in document MEPC 52/11.

　

11.17 The Committee considered the issues of relevance to its work and, in particular, noted that MSC 78:

　

11.18 With regard to the work of the FSI Sub-Committee considered by MSC 78, and also acknowledging that many items had already been considered under agenda item 10, the Committee noted the action taken by MSC 78 in relation to the review of Survey Guidelines under the HSSC, Code for the Implementation of [mandatory] IMO instruments, carriage of publications on board ships and IUU fishing.

　

11.19 The Committee noted further that MSC 80, MEPC 53 and TCC 55 would be invited to consider the outcome of the Joint MSC/MEPC/TCC Working Group on Voluntary IMO Member State Audit Scheme (see also report under item 12).

　

11.20 The work on the human element, including arrangement of the meetings of the Joint MSC/MEPC Working Group on Human Element, is addressed under item 19 (Future role of Formal Safety Assessment and human element issues).

　

　

11.21 The Committee noted that the Technical Co-operation Committee held its fifty-fourth session (TCC 54) from 15 to 17 June 2004 and its report on that session had been circulated under the symbol TC 54/15. Those issues of interest to the MEPC concerning marine environment protection have been taken into account under agenda item 18 (Technical Co-operation Programme).

　

　

11.22 The Committee noted the outcome of the ninety-second session of the Council (21 to 25 June 2004) and that a summary of the decisions taken had been issued in document C 92/D. The outcome of C 92 on the issue of the Voluntary IMO Member State Audit Scheme is reported in document MEPC 52/12 and has been discussed under agenda item 12. The issue of news media attendance at IMO meetings is reported in document MEPC 52/23/2 and has been discussed under item 23. The other matters of interest to the Committee are summarized in document MEPC 52/11/4.

　

11.23 The delegation of the Russian Federation expressed the view that a comprehensive report should be made on the outcome of the Council. The delegation, having also appreciated the decision of the Council to continue the pilot scheme for the electronic access to certain IMO publications and extension of this scheme to all IMO official languages, drew the attention of the Committee to the absence on the IMO website of the ISM Code publication in the Russian language.

　

11.24 In particular, the Committee noted that the Council considered the report contained in documents C 92/7 and C 92/7/Add.1 (outcomes of MEPC 50 and MEPC 51, respectively), and decided to transmit these, with comments and recommendations to the Assembly. Additionally, the Council had also noted the Report on the 2004 International Conference on Ballast Water Management and authorized the Secretary-General to perform the functions requested of him by the Conference and under the Ballast Water Management Convention, and had recommended that Member States give serious consideration to ratifying the Ballast Water Management Convention and, as a first step, to signing the Convention.

　

　

11.25 The Committee noted that the Facilitation Committee (FAL) held its thirty-first session from 19 to 23 July 2004 and its report on that session had been circulated under the symbol FAL 31/20. Matters of relevance to the work of the Committee are summarized in document MEPC 52/11/5. The Committee noted, in particular, that the list of certificates and documents required to be carried on board ships and the work of the SPI Working Group have been considered under item 23 (Any other business).

　

　

11.26 The Committee noted that the eighty-eighth session of the Legal Committee (LEG 88) was held from 19 to 23 April 2004 and its report on that session had been circulated under the symbol LEG 88/13. Matters of relevance to the work of the Committee are summarized in document MEPC 52/11/6.

　

11.27 The Committee noted that LEG 88 had been informed that the UN body which oversees the transport of dangerous goods in all modes had been developing new criteria which could mean that the term "Severe Marine Pollutants" would no longer be used. No final decision had been taken, but it seemed likely that, in due course, an amendment would be made to the list of substances associated with the 1973 Intervention Protocol. In view of the fact that the MEPC performs functions on behalf of the Organization in relation to the 1973 Intervention Protocol, the Committee requested to be informed of the outcomes of the responsible UN body in this respect, so that it can take follow-up action, as appropriate.

　

12.1 The Committee recalled that MEPC 51 considered urgent matters emanating from the second session of the Joint MSC/MEPC/TCC Working Group on the Voluntary IMO Member State Audit Scheme (22 to 26 March 2004), and reported the outcome of its considerations to the Council.

　

12.2 The Committee noted that Council, at its ninety-second session (21 to 25 June 2004), considered the outcome of the second session of the Joint Working Group, including the outcome of the MEPC and MSC on the matter.

　

12.3 The Committee noted the decisions of the Council, in particular, on the following issues:

　

12.4 The Committee encouraged Members to participate in the next meeting of the Joint Working Group so as to provide contributions from an environmental point of view.

　

12.5 The Committee stressed the importance and timely completion of the draft Code for the implementation of [mandatory] IMO instruments as the Code would serve as the Audit Standard.