3.1 The Committee recalled that at its fifty-fourth session it established a working group on ship recycling, as a result of which the text of the first draft of the International Convention for the Safe and Environmentally Sound Recycling of Ships was developed on the basis of proposed text submitted as document MEPC 54/3 (Norway).

　

3.2 The Committee also recalled its agreement to having an intersessional Correspondence Group on Ship Recycling to further develop the draft Convention; to develop a provisional list of guidelines necessary under the draft Convention; and to submit a written report to the fifty-fifth session of the Committee.

　

3.3 The Committee further recalled that at its fifty-fourth session, having considered the report of the second session of the Joint ILO/IMO/BC Working Group on ship scrapping, hosted by the Basel Convention in Geneva from 12 to 14 December 2005, agreed on the value of the continued co-operation with ILO and the Basel Convention on the subject of ship recycling. A further meeting of the Joint Working Group was also considered, but the Working Group on Ship Recycling had concluded that it would be in a better position to give such advice at MEPC 55.

　

3.4 The Committee agreed that its focus, at this session, should be on the further development of the draft Convention.

　

　

3.5 In introducing document MEPC 55/3/2 containing the report of the Correspondence Group, Norway proposed that the Committee should use this draft as the base document for the further development of the new Convention. Most of the work of the correspondence group was devoted to developing this draft. A preliminary list of guidelines was also developed and was contained in annex 2 to the report. A number of other annexes to the report contained information on the adopted methodology of work, summaries of comments by participants, some specific contributions made by participants, and a letter sent to the correspondence group by an ILO Director expressing concern that, if the present wording in the draft Convention was adopted, then this might undermine existing ILO instruments.

　

3.6 The Committee thanked Norway and those delegations that submitted documents containing comments on the draft Convention, namely: MEPC 55/3/6 and MEPC 55/3/8 by Japan, MEPC 55/3/7 by Greenpeace, MEPC 55/3/11 by the Secretariat of the Basel Convention, MEPC 55/3/12 by India, MEPC 55/3/14 by France, MEPC 55/3/15 by CESA, MEPC 55/3/16 by ICS and co-sponsoring industry associations, MEPC 55/3/17 by ILO and MEPC 55/INF.12 by ICS. The Committee agreed that the above documents should be considered by the Working Group.

　

3.7 In the ensuing discussion a large number of delegations took the floor, all supporting the outcome of the Correspondence Group and thanking Norway for the leadership it had provided and for the progress achieved.

　

3.8 The Committee noted that the draft Convention prescribed a threshold of 400 GT, which was the threshold for IOPP Certificates under MARPOL Annex I, whilst one of its regulations links the issuance of certification under the draft Convention to the issuance of the Safety Construction Certificate mandated by SOLAS. It was pointed out, however, that the SOLAS threshold was 500 GT. After discussion, the Committee agreed to use the 500-GT threshold for the draft Convention.

　

3.9 The Committee agreed that the revised text contained in annex 1 to document MEPC 55/3/2 by Norway should be used by the Working Group as a base document for the further development of the draft Convention. The Working Group on Ship Recycling was also instructed to further develop the draft Convention taking into account comments made during the discussion in plenary and the proposals contained in the submitted documents.

　

　

3.10 The Committee recalled that the draft Convention necessitated the development of certain guidelines, and in fact the Committee had instructed the Correspondence Group to develop a provisional list of such guidelines. During the deliberations of the Correspondence Group, some members held the view that, instead of guidelines, a code for ship scrapping facilities should be developed to assist the regulations. Following an exchange of views between the members of the group, the majority had concurred that the list of guidelines should be developed, while a minority were of the view that a code could still be considered. Some also commented that it was premature to make a decision on this issue at this stage (MEPC 55/3/2, paragraph 10.3).

　

3.11 The Committee was reminded that the point at issue was whether the associated standards were intended to be mandatory or recommendatory; if mandatory, then a code might be more appropriate. Alternatively, guidelines might be the right option. The choice between guidelines and a code was therefore an important one, and although it was not necessary to arrive at a final decision at this session, the subject was one which needed to be considered by the Committee.

　

3.12 France introduced document MEPC 55/3/4 containing its proposal for the drafting of a "Code for safe and environmentally sound management of ship-scrapping facilities". France also proposed that the development of this code should be entrusted to a 3rd session of the Joint Working Group of ILO, Basel Convention and IMO, with MEPC retaining responsibility for arbitration and the consistency of the code. Also, France proposed that, like the ISPS Code, this code should be divided into two parts: Part A containing mandatory provisions, and Part B containing recommendations. France finally proposed some specific terms of reference for the JWG.

　

3.13 The Committee also thanked the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) for their submission MEPC 55/3/3 and for their offer to contribute to the development and effective implementation of the draft Convention and its associated guidelines. The Committee agreed that the ISO document should be considered by the Working Group.

　

3.14 The Chairman opened the floor for discussion on the question of whether a Code for ship scrapping facilities should be developed instead of guidelines, and also on the other related proposals by France, stating that the questions raised were important but also complex. The Chairman suggested that the Committee at this session should have an exchange of views on whether a code needs to be developed, then whether the Committee would agree in principle that this development should be carried out by the 3rd session of the Joint Working Group as proposed by France.

　

3.15 In the ensuing discussion, many delegations took the floor. With regard to the issue of whether to develop a mandatory Code or guidelines, there was also a clear majority supporting the development of guidelines. The Committee agreed that the development of the draft Convention and associated guidelines should ensure that all necessary elements of control would be taken into account. There was also a clear majority supporting the view that the development of the guidelines required under the draft Convention should take place at the MEPC and not at the Joint IMO/ILO/BC Working Group.

　

3.16 As a result of the discussions, the Committee decided to develop guidelines under the draft Convention at its meetings and through working/correspondence groups when necessary.

　

　

3.17 The Committee recalled that at its last session it had considered three documents addressing the Inventory of Hazardous Materials and the related issue of survey and certification, submitted by Japan (MEPC 54/3/1 and MEPC 54/3/7) and by Germany (MEPC 54/3/6). The Committee had agreed that the outline of the Inventory should be as separate guidelines, as opposed to being an integral part of the draft Convention (MEPC 54/21, paragraph 3.22.2). Furthermore, the Committee had welcomed the offer by Germany and Japan to continue working on the development of the Guidelines.

　

3.18 Japan and Germany as co-sponsors of document MEPC 55/3/1 were invited to introduce the draft Guidelines they had proposed for the development of the Inventory of Hazardous Materials and the draft version of the Single List. The document discussed the necessity to allow the provision of declarations of substance information in the shipbuilding supply chain, and the necessity to provide supplier's declaration of conformity. Finally, the document noted that special provisions for the development of Part I of the Inventory of existing ships should be further considered.

　

3.19 IACS presented its document MEPC 55/3/13 explaining how IACS members intended to discharge their surveying duties, bearing in mind practical limits in identifying individual hazardous materials and the physical dangers posed by such materials to the health of surveyors. IACS pointed out that the presence or absence of certain hazardous materials on an existing ship should be based on a documents' review. Also, IACS made the point that for existing ships the focus should be on the presence and location of hazardous materials, and not on their amount.

　

3.20 The Committee thanked the delegations who had submitted documents containing comments on the issue of the Guidelines for the Inventory of Hazardous Materials, namely: Germany (MEPC 55/3/5), Japan (MEPC 55/3/9), the Secretariat of the Basel Convention (MEPC 55/3/10), IACS (MEPC 55/3/13), and CESA (MEPC 55/3/15). The Committee agreed that these documents should be considered by the Working Group, who should also discuss what would be a suitable approach for the development of inventories for existing ships before the Committee would debate this policy issue.

　

3.21 The Committee agreed to instruct the Working Group on Ship Recycling to further develop the text of the draft Guidelines for the development of the Inventory of Hazardous Materials taking into account comments made during the discussion in plenary and the proposals contained in the submitted documents.

　

　

3.22 The Committee recalled that at its last session it had noted the provisional work plan agreed by the Working Group on Ship Recycling for the development of the new Convention, according to which the Committee at this session would:

　

3.23 In the ensuing discussion the Committee agreed that it would be impractical and undesirable at this point in time to consider altering the terms of reference of the Joint ILO/IMO/BC Working Group approved by the three organizations. The Ship Recycling Working Group was therefore requested to consider whether there was still a need for a possible third meeting of the Joint Working Group in 2007, to consider issues within its current terms of reference.

　

3.24 The Committee also agreed that in view of the timeline for the development of the Convention and also because of the nature of the work, it would not be necessary to involve another IMO body in the development of the draft Convention.

　

3.25 The Committee further agreed to instruct the Working Group to consider the need for an intersessional correspondence group and also the need, timing and possible location for an intersessional working group.

　

　

3.26 The Committee agreed to re-establish the Working Group on Ship Recycling under the chairmanship of Mr. Jens Koefoed (Norway), with the following Terms of Reference:

　

　

3.27 The Committee noted that the Group, in view of the limited time available, had decided not to introduce each document before discussing each issue but instead that documents should be introduced during the discussion. The Group had also agreed that documents pertaining to issues not discussed in the Group due to lack of time would be retained for later discussion, e.g. at the next Correspondence Group, or at the next Working Group meeting.