3.28 The Committee noted that in connection with Article 3, the Group had discussed increasing the proposed 400 GT lower limit of application of the Convention and also aligning the Recycling Certificate to the International Oil Pollution Prevention Certificate, as opposed to the Safety Construction Certificate presently envisaged by Regulation B-I-4. The Group had not reached a final conclusion as to how best to deal with this question although it had agreed to place all references to the Safety Construction Certificate in square brackets.

　

3.29 The Committee however recalled that it had already agreed to increase the lower limit of application of the Convention to 500 GT and also noted its clear preference for not aligning the certification of the ship recycling Convention to any other convention.

　

3.30 The Committee also noted the concern of a delegation resulting from the inclusion of purely domestic shipping intended to be recycled domestically, in the application of the Convention, as this would create a heavy workload and burden to the Administration.

　

3.31 The Committee noted the Group's agreement to the proposal made by Japan in connection with the list of restricted materials which are to be included in Appendix 1 of the Convention and noted Japan's intention to submit the complete draft of Appendix 1, based on document MEPC 55/3/8 to the next meeting of the Group. It was also noted that the Group had debated at some length whether there should be a specific provision in Regulation B-I-1 for the addition of new substances to the list, and that it had been agreed that the provisions of Regulation B-I-2 should be sufficient.

　

3.32 Regarding the inventory of Hazardous Materials, the Committee noted that the Group had recognized that there were different considerations for the development of inventories for new ships and for existing ships. Whereas there were no specific problems identified in relation to the development of inventories for new ships, three major issues were identified for existing ships:

　

　

 In this respect, an alternative to the text of Regulation B-I-4 (2) dealing with the timing of the provision of the inventory for existing ships had been proposed by the United States delegation, which following some discussion and some support was introduced in the draft Convention within square brackets.

　

3.33 The Committee noted that the Group had discussed Japan's basic stance on the issue of the necessary surveys for the Convention. Following some discussion the text had been amended but was still kept in square brackets for study purposes.

　

3.34 The Committee also noted that the ILO observer had drawn the Group's attention to two letters to IMO from Directors of the International Labour Office, drawing attention to various ILO Conventions and Recommendations on occupational safety and health that apply to all workers including land-based workers engaged in ship recycling related activities. He had further drawn attention to ILO's Guidelines on occupational safety and health matters and in particular, to the publication "Safety and health in shipbreaking: Guidelines for Asian Countries and Turkey". The ILO was concerned that matters within the ILO mandate had not so far been taken into account in the proposed IMO Convention and the ILO observer had therefore stated that the present draft of the proposed Convention might seriously affect and undermine existing ILO mandatory and other instruments relevant to this area. He had noted that it was very important to ensure that the proposed IMO Convention was fully compatible with ILO standards so that nothing could prejudice or conflict with the obligations, or interpretation thereof, by any State Party to applicable ILO Conventions. He had specific changes he would propose to the Group and in subsequent submissions to the other IMO meetings and correspondence groups concerning this work.

　

3.35 The Committee noted that in connection with Regulation C-1 the ILO observer had proposed to the Group that there should be a specific reference to the ILO's Guidelines on shipbreaking, and that the text could refer to these guidelines as a primary source of guidance on safety and health at ship recycling facilities, without making such guidelines binding on States that will have ratified the IMO Convention. There had been an extensive debate in the Group during which Japan had informed the Group of its intention to submit a complete draft guideline on ship recycling facilities to the proposed intersessional meeting of the Group, including a reference table indicating the regulations in Section C and the corresponding provisions of the ILO and Basel Convention Guidelines. The Group had appreciated and welcomed the proposal by Japan and, taking into account the decision made by plenary, had decided not to make a reference to the ILO Guidelines in the text of the Convention. Furthermore, the Committee noted that a number of delegations had offered their support and expertise to assist Japan's work on drafting the guidelines.

　

3.36 The Committee noted a discussion in the Group initiated by the ILO observer who had noted that the first sentence of regulation C-3 (1), which read "Ship recycling facilities authorized by a Party shall establish management systems, procedures and techniques which will reduce, minimize and ultimately eliminate adverse effects on the environment and human health...." should be changed, with respect to safety and health, to reflect the following priority of actions:

　

 The logic was that if elimination was not aimed in the first place, this might undermine efforts to eliminate hazards/risk. This did not, however, imply that it was always possible to eliminate hazards/risks. The Group had concurred with the ILO proposal and had agreed to adjust the text of the Convention accordingly before its adoption. Also, the United States had offered to lead a drafting exercise that would reflect this discussion so as to ensure that no unreachable standards were inadvertently included in the Convention.

　

3.37 The Committee also noted that the Group had discussed and had made a number of modifications to the draft Convention, and that this work would continue in the correspondence group.

　

3.38 The Indian delegation informed the Committee that there were five issues it had raised in document MEPC 55/3/12, namely: contract covering the sale and purchase of a ship for recycling; "Gas-free for hot work" certification; Ready for Recycling for both, ships sailing under own power, and ships proceeding on tow; Final voyage to the recycling yard; and Deregistration. India requested that these issues be taken onboard in the subsequent discussions on the development of the draft Convention.

　

　

3.39 The Committee noted the discussions of the Group on the subject of the development of guidelines for ship recycling facilities. The Group had also agreed to the full list of guidelines as contained in annex 2 of document MEPC 55/3/2. The Group further agreed to task the Correspondence Group with the development of outlines of one or two pages for each guideline, whilst noting and welcoming Japan's offer to submit a draft text of guidelines for ship recycling facilities and for survey and certification to the next meeting. The Committee noted that a number of delegations had offered their assistance and expertise to Japan for the development of the guidelines for ship recycling facilities.

　

3.40 The Committee also noted that the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) had presented to the Group its document MEPC 55/3/3 explaining that ISO intended to undertake standardization work on one or more areas of interest in the area of ship recycling. ISO had proposed collaboration with MEPC but the Group had felt that it was too early to consider this offer as it needed to first formalize its own consideration on requirements for the draft Guidelines for the Convention.

　

　

3.41 Regarding the draft Guidelines for the development of the Inventory of Hazardous Materials for existing ships the Committee noted the information on the practical difficulties experienced, as discussed in paragraph 3.33 above.

　

3.42 The Committee appreciated the renewed offer from Japan and Germany to endeavour to finalize these guidelines for submission to the next session.

　

　

3.43 The Committee was informed that the Group had considered the need for a possible third meeting of the Joint ILO/IMO/BC Working Group in 2007 and following extensive discussion which had recognized that the preparation of the draft Convention is a high priority and furthermore that the available time was limited, the majority of the Group had agreed to postpone its decision on the need for holding a third Joint Working Group meeting until the next session of the Committee.

　

3.44 The Committee discussed different aspects of this issue again, and having already agreed that it was not practical or desirable to alter the terms of reference of the Joint Working Group, it arrived at a similar conclusion as the Group, namely, that it agreed it was unable at this time to make a decision on the need for a third meeting of the Joint Working Group and that it should review this decision at its next session. In the meantime, the Committee would wait to hear the decision of the Governing Body of ILO, whose turn it was to host such a meeting, following its upcoming session in November 2006.

　

3.45 The ICFTU expressed its concerns with the position agreed by the Committee in paragraph 3.44, which had not identified a date for a third meeting of the Joint IMO/ILO/BC Working Group, and stated that it believed that this was inconsistent with the commitment arising from resolution A.962(23).

　

　

3.46 The Committee agreed on the need for having an intersessional Correspondence Group, noting that Norway had offered to act as Co-ordinator. The Committee also agreed to the draft Terms of Reference for the Correspondence Group as follows:

　

　

3.47 The Committee agreed to holding an Intersessional Working Group a few weeks prior to MEPC 56 to further develop the draft the Convention, and to continue with the development of the draft Guidelines. The United Kingdom confirmed that it would make the necessary arrangements for hosting this meeting at a suitable location in view of the renovation of the IMO headquarters. The Committee also agreed to the draft Terms of Reference for the Intersessional Working Group, as follows:

　

　

3.48 The Committee welcomed the statement from the delegation of Turkey, which had informed the Working Group that they proposed to run a trial on recycling two ships in accordance with the draft Convention and Guidelines utilizing their own recycling facilities. Turkey had proposed to set up a Supervisory Board with members from IMO, ILO and the Basel Convention, as well as representatives from the main ship recycling and donor countries, since Turkey would be looking for possible candidate ships for recycling.

　

3.49 The Argentine delegation stated that the development of the Convention on Ship Recycling should become the responsibility of the Legal Committee of IMO, in co-ordination with ILO and the Basel Convention.

　

3.50 Greenpeace International made a statement on the ship recycling issue. As requested, the statement is attached in annex 7.