8.1 The Committee recalled that MEPC 54 agreed to the designation of the Southern South African waters as a Special Area under the revised MARPOL Annex I and approved the draft amendment in respect of the Special Area to regulation 1.11 of the revised MARPOL Annex I.

　

8.2 The Committee, having noted that the amendment had been adopted under agenda item 5 (paragraph 5.19) and that, in accordance with the amendment procedure of Article 16 of the MARPOL Convention, the amendments to MARPOL Annex I regarding the Special Area would not enter into force until early 2008, approved the draft circular contained in the annex to document MEPC 55/8/1, requesting Member Governments and industry groups to comply with the Special Area requirements immediately on a voluntary basis and, in particular, urge oil tankers to refrain from washing their cargo tanks in the Southern South African waters, pending the entry into force of the Special Area. The Committee also requested the Secretariat to distribute the circular (MEPC.1/Circ.543) as soon as possible.

　

8.3 The observer from INTERTANKO stated that it supported the proposed circular and would urge its members to comply with the Special Area requirements, pending their entry into force.

　

　

8.4 The Committee recalled that MEPC 53 finalized the revision of the Guidelines for the Identification and Designation of Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas (PSSA Guidelines), which was adopted by the Assembly under the symbol of resolution A.982(24). The Committee also recalled that MEPC 54 finalized and approved a revised text of the Guidance Document for Submission of PSSA Proposals to IMO, which was circulated as MEPC.1/Circ.510 in response to significant changes made in the revised PSSA Guidelines, and also approved a uniform format of the MEPC resolutions to designate PSSAs (MEPC 54/21, annex 11).

　

8.5 The Committee considered a draft PSSA Proposal Review Form submitted by the United States (MEPC 55/8, annex). In introducing their document, the United States mentioned that the review form would facilitate a robust review of a PSSA proposal and ensure that the revised PSSA Guidelines (A.982(24)) were fulfilled.

　

8.6 The Committee, having considered the proposal by the United States and having taken into account comments from the floor, approved the PSSA Proposal Review Form, with minor amendments, which is set out in annex 20.

　

　

8.7 The Committee recalled that MEPC 53 designated the Galapagos Archipelago as a PSSA by resolution MEPC.135(53) and Assembly adopted the 'Area to be Avoided' as the associated protective measure at the twenty-fourth session by Assembly resolution A.976(24). In this regard, the Committee noted the outcome of NAV 52 on PSSAs as contained in document MEPC 55/8/2, in particular, that NAV approved the new mandatory ship reporting system for the Galapagos Particularly Sensitive Sea Area (GALREP), which the MSC was invited to adopt. The Committee also noted that, for ships entering and leaving the PSSA, and the implementation of two mandatory traffic separation schemes for ships entering ports in the Galapagos Archipelago, the NAV Sub-Committee encouraged Ecuador to submit a proposal to a future session of the Sub-Committee for consideration.

　

　

8.8 The Committee recalled that MEPC 53 designated the Torres Strait as an extension to the Great Barrier Reef PSSA by resolution MEPC.133(53). In this regard, the Committee noted the outcome of NAV 52 on PSSAs as contained in document MEPC 55/8/2/Add.1, relating to pilotage in the Torres Strait PSSA and the concerns expressed by the delegation of Singapore regarding Australia's and Papua New Guinea's introduction of compulsory pilotage in the Torres Strait with effect from 6 October 2006.

　

8.9 In introducing document MEPC 55/8/3, the observer from ICS, on behalf of the co-sponsors BIMCO, INTERTANKO and INTERCARGO, stated that, while recognizing the fragility of the Torres Strait environment, its ecosystem and their awareness of the navigational difficulties associated with the passage of, in particular, large ships, their concern with Marine Notice 8/2006 published by the Government of Australia with respect to pilotage in the Torres Strait remained. The observer from ICS recalled that the report of MEPC 53 included a statement by the United States that appeared to reflect the consensus view of the meeting after its deliberations and invited the Committee to reafirm its understanding of this matter. As requested, the statement by ICS is attached in annex 21.

　

8.10 Following the introduction of document MEPC 55/8/3 by ICS, the Chairman stated that historically, when the Committee adopts resolutions with an operative paragraph beginning with the word "RECOMMENDS", the content of that paragraph is of a recommendatory nature; therefore, any different interpretation would necessitate the revision of all resolutions adopted by the MEPC. The Chairman requested the Committee to agree that on adopting resolution MEPC.133(53) the Committee was adopting it on a recommendatory basis. The Committee agreed with the Chairman that resolution MEPC.133(53) is of a recommendatory nature.

　

8.11 Following the decision of the Committee, Australia stated that it agreed with the Chairman's view, but not with all the points in document MEPC 55/8/3.

　

8.12 The delegation of Singapore stated that they agreed with the Chairman's summation of the Committee's decision that resolution MEPC.133(53) was recommendatory in nature. As such, the delegation of Singapore reiterated the understanding that resolution MEPC.133(53) provided no international legal basis for mandatory pilotage for ships in transit in this or any other strait used for international navigation. Hence, Singapore strongly urged Australia to review its positions in Marine Notices 8/2006 and 16/2006 to bring these in line with the understanding reached by the Committee. As requested, the statement by Singapore is attached in annex 22. The delegations of the Bahamas, Chile, China, Cyprus, Greece, India, Islamic Republic of Iran, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liberia, Marshall Islands, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation, Thailand, the United Kingdom and the United States associated themselves with this statement.

　

8.13 In response, the delegation of Australia made a statement, given at annex 23. The delegations of New Zealand and Papua New Guinea associated themselves with this statement.

　

8.14 The delegation of Denmark supported the efforts of Australia and in particular supported moves to introduce mandatory pilotage schemes in sensitive sea areas, as appropriate. The statement by the delegation of Denmark is given at annex 24.

　

8.15 The delegation of Cyprus, while supporting the statement of Singapore, also stated that "compulsory pilotage in straits used for international navigation" was currently outside the legal framework of international law and, in addition, it was seriously concerned about the consequences that the introduction of such a system in the Torres Strait could have elsewhere. This statement was supported by Greece.

　

9.1 The Committee had before it two documents under this agenda item: document MEPC 5/9 (Friends of the Earth International) on marine litter and waste reception facilities in Western Europe; and document MEPC 55/9/1 (Secretariat) reporting on the outcome of FSI 14 concerning the draft Action Plan on port reception facilities.

　

　

9.2 In introducing document MEPC 55/9, Friends of the Earth International presented the results of an investigation on the status of marine litter and waste reception facilities in Western Europe. The document pointed out that it was still commonplace for marine cadets to throw objects in the sea, and that the adequacy of port reception facilities was still a concern, even in Western Europe. The document concluded that improving awareness of the effects of marine litter among seafarers and others working in the maritime industry may be an effective additional instrument to ultimately free the oceans of debris.

　

9.3 A number of delegations, including Vanuatu, expressed support for the recommendation made by Friends of the Earth International in document MEPC 55/9 and the need to improve awareness of the effects of marine litter among seafarers and others working in the maritime industry. In this respect, it was suggested that the list of garbage thrown overboard as contained in the annex to document MEPC 55/9 be kept in the mind of everybody when the Committee considered the revision of MARPOL Annex V.

　

9.4 The Committee noted the progress made by the European Commission in addressing the issue of adequacy of port reception facilities as a result of the implementation of the related EU Directive 2000/59. It further noted the offer made by the EU to share their experience in tackling related issues.

　

9.5 The Committee expressed appreciation for the information provided by Friends of the Earth International.

　

　

9.6 The Committee considered two action items in the outcome of FSI 14 concerning reception facilities (MEPC 55/10/2, paragraphs 2.15 and 2.16) under this agenda item.

　

9.7 With regard to the draft Action Plan for port reception facilities, the Committee recalled that MEPC 52 had invited submissions intended to identify problem areas in order to develop an Action Plan to address the inadequacy of reception facilities. The Committee also recalled that the Industry Port Reception Facilities Forum had submitted information to MEPC 53 on initiatives for enhancing the use of port reception facilities.

　

9.8 The Committee further recalled that, on the basis of the outcome of MEPC 53, the Secretariat had prepared a draft Action Plan for tackling the inadequacy of port reception facilities which identified a number of work items, and each item contained background information, priority, target completion date and the IMO body responsible for the work. FSI 14, after discussion, agreed to the draft Action Plan (FSI 14/19, paragraph 13.6).

　

9.9 The Committee approved the draft Action Plan as set out in annex 11 to document FSI 14/19. With regard to action item "5.1 - Regulatory matters - Development of Guidelines for establishing regional arrangements for reception facilities" concerning the proposal to develop an MEPC resolution to recognize regional arrangements, the Committee noted the information provided in document MEPC 55/9/1.

　

9.10 In this connection, the Committee recalled that MEPC 44, by resolution MEPC.83(44), adopted the Guidelines for Ensuring the Adequacy of Port Reception Facilities in March 2000. Paragraphs 5.15 and 5.16 of the Guidelines state as follows:

　

9.11 The Committee, recognizing that resolution MEPC.83(44) already provided guidance to the issue of regional arrangements, agreed that it was not appropriate to adopt a further MEPC resolution to recognize regional arrangements as satisfying MARPOL obligations to provide adequate port reception facilities in view of the fact that the relevant MARPOL regulations require each Party to provide reception facilities and that regional arrangements may contravene the current MARPOL requirements. Recognizing, though, the benefit of having such regional arrangements in place, the Committee agreed to recognize them a means to provide reception facilities in light of the requirements of the MARPOL Convention, and requested Member States to provide their views to future sessions of the Committee on how these regional arrangements could be better institutionalized.