On behalf of the NGO Platform on Shipbreaking, and at the closing of these proceedings, we would like to leave you with a thought. We'd like to reference a recent BBC news article that appeared a few days ago. It was about another industry trying to come to terms with its own post-consumer transport waste - here the subject was not about obsolete ships, but rather obsolete airplanes.

　

 According to the article, the life span of most commercial airplanes is said to be around 30 years; and so, just as there was a 1970s explosion in aircraft production, now there's a big jump in the number of planes beyond use. Its estimated 8,000 will need to be retired in the next decade.

　

 What's to be done with them? Aircraft contain toxic materials, so dumping them at a faroff airfield or throwing them in the sea is clearly unacceptable.

　

 Concerned by this and aware that getting rid of airplanes was only going to become more of an issue, Boeing set up the Aircraft Fleet Recycling Association (Afra). It's a union of recycling companies with two airports - Chateauroux in central France and Evergreen Air Centre in Arizona. While Boeing pursue the Afra project, Airbus have a similar scheme called Pamela - Process for Advanced Management of End of Life Aircraft.

　

 So both of these major manufacturers are clearly concerned about this issue and are seeking to solve it before it becomes a problem. Eac is drawing up a code of good practice in the hope that legislators will reward their efforts. In other words, the industry is taking their extended producer responsibility seriously.

　

 On top of the concern about dumped planes and a desire to develop best practice, there was a political motive, he says. "There are no set rules for doing this. So if we sit down and talk about what are the best ways - the most environmental and economical ways of doing this - and then present that as a set of rules for the legislators to work with, so much the better."

　

 The article ends with the statement: After all those years of service, surely those jumbos deserve a decent end.

　

 When reading this article, it is impossible not to be struck by the contrast in the two industries. The airplane industry on the one hand and the shipping industry on the other.

　

 The airline industry is now proactively seeking the best practices globally possible, not trying to green-gloss an unregulated, mafia dominated, exploitive, status quo horror story - not trying to protect their industrial sector at the expense of human health and the environment. They are not going to use the developing world as a global dumping ground even given the very real allure of cheap labour. They are developing one state of the art facility in Europe, one in North America. They will not be seeking to externalize environmental costs and liabilities but rather the producers have immediately recognized that producers are responsible and must pay. They are going to respect, rather than ignore established principles of policy and law.

　

 These principles include: The Polluter Pays Principle, The Precautionary Principle, The Principle, the Principle of Producer Responsibility, the Principles of Self-sufficiency and Proximity, The Principle of Environmental Justice, The Principle of Substitution, The Principle of Common But Differentiated Responsibilities, the Principle 14 of the Rio Declaration against transferring harm, Principle 16 of the Rio Declaration against externalizing costs. These principles have taken years of negotiations and were adopted by consensus in meetings like this one but here they have been ignored or swept aside.

　

 Coming into this meeting the NGO Platform on Shipbreaking brought, as we have done in numerous occasions in the past, concerns and recommendations from civil society. We have recommended pragmatic means to implement established principles, with obligations commensurate with the crisis at hand. But to date these necessary reforms have been ignored by this body. But we are not alone, other important stakeholders, including the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Human Rights, the Basel Convention, Green ship recyclers in developed countries, the International Labor Organization, trade unions, and especially the interests of workers themselves, have also been ignored. Indeed, this body has not heeded the advice of its own Secretary General who, at the opening of this meeting stated that we must seek the maximum, yes the maximum levels of environmental protection. Do we truly think we are doing that?

　

 Just as in the airplane industry, in the next few years, the peak of the shipbreaking crisis will be upon us with thousands of ships reaching end-of-life with inadequate capacity to responsibly recycle them. It is clear that not only do we need a dramatic shift from business as usual in the text of the new Convention but we will need dramatic interim measures to avert a toxic flood.

　

 We urge all of you that seek true solutions to heed the Secretary General's call to maximize environmental protection, to take inspiration from responsible industries that have taken the long-term look and embraced another way, a way that pragmatically implements the aforementioned principles that the international community has set as a standard for corporate and national responsibility. And most of all we urge you to never lose sight of the plight of the workers, who now, as we speak and equivocate over commitments, are dying horrific deaths from explosions, or of cancer and asbestosis. So far we must all admit that the response falls far short of the crisis at hand and far short of what the global community has called us to do. Between now and our next meeting it is our duty to reflect on the gulf that lies between the global crisis and our response and remember we still have the opportunity to chart a responsible course.

　

 Thank you. We would like this statement attached to the report of this meeting.

　

　

　

Regulation 12 reads as follows:

　

Interpretation:

　

 With respect to the completion of the IAPP certificate supplement items 2.1.2 and 2.1.3, permanently sealed refrigeration equipment should not be included. Permanently sealed refrigeration equipment are equipment where there is no refrigerant charging connections or potentially removable components.

　

　

Regulation 14(1) reads as follows:

　

 The sulphur content of any fuel oil used on board ships shall not exceed 4.5% m/m.

　

Regulation 14(4)(a) reads as follows:

　

 The sulphur content of fuel oil used on board ships in a SOx emission control area does not exceed 1.5% m/m.

　

Interpretation:

　

 The 4.5% limit should be applied to all ships starting from the 19 May 2005 even if the IAPP certificate was not already issued for the ships concerned. The same applies for the 1.5% limit starting from 19 May 2006 for the Baltic Sea SOx emission control area and the corresponding entry into effect dates for other designated SOx emission control areas.

　

　

Regulation 16(9) reads as follows:

　

 Monitoring of combustion flue gas outlet temperature shall be required at all times and waste shall not be fed into a continuous-feed shipboard incinerator when the temperature is below the minimum allowed temperature of 850℃. For batch-loaded shipboard incinerators, the unit shall be designed so that the temperature in the combustion chamber shall reach 600℃ within five minutes after start-up.

　

Interpretation:

　

 The minimum stabilised combustion chamber flue gas outlet temperature of 850℃ is equally applicable to continuous-feed and batch-loaded shipboard incinerators. Monitoring of the combustion flue gas outlet temperature shall be required at all times for both types of incinerators.

　

　

Regulation 18(3) reads as follows:

　

 For each ship subject to regulations 5 and 6 of this Annex, details of fuel oil for combustion purposes delivered to and used on board shall be recorded by means of a bunker delivery note which shall contain at least the information specified in appendix V to this Annex.

　

Interpretation:

　

 Bunker delivery notes, for fuel oil delivered to and for use onboard on or after the 19 May 2005, should be kept on board even if the IAPP certificate has not been issued yet.

　

　

　

Chapter 3.2.3 reads as follows:

　

 For variable-pitch propeller sets, test cycle E2 shall be applied in accordance with table 1.

　

　

Interpretation:

　

 For application of the term "variable-pitch propeller sets" it shall be interpreted that the E2 cycle is applicable to any propulsion engine coupled to a variable pitch propeller, irrespective of whether the system operates at constant speed or variable speeds.

　

　

Chapter 5.9.6.2 reads as follows:

　

 During each mode of the test cycle after the initial transition period, the specified speed shall be held within ± 1% of rated speed or 3 min-1, whichever is greater, except for low idle, which shall be within the tolerances declared by the manufacturer. The specific torque shall be held so that the average, over the period during which the measurements are to be taken, is within 2% of the maximum torque at the test speed.

　

Interpretation:

　

 For application of the term "within 2% of the maximum torque" it shall be interpreted that in order to be consistent between the constant (D2 and E2) and the variable speed (C1 and E3) test cycles the specific torque at each load shall be held within 2% of the maximum (rated) torque at the engine's rated speed.

　

　

Chapter 5.9.9 reads as follows:

　

 After the emission test, the calibration of the analysers shall be re-checked, using a zero gas and the same span gas as used prior to the measurements. The test shall be considered acceptable if the difference between the two calibration results is less than 2%.

　

Interpretation:

　

 For application of this section the following interpretations shall be applied:

　

　

Chapter 5.10.1 reads as follows:

　

 For every engine tested for pre-certification or for initial certification on board without pre-certification, the engine manufacturer shall prepare a test report which shall contain, as a minimum, the data as set out in appendix 5 of this Code. The original of the test report shall be maintained on file with the engine manufacturer and a certified true copy shall be maintained on file by the Administration.

　

Interpretation:

　

 For application of this section the term "as a minimum" shall be interpreted as incorporating the necessary data to fully define the engine performance and enable calculation of the gaseous emissions, in accordance with 5.12, from the raw data units to the cycle weighed NOx emission value in g/kWh. The data set given under Appendix 5 should not be considered definitive and any other test data (i.e. engine performance or setting data, description of control devices, etc.) relevant to the approval of a specific engine design and/or on-board NOx verification procedures must also be given.