I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc 

# E

MARINE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION

COMMITTEE

64th session Agenda item 23 MEPC 64/23

1 1 October 2012 Original: ENGLISH

REPORT OF THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION COMMITTEE

ON ITS SIXTY

- FOURTH SESSION

Sect ion Page No.

1 INTRODUCTION 5

2 HARMFUL AQU ATIC ORGANISMS IN BALLAST WATER 5

3 RECYCLING OF SHIPS 14

4 AIR POLLUTION AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY 17

5 REDUCTION OF GHG E MISSIONS FROM SHIPS 35

6 CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO

MANDATORY INSTRUMENTS 39

7 INTERPRETATIONS OF, AND AMENDMENTS TO, MARPOL

AND RELATED INSTRUMENTS 40

8 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE OPRC CONVENTION AND THE

OPRC

- HNS PROTOCOL AND RELEVANT CONFERENCE

RESOLUTIONS 45

9 IDENTIFICAT ION AND PROTECTION OF SPECIAL AREAS AND

PARTICULARLY SENSITIVE SEA AREAS 49

10 INADEQUACY OF RECEPTION FACILITIES 50

11 REPORTS OF SUB

- COMMITTEES 51

12 WORK OF OTHER BODIES 60

13 STATUS OF CONVENTIONS 65

14 HARMFUL ANTI

- F OULING SYSTEMS FOR SHIPS 66

15 PROMOTION OF IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF

MARPOL AND RELATED INSTRUMENTS 66

16 TECHNICAL CO

- OPERATION SUB

- PROGRAMME FOR THE

PROTECTION OF THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT 66MEPC 64/ 23

P age 2

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc Sect ion Page No.

17 ROLE OF THE HUMAN ELEMENT 67

1 8 NOISE FROM COMMERCIAL SHIPPING AND ITS ADVERSE

IMPACTS ON MARINE LIFE 68

19 WORK PROGRAMME OF THE COMMITTEE AND SUBSIDIARY

BODIES 68

2 0 APPLICATION OF THE COMMITTEES ' GUIDELINES 72

2 1 ELECTION OF THE CHAIRMAN AND VICE

- CHAIRMAN FOR 2013 72

2 2 ANY OTHER BUSINESS 7 2

LIST OF ANNEXES

ANNEX 1 STATEMENT BY THE OBSERVER OF ICS ON THE REPORT OF THE

BALLAST WATER REVIEW GROUP (MEPC 64/WP.8)

ANNEX 2 RESOLUTION MEPC.222(64)

– 2012 GUIDELINES FOR THE SURVEY AND

CERTIFICATI ON OF SHIPS UNDER THE HONG KONG CONVENTION

ANNEX 3 RESOLUTION MEPC.223(64)

– 2012 GUIDELINES FOR THE INSPECTION OF

SHIPS UNDER THE HONG KONG CONVENTION

ANNEX 4 STATEMENT BY THE DELEGATION OF VENEZUELA ON THE DRAFT MEPC

RESOLUTION ON PROMOTION OF TE CHNICAL CO

- OPERATION AND

TRANSFER OF TECHNOLOGY RELATING TO THE IMPROVEMENT OF

ENERGY EFFICIENCY OF SHIPS

ANNEX 5 STATEMENT BY THE OBSERVER OF ICOMIA ON THE REVIEW OF THE

STATUS OF THE TECH NOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS TO IMPLEMENT

TIER III NO

x EMISSION STAND ARDS

ANNEX 6 STATEMENTS BY THE DELEGATIONS OF CHINA, DENMARK AND GREECE

ON THE REPORT OF THE WORKING GROUP ON AIR POLLUTION AND

ENERGY EFFICIENCY (MEPC 64/WP.11)

ANNEX 7 UNIFIED INTERPRETATIONS TO MARPOL ANNEX VI

ANNEX 8 RESOLUTION MEPC.224(64)

– AMENDMENTS TO THE 2012 GUIDELINES

ON THE METHOD OF CALCULATION OF THE ATTAINED ENERGY

EFFICIENCY DESIGN INDEX (EEDI) FOR NEW SHIPS

ANNEX 9 AMENDMENTS TO FOOTNOTE 2 OF THE 2012 GUIDELINES ON SURVEY

AND CERTIFICATION OF THE ENERGY EFFICIENCY DESIGN INDE X (EEDI)

ANNEX 10 STATEMENT BY THE DELEGATION OF EGYPT ON MARKET

- BASED

MEASURES FOR INTERNATIONAL SHIPPINGMEPC 64/ 23

P age 3

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc ANNEX 11 STATEMENT BY A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE UNFCCC SECRETARIAT ON

UNFCCC MATTERS

ANNEX 12 RESOLUTION MEPC.225(64)

– 2012 AMENDMENTS TO THE

INTERNATIONAL CODE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND EQUIPMENT OF SHIPS CARRYING DANGEROUS CHEMICALS IN BULK (IBC CODE)

ANNEX 13 DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO FORM A AND FORM B OF SUPPLEMENTS TO

THE IOPP CERTIFICATE UNDER MARPOL ANNEX I

ANNEX 14 STATEMENT BY THE DELEGATION OF LIBERIA ON THE STOLT VALOR

INCIDENT IN RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT MEPC 64/INF.30

ANNEX 1 5 RESOLUTION MEPC.226(64)

– DESIGNATION OF THE SABA BANK AS A

PARTICULARLY SENSITIVE SEA AREA

ANNEX 1 6 DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO THE CONDITION ASSESSMENT SCHE ME (CAS)

(RESOLUTION MEPC.94(46), AS AMENDED)

ANNEX 17 DRAFT ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION

– REVISED GUIDELINES ON THE

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE INTERNATIONAL SAFETY MANAGEMENT

CODE BY ADMINISTRATIONS (ISM CODE)

ANNEX 18 DRAFT ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION

– REVISED GUIDE LINES FOR THE

STRUCTURE OF AN INTEGRATED SYSTEM OF CONTINGENCY PLANNING

FOR SHIPBOARD EMERGENCIES

ANNEX 19 DRAFT ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION

– IMO INSTRUMENTS IMPLEMENTATION

CODE (III CODE)

ANNEX 20 DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO MARPOL ANNEXES I, II, III, IV, V AND VI (TO

MAKE THE III CODE MANDATORY )

ANNEX 21 STATEMENT BY THE DELEGATION OF CYPRUS ON THE APPROVAL OF

THE DRAFT III CODE

, DRAFT R O CODE A ND DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO

MARPOL TO MAKE THE TWO CODES MANDATORY

ANNEX 22 RESOLUTION MEPC.227(64)

– 2012 GUIDELINE S ON IMPLEMENTATION OF

EFFLUENT STANDARDS AND PERFORMANCE TESTS FOR SEWAGE

TREATMENT PLANTS

ANNEX 23 DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO MARPOL ANNEXES I AND II (TO MAKE THE RO

CODE MANDATORY)

ANNEX 24 STATEMENT BY THE DELEGATION OF BRAZIL ON THE OUTCOME OF

RIO+20

ANNEX 25 ITEMS IN THE BIENNIAL AGENDAS OF THE DE, DSC, FP, COMSAR, NAV,

SLF AND STW SUB

- COMMITTEES RELATING TO ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

ANNEX 26 BIENNIAL AGENDA OF THE BLG SUB

- COMMITTEE AND PROVISIONAL

AGENDA FOR BLG 17MEPC 64/ 23

P age 4

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc ANNEX 27 BIENNIAL AGENDA OF THE FSI SUB

- COMMITTEE AND PROVISIONAL

AGENDA FOR FSI 21

ANNEX 28 REPORT ON THE STATUS OF PLANNED OUTPUTS FOR THE MEPC FOR

THE 2012

- 2013 BEINNIUM

ANNEX 29 ITEMS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE AGENDAS OF MEPC 65, MEPC 66 AND

MEPC 67MEPC 64/ 23

P age 5

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 The sixty

- fourth session of the Marine Environment Protection Committee was held at IMO Headquarters from 1 to 5 October 2012 under the chairmanship of Mr. Andreas Chrysostomou (Cyprus). The Vice

- Chairman of the Committee, Mr. Arsenio Dominguez (Panama) , w as also
present.

1.2 The session was attended by delegations from Members and Associated Members; by representatives from the United Nations Programmes, specialized agencies and other entities; by observers from the intergovernmental organizations with ag reements of cooperation; and by observers from non

- governmental organizations in consultative status;

as listed in document MEPC 64/INF.1.

1. 3 The Chairman of the Council, Mr. Jeffrey G. Lantz (United States), the Chairman of the

Sub

- Committee on Bulk Liq uids and Gases (BLG), Mr. Sveinung Oftedal (Norway), and the

Chairman of the Sub

- Committee on Flag State Implementation (FSI), Capt. Dwain Hutchinson (Bahamas), were also present.

The Secretary

- General ' s opening address

1. 4 The Secretary

- General welcomed participants and delivered his opening address,

the full text of which can be downloaded from the IMO website at the following link: http://www.imo.org/Med iaCentre/SecretaryGeneral/Secretary

- GeneralsSpeechesToMeetings

.

Chairman ' s remarks

1.5 The Chairman thanked the Secretary

- General for his opening address and stated that his advice and requests would be given every consideration in the deliberations of the

Committee.

Adoption of the agenda

1.6 The Committee adopted the agenda (MEPC 64/1) and agreed to be guided by the provisional timetable (MEPC 64/1/1, annex 2, as revised), on the understanding that it was subject to adjustments depending on the progr ess made each day. The agenda, as adopted, with a list of documents considered under each agenda item, is set out in document

MEPC 64/INF. 34

.

Credentials

1.7 The Committee noted that credentials of the delegations attending the session were in due and p roper order.

2 HARMFUL AQUATIC ORGANISMS IN BALLAST WATER

2.1 The Committee recalled that the " International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships ' Ballast Water and Sediments, 2004 " (BWM Convention) had been open for accession by any State since 31 May 2 005 and noted that three more States ( Denmark, Niue and the Russian Federation ) have acceded to the Convention since the last MEPC session, bringing the number of contracting Governments to 36, representing 29.07 per cent

of the world ' s merch ant fleet tonnage. The Committee urged those States which have not yet

ratified the Convention to do so at their earliest possible opportunity.MEPC 64/ 23

P age 6

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc C ONSIDERATION AND APP ROVAL OF BALLAST WAT ER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM S THAT MAKE USE OF
A CTIVE S UBSTANCES

2.2 The Comm ittee noted that the twenty

- first, twenty

- second and twenty

- third meetings

of the GESAMP

- BWWG were held from 16 to 20 April 2012, from 7 to 11 May 2012, and

from 25 to 29 June 2012, respectively, at IMO Headquarters, under the chairmanship

of Mr. Jan Linde rs. During the three meetings, the GESAMP

- BWWG had reviewed a total

of nine proposals for approval of ballast water management systems that make use

of a ctive s ubstances, submitted by China, Denmark, the Netherlands, Japan, the Republic

of Korea (four prop osals) and Singapore. The Committee also noted that out of the nine proposals evaluated, three proposals reviewed at the twenty

- first meeting of the Group were the remainder of the submissions to MEPC 63, which, due to the limited time available, could

not be considered at that session.

Basic Approval

2.3 The Committee, having considered the recommendations contained in annexes 5

and 6 of the " Report of the twenty

- first meeting of the GESAMP

- BWWG " (MEPC 64/2/6), the

recommendations contained in annex 4 of the " Report of the twenty

- second meeting of

the GESAMP

- BWWG " (MEPC 64/2/7) as well as the recommendations contained in

annexes 4 and 5 of the " Report of the twenty

- third meeting of the GESAMP

- BWWG " (MEPC 64/2/19), agreed to grant Basic Approval to:

.1 KT M

- Ballast Water Management System proposed by the Republic of Korea in document MEPC 63/2/8;

.2 Hamworthy Aquarius TM

- EC BWMS proposed by the Netherlands in

document MEPC 63/2/9;

.3 OceanDoctor Ballast Water Management System proposed by China in

documen t MEPC 64/2;

.4 HS

- BALLAST Ballast Water Management System proposed by the Republic of Korea in document MEPC 64/2/3; and

.5 GloEn

- Saver TM Ballast Water Management System proposed by the Republic of Korea in document MEPC 64/2/4.

2.4 The Committee invi ted the Administrations of China, the Netherlands and

the Republic of Korea to take into account all the recommendations made in the aforementioned reports of the GESAMP

- BWWG ( annexes 5 and 6 of the twenty

- first meeting, annex 4 of the twenty

- second meetin g, and annexes 4 and 5 of the twenty

- third meeting ) during the further development of the systems.

2.5 The Committee concurred with the recommendation in annex 6 of the " Report of the
twenty

- third meeting of the GESAMP

- BWWG " (MEPC 64/2/19) not to grant Ba sic Approval

to Dow

- Pinnacle Ballast Water Management System proposed by Singapore in document

MEPC 64/2/5.

Final Approval

2.6 The Committee, having considered the recommendations contained in annex 4 of

the " Report of the twenty

- first meeting of the GES AMP

- BWWG " (MEPC 64/2/6) as well asMEPC 64/ 23

P age 7

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc the recommendations contained in annexes 5 and 6 of the " Report of the twenty

- second meeting of the GESAMP

- BWWG " (MEPC 64/2/7) agreed to grant Final Approval to:

.1 DESMI Ocean Guard BWMS proposed by Denmark in document

MEPC 63/2/7;

.2 JFE BallastAce that makes use of NEO

- CHLOR MARINE TM proposed by Japan in document MEPC 64/2/1; and

.3 Smart Ballast BWMS proposed by the Republic of Korea in document

MEPC 64/2/2.

2.7 The Committee invited the Administrations of Denmark, Japan and the Republic

of Korea to verify that all recommendations contained in the reports of the twenty

- first and
twenty

- second meetings of the GESAMP

- BWWG (MEPC 64/2/6, annex 4 for Denmark ; MEPC 64/2/7, annex 5 for Japan ; and annex 6 for the Republic o f Korea) are fully addressed prior to the issuance of the Type Approval Certificates.

Future meetings of the GESAMP

- BWWG

2.8 The Committee noted that the next regular meeting of the GESAMP

- BWWG (i.e. the twenty

- fourth meeting) ha s been tentatively sched uled from 10 to 14 December 2012 and invited Members to submit their proposals for approval (application dossiers) and the

non

- confidential description of their ballast water management systems to MEPC 65, as soon as possible but not later than 26 October 2012 in accordance with the newly agreed date for MEPC 65 as contained in paragraph 19.22 (BWM.2/Circ.38 /Rev.1 of 8 October 2012 refers).

2.9 The Committee further noted that, recognizing the possibility that more than

four proposals may be submitted fo r review by the Group and subsequent approval by

MEPC 65, the GESAMP

- BWWG had expressed its availability to have an additional meeting, (GESAMP

- BWWG 25) in January 2013 to accommodate as many proposals as possible, provided that all the necessary condition s for organizing such a meeting are met. Any proposal for approval that is not reviewed during the twenty

- fourth meeting and the additional meeting, (i.e. the twenty

- fifth meeting), due to time constraints, will be reviewed at the earliest meeting of the G roup after MEPC 65 and reported to MEPC 66 (MEPC 64/2/19, section 3 of the report of the twenty

- third meeting of the GESAMP

- BWWG).

Other matters emanating from the GESAMP

- BWWG meetings

2.10 Having considered the recommendations of the GESAMP

- BWWG regardi ng the optimization of the evaluation of the proposals for approval, the Committee agreed to :

.1 urge applicants, test facilities and Administrations to recognize the importance of the assessment of water quality for the test water selected for use, and to include detailed results of the test water assessment in the dossiers both for Basic and Final Approval ;

.2 note the Group ' s recommendation to use unpolluted natural seawater as preferable to the use of synthetic seawater for BWMS testing ;

.3 request the Administrations submitting proposals for approval of Ballast Water Management Systems that make use of Active Substances, to inform the applicants that additional data that could affect the environmental assessment after the submission may not be acce pted, as such information should have been included in the original submission to the Committee ; andMEPC 64/ 23

P age 8

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc .4 note the progress on the development of the database containing chemicals most commonly associated with treated ballast water, developed

to facilitate t he work of the Group

.

2.11 Having considered document MEPC 64/2/12 (IUCN) calling for minimization of the

confidential information regarding ballast water management systems that make use

of Active Substances, the Committee urged interested Members to ens ure full transparency and to minimize confidentiality in support of rapid ratification of the BWM Convention.

R EVIEW OF THE AVAILAB ILITY OF BALLAST WAT ER TREATMENT TECHNOL OGIES

2.12 The Committee noted the information regarding the latest type

- approved b allast water management systems provided in the following documents:

.1 MEPC 64/ INF.4 (Norway) on the type approval of the OceanSaver® Ballast Water Management System;

.2 MEPC 64/INF.12 (China) on the type approval of the Cyeco TM Ballast Water Manageme nt System;

.3 MEPC 64/INF.17 (Japan) on type approval of the MICROFADE Ballast Water Management System;

.4 MEPC 64/INF.18 (Republic of Korea) on the type approval of the AquaStar TM Ballast Water Management System;

.5 MEPC 64/INF.20 (Germany) on the type approval of the BalPure® BP 500

Ball ast Water Management System;

.6 MEPC 64/INF.26 (Greece) on the type approval of the ERMA First Ballast Water Management System ; and

.7 MEPC 64/INF.33 (Republic of Korea) on the Type Approval of the

ARA PLASMA BWTS Bal last Water Management System,

which increases the total number of type

- approved ballast water management systems to 28

.

2.13 The Committee thanked the delegations of Norway, China, Japan, Republic of Korea, Germany and Greece for the information provide d and instructed the Ballast Water Review Group to take this information into consideration when conducting its future reviews.

2.14 The Committee further noted the information provided in document MEPC 64/INF.13 (United Kingdom) regarding the update to t he Industry Guide on ballast water treatment technology and in document MEPC 64/INF.19 (Republic of Korea) regarding information on the availability of ballast water management systems and shipyard installation facilities which shows that by the year 2020 more than 60,000 ballast water management systems would be manufactured in the Republic of Korea alone. The Committee instructed the Ballast Water Review Group to take this information into consideration when conducting its future reviews

.

2.15 The Commit tee recalled that MEPC 63 invited Member States to provide updated information regarding the status of installation of BWMS on board ships in their respective countries based on a template , available in annex 2 of document MEPC 63/23, to assist in sharing such information.MEPC 64/ 23

P age 9

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc 2.16 Having considered documents MEPC 64/2/8 (Hong Kong, China), MEPC 64/2/10 (Japan) and MEPC 64/2/13 (China) providing the information mentio ned in paragraph 2.15 above, the Committee requested the Ballast Water Review Group to conside r these documents in detail and advise the Committee accordingly.

2.17 In consider ation of document MEPC 64/2/16 (ICS) proposing a practical implementation of the BWM Convention and document MEPC 64/2/18 (Liberia et al

. )

on challenges to the effective imp lementation of the BWM Convention, the Committee noted the support expressed by several delegations for the proposals put forward in these two documents and in particular the support for an Assembly resolution to address the concerns

identified. In this re spect, the delegation of Japan expressed its willingness to coordinate the development of such an Assembly resolution, which could be submitted to MEPC 65 for

consideration with a view to adoption by the twenty

- eighth session of the Assembly in

November 20 13. Support was also expressed for a provision to stipulate compliance for

" existing ships " to be required at the first renewal survey rather than the first intermediate or renewal survey after the anniversary date of the ship in the year of compliance. So me delegations had also expressed their support for the proposal to treat all ships constructed prior to the date of entry into force as " existing ships " . A view was also expressed to allow ships over a certain age to continue with deep water ballast excha nge as a means of management and control of ballast water.

2.18 Several other delegations did not support the proposals in documents

MEPC 64/2/16 and MEPC 64/2/18, opposing in particular any changes to the implementation dates contained in regulation B

- 3 of the Ballast Water Management Convention based on the fact that sufficient Type Approved systems are available and currently being installed on board ships. Furthermore, Germany cautioned against pre

- empting the intentions of the

Parties to the Conventio n and reiterated the view that any amendments to the Convention will only be possible after the entry into force of the instrument. The delegations of Argentina, Belgium and Germany indicated that the process of ratifying the Convention is in a final or ad vanced stage in their respective countries and that instruments of ratification will be deposited with IMO in the near future.

2.19 After an extensive debate the Committee recognized the concerns of the industry and agreed to the development of an Assembl y resolution which could address such concerns. The resolution should aim to ease and facilitate the smooth implementation of the Convention and not to change the application dates contained in regulation B

- 3. In this respect, the delegation of Japan was r equested to provide draft terms of reference for a

c orrespondence g roup to undertake the development of the Assembly resolution under the coordination of Japan 1 . It was also agreed that any amendments to the provisions of the

Convention will have to be con sidered and decided upon after the entry into force.

1 Mr. Hideaki SAITO Director for International Regulations Safety Standards Division

Maritime Bureau Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism Japan

Tel: 81 3 5253 8636

Fax: 81 3 5253 1644

E

- mail: saito

- h55rp@mlit.go.jpMEPC 64/ 23

P age 10

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc 2.20 Having considered the draft terms of reference prepared by the delegation of Japan in consultation with other delegations, the Committee agreed to the terms of reference as

follows:

" Taking into consideration the relevant data, comments and proposals contained in

documents MEPC 64/2/8, MEPC 64/2/10, MEPC 64/2/13, MEPC 64/2/16,

MEPC 64/2/18, MEPC 64/INF.5 and MEPC 64/INF.19 and the discussio ns in plenary, the Correspondence Group on the Assembly r e solution on Application of the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships ' Ballast Water and Sediments, 2004 is instructed to:

.1 develop a draft IMO Assembly resolution in relation to the implementation

of regulation B

- 3 of the BWM Convention with a view to its adoption by the
twenty

- eighth session of the Assembly in 2013, while not pre

- empting o r circumventing the proper amendment procedure under a rticle 19 of the

BWM Convention; and

.2 submit a written report which contains the d raft IMO Assembly r esolution to

MEPC 65. "

2. 21 The Committee noted the information regarding the progress of implementation of the BWM Convention and the status of installation of BWMS provided in the following

documents:

.1 MEPC 64/ INF.5 (Sweden) on th e p resent status of ballast water management system installations on ships managed by Swedish shipowners;

.2 MEPC 64/INF.19 (Republic of Korea) on the present status of installation and information on availability of ballast water management systems; and

.3 MEPC 64/INF.27 (India) on present status of ballast water management system installations on ships registered under the Indian flag,

and thanked Sweden, the Republic of Korea and India for the information provided

, requesting at the same time the Bal last Water Review Group to take into account this

information when conducting its future reviews.

2.22 The delegations of Malta and Singapore informed the Committee of their recent assessments of the status of ballast water management system installation s on ships managed by them, concluding that the results were similar to those reported in writing to this

session.

C ONSIDERATION AND ADO PTION OF AMENDMENTS TO BWM

- RELATED G UIDELINES

2.23 The Committee recalled that MEPC 63 invited interested parties to provide submissions to MEPC 64 on the appropriateness of changing the Guidelines for approval of ballast water management systems (G8), including the general aspects that might be improved through revision, comments on the necessity for any change and the timeline to do so.

2.24 Having considered document MEPC 64/2/17 (ICS), proposing a number of changes

to the Guidelines (G8) and considerations regarding sampling and analysis for compliance of ballast water management systems type approved under the exis ting Guideli nes (G8),

the Committee requested the Review Group to consider this document in detail and advise the Committee accordingly.MEPC 64/ 23

P age 11

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc 2.25 The Committee, having considered document MEPC 64/2/15 (Germany) proposing to develop a common understanding for e xercising the discretion of port States in

accordance with the Convention in a manner that refrains from initiating criminal prosecution, in combination with further development of parameters and principles for monitoring ballast
water management systems, requested the Review Group to consider this document in conjunction with document MEPC 64/2/17 (ICS) and relevant parts of document

MEPC 64/2/18 (Liberia et al

. ) and advise the Committee accordingly.

I MPLEMENTATION OF THE BWM C ONVENTION

2.26 Having cons idered document MEPC 64/2/9 (Singapore) proposing measures to ensure compliance of the Mobile Offshore Units with the BWM Convention by means of the internal circulation method of treating ballast water

, described in document MEPC 63/2/13 (Netherlands), th e Committee agreed to initiate the development of a unified interpretation subject to further clarification if such an interpretation is possible before the entry into force of the Convention. With regard to who may adopt a unified interpretation and when, the advice received from the Legal Affairs and External Relations Division of the Organization is that, this is to be left to the Parties to the Convention, once it enters into force. This would be in

line with a rticle 31 of the Vienna Convention on the L aw of the Treaties and would not, however, be construed to preclude the development of a common view even prior to entry into force, but such a common view would not be binding on the Parties. In this respect,

the Committee invited Members and observers to submit relevant proposals to MEPC 65

.

2.27 Following consideration of document MEPC 64/2/11 (Japan), proposing not to consider the new installation of ballast water management systems " Major conversion " as stipulated in the regulation A

- 1.4 of the BWM Convention, the Committee agreed with the proposal and instructed the Secretariat to prepare a draft circular in this respect for consideration and approval by MEPC 65.

2.28 Having considered documents MEPC 64/2/14 and MEPC 64/2/20 (Vanuatu) proposing op tions to address the perceived difficulties regarding the application of

the BWM Convention to Offshore Support Vessels, t he Committee noted the support expressed by several delegations for the development of a BWM Circular in this respect.

Some other dele gations were of the view that the provisions of regulation A

- 4 are sufficient to address the specific situation of offshore support vessels, therefore, there is no need for such a circular. Furthermore, the delegation of Norway emphasized that the text of the Ballast Water Management Convention, its Guidelines and the intention to avoid the spreading of invasive species must prevail in any interpretations of the Convention.

2.29 After some debate, the Committee agreed that a BWM Circular could facilitate the implementation of the provisions of the Convention in the particular case of offshore supply vessels and agreed to instruct the BLG Sub

- Committee to initiate the development of such

a circular based on the proposals in documents MEPC 64/2/14 and MEPC 6 4/2/20 under agenda item 4 (please see document BLG 17/1).

C ONSIDERATION OF OTHE R ASPECTS RELATED TO BALLAST WATER MANAGE MENT AND CONTROL

2. 30 The Committee noted the information regarding the compatibility between ballast water management systems and b allast tank coatings provided in documents

MEPC 64/INF.16 (NACE International) and MEPC 64/INF.21 (IPPIC) a nd thanked NACE

International and IPPIC for their contributions.

2. 31 Having considered document M EPC 64/2/21 (Marshall Islands) expressing support for consideration by the Committee of the standard test method developed by NACE International, presented in document MEPC 64/INF.16, to determine the potential corrosionMEPC 64/ 23

P age 12

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc effects of ballast water management systems on ballast tanks, the Committee requested the Ballast Water Review Group to take this information into account when considering

amendments to Guidelines (G8).

2.32 The Committee agreed with the proposal by INTERTANKO to request the Secretariat to consider the possibility of compiling the Ballast Water Management Guidelines and the relevant guidance documents to be made available on the IMO website.

E STABLISHMENT OF THE B ALLAST W ATER R EVIEW G ROUP

2. 33 The Committee agreed to establish the Ballast Water Review Group with the following terms of re ference:

" Taking into consideration comments and decisions made in plenary, the Ballast Water Review Group is instructed to:

.1 review the availability of ballast water treatment technologies taking into consideration the relevant comments and proposals contained in documents MEPC 64/2/8, MEPC 64/2/10, MEPC 64/2/13, MEPC 64/2/16, MEPC 64/2/18 and the information provided in documents MEPC 64/INF.4, MEPC 64/INF.5, MEPC 64/INF.12, MEPC 64/INF.13, MEPC 64/INF.17,

MEPC 64/INF.18, MEPC 64/INF.19, ME PC 64/INF.2 0, MEPC 64/INF.26,

MEPC 64/INF.27 and MEPC 64/INF.33 and advise the Committee on whether appropriate technologies are available to achieve the standard contained in regulation D

- 2 of the BWM Convention;

. 2 consider the proposal to amend the Guidelines for approval of ballast water
management systems (G8), as adopted by resolution MEPC.174(58), contained in documents MEPC 64/2/15, MEPC 64/2/17, MEPC 64/2/18 and

MEPC 64/2/21 and the information contained in documents MEPC 64/INF.16

and MEPC 64/INF.21 and pro pose an appropriate course of action ;

. 3 consider the remaining challenges to effective implementation of the

BWM Convention identified in document MEPC 64/2/18, including those related to survey and certification and sampling and analysis procedures,

tak ing into account the relevant proposals contained in documents

MEPC 64/2/15 and relevant parts of MEPC 64/2/16 and MEPC 64/2/17 and propose an appropriate course of action; and

. 4 submit a written report on the review conducted, including its findings and recommendations, to plenary on Thursday, 4 October 2012. "

C ONSIDERATION OF THE REPORT OF THE B ALLAST W ATER R EVIEW G ROUP

2.34 Having considered the report of the Ballast Water Review Group (MEPC 64/WP.8), the Committee approved it in general and took act ion as outlined in the following paragraphs.

2.35 The observer from ICS, supported by the delegations of China, Cuba, Greece, Liberia, Malta, the Marshall Islands, Panama, Vanuatu, BIMCO, INTERCARGO, IPTA, ITF and WSC, made a statement expressing disappoi ntment with regard to some of the conclusions of the Ballast Water Review Group. The full statement is set out in annex 1.

2.36 The Committee agreed with the proposal by INTERTANKO to instruct the BLG and

FSI Sub

- Committees that sampling and analysis proc edures for port State control should be no more stringent than what is required for Type App r oval of ballast water management
systems.MEPC 64/ 23

P age 13

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc 2.37 The delegation of the Bahamas, supported by INTERTANKO, stated that it could not agree with the view of the Review G roup, that amendment of the Guidelines (G8) was not necessary at this stage, citing the large number of concerns set out in paragraph 16 of the Group ' s report. It also expressed its preference that the Guidelines (G8) address these concerns directly rather than through expansion of the BWM Circular as proposed.

The Committee decided to note the view of the Group in respect of the need for amendment of the Guidelines (G8).

2. 38 With regard to the actions requested by the Review Group, the Committee (paragr aph and annex numbers in brackets are those of document MEPC 64/WP. 8 ):

.1 agreed that appropriate technologies are available to achieve the standard contained in regulation D

- 2 of the BWM Convention (paragraph 6);

.2 requested delegations to submit case studies including quantitative data

and information to document problems with the supply, operation and suitability of Type

- Approved ballast water management systems to the

BLG Sub

- Committee to facilitate more informed analysis of these aspects (paragraph 9);

.3 noted the view of the Group that a new set of amendments to Guidelines (G8) is not necessary at this stage (paragraph 14);

.4 instructed BLG 17 to further consider the draft text provided to improve resolution MEPC.175(58) and request Member State s and observers to submit relevant proposals in this respect (paragraph 15 and annex 1);

.5 instructed BLG 17 to provide additional guidance with regard to application of the provisions contained in Guidelines (G8), including expansion of

BWM.2/Circ.28 an d invite d Member States and observers to submit relevant proposals in this respect (paragraph 16);

.6 instructed BLG 17 to further develop the proposals made in document

MEPC 64/2/15 and invite d Member States and observers to submit relevant

comments in this respect (paragraph 18);

.7 agreed to extend the deadline for submissions of such documents as mentioned in paragraph .6 above to Friday, 30 November 2012 (paragraph 18);

.8 approved the Circular on issuance of Ballast Water Management Certificates prior to entry into force of the BWM Convention and instructed the Secretariat to expand it with respect to acceptance of Ballast Water Management Plans approved according to resolution A.868(20), as agreed by MEPC 63, and to

disseminate it as BWM.2/Circ.4 0 (paragraphs 20 and 21);

. 9 agreed that urgent matters related to ballast water management and control emanating from BLG 17 be reported to MEPC 65 (paragraph 22); and

.10 agreed to re

- establi sh the Review Group at M EPC 65 in accordance with

the provis ions of regulation D

- 5 of the BWM Convention (paragraph 23).

2.3 9 The Committee thanked the Chairman of the Review Group and its members for

their hard work

.MEPC 64/ 23

P age 14

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc 3 RECYCLING OF SHIPS

3.1 The Committee recalled that MEPC 63 had adopted the 2012 Guidelines f or safe and environmentally sound ship recycling and the 2012 Guidelines for the authorization of ship recycling facilities

.

3.2 The Committee also recalled that MEPC 63 had agreed to re

- establish the intersessional Correspondence Group on Ship Recycling Guidelines which had been instructed to further develop the draft text of the two remaining guidelines: the Guidelines for the survey and certification of ships under the Hong Kong Convention (Survey and Certification Guidelines) and the Guidelines for the inspection of ships under the Hong Kong

Convention (Inspection Guidelines).

Planning of the work

3.3 T he Committee had for its consideration

, eight documents submitted under the agenda item, covering the following issues:

.1 There were four submission s addressing the development of the Survey and Certification Guidelines and the Inspection Guidelines. Two of these submissions formed the report of the correspondence group, which had been submitted by Japan as the group ' s coordinator (MEPC 64/3/2 and

MEP C 64/3/3). One further submission by China (MEPC 64/3/5) proposed an additional definition for the draft Survey and Certification Guidelines, and one submission by ICS and industry co

- sponsors (MEPC 64/3/6) provided comments on the Inspection Guidelines.

.2 There were three further documents proposing amendments to

the 2011 Guidelines for the development of the inventory of hazardous

materials . One of these submissions was by China (MEPC 64/3/4), proposing the establishment of a specific threshold va lue fo r asbestos to be set at 1 per cent . The other two submissions by ICS and industry co

sponsors (MEPC 64/3 and MEPC 64/3/1) also highlighted the importance of the further establishment of threshold levels and exemptions for

materials which are listed in the Inventory of Hazardous Materials, and proposed draft lists of threshold values and exemptions.

.3 Finally, there was one information document by the Secretariat (MEPC 64/INF.2) intended to assist the Committee and other stakeholders

to reach a better unde rstanding of the conditions for the Convention ' s entry into force. The document presented the compilation of published ship recycling volume data for the last 10 years up to and including 2011, which can be used by the Depositary until April 2013 for deter mining the
entry

- into

- force condition on ship recycling volume, in accordance with resolution MEPC.178(59).

3.4 In connection to the submissions on threshold levels and exemptions, the Committee recalled that on three earlier sessions, the Working Group o n Ship Recycling at MEPC 59, MEPC 61 and MEPC 62 had discussed the issue of threshold values but, while recognizing the need to address the issue, the group had felt unable in the limited time available to grasp the complex technical issues that arise in c onnection with this matter.

The Committee also recalled that both China and ICS and industry co

- sponsors had submitted documents to MEPC 62 addressing the same issue and stressing that there was

a pressing need for the development of threshold values and exemptions, as presently thereMEPC 64/ 23

P age 15

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc was an increasing number of inventories of hazardous materials being compiled for ships on a voluntary basis. The Committee also noted that the Inventory Guidelines, where threshold values and exemptions are listed, were firs t adopted by MEPC 59 and then revised by

MEPC 62.

3.5 The Committee agreed to discuss in plenary only the reports of the correspondence group, while the remaining documents would be introduced in and considered by the working group. Furthermore, the Comm ittee agreed to instruct the working group to also consider whether it may be more appropriate to address the issue of threshold levels and exemptions by a correspondence group, where time would not be as limited and where delegations

would have a better o pportunity to consult their experts.

Development of the guidelines and related matters

3.6 In considering the reports of the intersessional correspondence group (MEPC 64/3/2 and MEPC 64/3/3), the Committee noted that the group had made good progress on t he development of the Survey and Certification Guidelines and the Inspection Guidelines, which were the last two remaining guidelines whose development was required by the Hong Kong

Convention.

3.7 The Committee thanked Japan for its continuing contributi on as coordinator of the correspondence group and all the members of the group for their excellent work.

Establishment of the Working Group on Ship Recycling

3.8 Having considered the above issues, t he Committee established the Working Group on Ship Recy cling under the chairmanship of Dr. Claude Wohrer (France) with the following

terms of reference:

" Taking into account comments, proposals and decisions made in plenary, the Working Group on Ship Recycling is instructed to:

.1 further develop the draft G uidelines for the survey and certification of ships under the Hong Kong Convention, using as basis the text contained in document MEPC 64/3/3 and taking into account the comments and proposals in document MEPC 64/3/5;

.2 further develop the draft Guidelin es for the inspection of ships under the Hong Kong Convention, using

, as basis

, the text contained in document

MEPC 64/3/2 and taking into account the comments and proposals in document MEPC 64/3/6;

.3 consider the comments and proposals in documents MEPC 64/3,

MEPC 64/3/1 and MEPC 64/3/4 regarding the further establishment of threshold values and exemptions applicable under the Hong Kong Convention;

.4 consider and recommend whether an intersessional correspondence group on ship recycling should be estab lished to address threshold values and exemptions; and if so, develop draft terms of reference for the group; and

.5 submit a written report to plenary on Thursday, 4 October 2012. "MEPC 64/ 23

P age 16

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc Report of the Working Group on Ship Recycling

3.9 The Committee consi dered and approved the report of the working group (MEPC 64/WP.9) in general and, in particular (paragraph and annex numbers are those of

document MEPC 64/WP.9, unless stated otherwise):

.1 noted the discussions of the group on the development of the draf t Guidelines for the survey and certification of ships under the Hong Kong Convention (paragraphs 4 to 19 and annex to annex 1);

.2 adopted the 2012 Guidelines for the s urvey and c ertification of s hips under the Hong Kong Convention by resolution MEPC.222 (64), as set out in

annex 2 to this report;

.3 noted the discussions of the group on the development of the draft Guidelines for the inspection of ships under the Hong Kong Convention (paragraphs 20 to 31 and annex to annex 2);

.4 adopted the 2012 Guidel ines for the ins

pection of ships under the Hong Kong Convention by resolution MEPC.223 (64), as set out in annex 3 to this report;

In adopting the 2012 Guidelines for the ins pection of ships under the Hong Kong Convention , and in relation to section 2.2, the Committee considered a question by a delegation as to how a PSCO can determine whether there are inconsistencies in the Inventory of Hazardous Materials, when the guidelines make no direct provision for its inspection.

The Committee agreed that, in ac cordance with section 2.1.1, the PSCO initially inspects the International Certificate on Inventory of Hazardous

Materials or the International Ready for Recycling Certificate, both of which are supplemented by the Inventory of Hazardous Materials, as expl ained in paragraph 22 of the working group ' s report (MEPC 64/WP.9)*;

.5 noted the discussion on the development of threshold values and exemptions applicable to the materials that are to be listed in Inventories of Hazardous Materials (paragraphs 34 to 4 0); and

.6 agreed to the establishment of an intersessional correspondence group on ship recycling, under the coordination of the United States 2 and approved

the terms of reference for the group as follows:

 The delegation of Spain raised two particular questions for the Committee to provide clearer g uidance at its next session: (a) how will the PSCO, at the time of an initial inspection of the ship ' s certificates which incorporate the Inventory of Hazardous Materials, without undergoing a physical inspection

, obtain clear grounds that the Inventory of Hazardous Materials does not represent correctly the structure or equipment of the ship; and (b) whether failure to update the vessel ' s Inventory of Hazardous Materials at the renewal survey should be considered at subsequent port State control inspection s as being a detainable deficiency.

2 Coordinator:

Ms. Kris Gilson, REM, CHMM Office of Environment, MAR

- 410, Mail Drop #1 Department of Transportation, U.S. Maritime Administration Southeast Federal Center, West Bldg 1200 New Jersey Ave SE, Washington, DC 20590

Phone: 202.366.1939

Fax: 202.366.5904

Cell: 202.492.0479

E

- mail: kristine.gilson@dot.govMEPC 64/ 23

P age 17

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc " On the basis of the outcome of MEPC 64 and the report of the working

group (MEPC 64/WP.9), the Correspondence Group on ship recycling is

instructed to:

.1 develop threshold values and exemptions applicable to the

materials to be listed in Inventories of Hazardous Materials and

consider the need to am end accordingly the 2011 Guidelines for the development of the inventory of hazardous materials ; and

.2 report the outcome of its deliberations to MEPC 65. "

3.10 The Committee thanked the Chairman, members and the Secretary (Dr. Nikos Mikelis)

of the Wor king Group for their hard and efficient work.

4 AIR POLLUTION AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY

4.1 The C o mmittee agreed that, in addition to the documents submitted under agenda item 4, documents MEPC 64/7/1 concerning the date on which the SEEMP is required to be placed on board existing ships, and MEPC 64/7/3 on unified interpretation regarding completion of the supplement to the International Air Pollution Prevention (IAPP) Certificate should be considered under this agenda item.

Order of discussion

4.2 The Com mittee considered the various issues in the following order:

Draft MEPC resolution

.1 Draft MEPC resolution on Promotion of Technical Co

- operation and Transfer of Technology relating to the improvement of energy efficiency of ships;

Air pollution from s hips

. 2 Outcome of BLG 16 ;

. 3 Supplement to the International Air Pollution Prevention (IAPP) Certificate ;

. 4 Assessment of availability of fuel oil under MARPOL Annex VI ;

. 5 Review of the status of the technological developments to implement

Tier III NO

x standards ;

. 6 Treatment of ozone

- depleting substances used to service ships ;

. 7 Sulphur monitoring for 2011 ;

. 8 Guidelines for certification of engines using SCR system ;

. 9 On

- shore power supply ;MEPC 64/ 23

P age 18

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc Energy efficiency for Ships

. 10 Unified interpreta tions for chapter 4 of MARPOL Annex VI ;

.1 1 Guidelines for determining minimum propulsion power and speed to enable safe manoeuvring in adverse weather conditions;

.1 2 Speed trial and model test;

.1 3 Draft IMO model course on energy efficient operation of ships ;

. 1 4 Guidelines for calculation of the EEDI;

. 1 5 Matters relating to SEEMP;

.1 6 Guidance on treatment of innovative energy efficiency technologies ;

.1 7 Guidelines for the calculation of the coefficient f

w ;

.1 8 Work in accordance with the work plan for energy efficiency measures ; and

.19 Energy efficiency measures

.

D RAFT MEPC R ESOLUTION ON P ROMOTION OF T ECHNICAL C O

- OPERATION AND T RANSFER OF
T ECHNOLOGY RELATING T O THE IMPROVEMENT OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY OF SHIPS

4.3 The Committee recalled that M EPC 62 had agreed that capacity

- building, technical assistance and transfer of technology were important elements in a future comprehensive regulatory framework to promote energy efficiency in international shipping, and include d regulation 23 of MARPOL An nex VI on promotion of technical co

- operation and transfer of technology relating to the improvement of energy efficiency of ships in the amendments adopted by resolution MEPC

. 203(62). MEPC 62 also agreed to develop an MEPC resolution

on this matter (MEPC 62/24, paragraphs 6.94 and 6.101)

.

4.4 The Committee also re call ed that a draft MEPC resolution on capacity

- building, technical assistance and transfer of technology related to energy efficiency measures for ships had been submitted by the Chairman to ME PC 63, as document MEPC 63/5/4

.

4.5 The Committee further recalled that MEPC 6 3 continued developing the draft MEPC

resolution . H owever, due to time constraints and concerns raised by some delegations

, it

was not possible to finalize the draft resolution

. MEPC 6 3 agreed to continue to work on the draft resolution at MEPC 64, with a view to its adoption (MEPC 63/23, paragraph 4.74)

.

4.6 The Committee considered following documents relating to the draft MEPC

resolution: MEPC 64/4/1 (the Chairman)

, MEPC 64/4/22 (the Vice

- Chairman)

, MEPC 64/4/24 ( Angola, China, Jamaica, Nigeria, South Africa and Venezuela ),

MEPC 64/4/30 ( Angola, Argentina, Brazil, China, India, Jamaica, Nigeria, Peru, South Africa and Venezuela), MEPC 64/4/44 ( Aust ralia, Canada, Germany, J apan, Marshall Islands, Norway and United States), MEPC 64/4/46 (South Africa)

, and relevant parts of

MEPC 64/5/9 ( Brazil, China, India, Peru, Saudi Arabia and South Africa)

.

4.7 The Chairman explained to the Committee that

, in evaluating the progress mad e between MEPC 62 and until the opening of this session, the views expressed in the submissions to this session had isolated three major issues that if t hey be tackled in a precise, co operative and constructive manner should bring convergence to the differ ent

views.MEPC 64/ 23

P age 19

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc 4.8 The Chairman identified the three issues as CBDR, technology transfer and funding:

.1 on the issue of CBDR, the Chairman explained that the w orking g roup could provide, if no agreement was found, options of different formulation

even the o ption of square brackets with no text, meaning no CBDR;

.2 on the issue of technology transfer, t he Chairman explained that the

w orking g roup should focus on what is required rather than the exact process, which should be described in the third issue; an d

.3 on the issue of funding, the Chairman explained that the w orking g roup should shape the process and leave the final details for a discussion by a different body, such as an expert group or a forum, etc.

4.9 Based on the explanations by the Chairman given above, the Committee was convinced and agreed to forward all the documents on the draft MEPC resolution to a

dedicated w orking g roup, without general debate in Plenary, as a continuation of the working

g roup established during the last session.

Est ablishment of Working Group on the draft Resolution on Promotion of Technical

Co

- operation and Transfer of Technology relating to the improvement of energy efficiency of ships

4. 10 The Committee established the Working Group on the draft Resolution on

Pro motion of Technical Co

- operation and Transfer of Technology relating to the improvement

of energy efficiency of ships under the chairmanship of Mr. Arsenio Dominguez ( Panama ), with the following terms and reference:

" Taking into account the documents subm itted, and the three points identified by the Chairman as the basis for the deliberations: CBDR, transfer of technology and funding; the Working Group on the draft Resolution on Promotion of Technical

Co

- operation and Transfer of Technology relating to the improvement of energy efficiency of ships is instructed to:

.1 debate and finalize the text for these specific points :

.1 CBDR;

.2 transfer of technology; and

.3 funding;

.2 finalize the remaining text using document MEPC 64/4/1 as the
basis; and

.3 submit a written report to plenary. "

Outcome of the Working Group on the draft Resolution on Promotion of Technical

Co

- operation and Transfer of Technology relating to the improvement of energy efficiency of ships

4. 11 The Committee received the report of the Working Group on the draft Resolution on

Promotion of Technical Co

- operation and Transfer of Technology relating to the improvement

of energy efficiency of ships (MEPC 64/WP.10). In his introduction of the report,

the Chairman of the Working Group , Mr. Arsenio Dominguez ( Panama ), highlighted that the

w orking g roup had:MEPC 64/ 23

P age 20

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc .1 made further significant progress with the finalization of the text of the draft

resolution on Promotion of Technical Co

- operation and Transfer of Technology relating to the impr ovement of energy efficiency of ships, as set

out in the annex to document MEPC 64/WP.10 ;

.2 agreed to request that the Secretary

- General consider appointing a focal point within the Secretariat, at no extra cost to the Organization, to support

Member St ates that request assistance in relation to the promotion of

technical co

- operation and transfer of technology relating to the improvement of energy efficiency of ships; and

.3 agreed to invite the Committee to use the draft resolution on Promotion of

Te chnical Co

- operation and Transfer of Technology relating to the improvement of energy efficiency of ships, as set out in the annex to document MEPC 64/WP.10, as the basis for further discussions.

4. 12 The Committee agreed that the text in the annex to doc ument MEPC 64/WP.10 is

the Committee ' s interim agreement on the draft Resolution on Promot ion of Technical

Co

- operation and Transfer of Technology relating to the improvement of energy efficiency for ships.

4. 13 This agreement provides a solid basis for f inalization of the Resolution at MEPC 65 (13

- 17 May 2013). In this regard, the Committee agreed that submissions on this issue to MEPC 65 should be restricted to comments relating to the specific paragraphs of the draft

resolution.

4. 14 The Chairman and V ice

- chairman offered their services to engage themselves with interested delegations in the intersessional period for informal discussions in order to pave the way for finalization of the resolution at MEPC 65.

4. 15 The Committee, recalling the reasoning set out in paragraphs 4.7 and 4.8, agreed

also to re

- establish the Working Group on the draft MEPC Resolution on Promotion of

Technical Co

- operation and Transfer of Technology relating to the improvement of energy efficiency for ships at the next session w ith the same t erms of r eference.

4. 16 As requested, a statement made by the delegation of Venezuela is set out in

annex 4.

A IR POLLUTION FROM SH IPS

O utcome of BLG 16

4.1 7 The Committee noted that BLG 16 considered matters concerning the u se of

continuo us NO

x monitoring to demonstrate compliance with the Tier III NO

x emission limit,

and further consider ed the impact on the arctic of emissions of Black carbon from international shipping (BLG 16/16, paragraphs 8.7 to 8.13 and 15.1 to 15.19)

.

4.1 8 The Comm ittee also noted that BLG 16 prepared a new priority list of necessary guidelines to support implementation and enforcement of MARPOL Annex VI and the NO

x Technical Code 2008, and established a correspondence group to progress the development

of the remain ing guidelines and guidance documents as a consequence of the amended

MARPOL Annex VI and the NO

x Technical Code 2008 (BLG 16/16, paragraphs 5.58 and 8.59)

.MEPC 64/ 23

P age 21

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc Sampling of fuel oil used on board ships

4.1 9 The Committee recalled that MEPC 62, having noted that there was a need to establish separate procedures for sampling of fuel oil being used on board ships, had

endorsed t erms of reference for BLG 16 to develop draft guidelines on the sampling procedure for fuel oil being used on board ships with 2012 as the target completion year (MEPC 62/24, paragraph 4.56.1)

.

4. 20 The Committee noted that , during the discussion at BLG 16, a number of delegations supported the development of guidelines for a sampling procedure to enable

effective control and enforcement of fuel oil being used on board ships under the provision of regulations 14.4 and 14.6 of MARPOL Annex VI

, in recognizing the fact that, during some port State control and flag State inspections, fuel oil is being sampled in order to enable

verification o f the fuel oil being used on board the ship

.

4. 21 The Committee also noted that other delegations were of the view that, under regulation 14 of MARPOL Annex VI, sampling of fuel oil used on board ships is not identified as a means to determine compliance , and that there was potential for the ship to be unduly delayed for fuel oil sampling and analysis. Several delegations were of the view that

, if such sampling guidelines were needed, amendments to MARPOL Annex VI would be necessary.

4.2 2 The Committee f urther noted that BLG 16 agreed to report back to the Committee these discussions, and not to develop either guidelines or guidance on the sampling procedure for fuel oil being used on board ships

.

4.2 3 The Committee agreed to instruct the W orking G roup o n Air Pollution and Energy efficiency to further consider this matter and recommend to the Committee an appropriate way forward.

Unified interpretation for continuous

- feed type shipboard incinerators

4.2 4 The Committee noted that BLG 16 considered docume nt BLG 16/11/4 (Germany and IACS) proposing a unified interpretation for the use of sludge oil during the warm

- up process of continuous

- feed type shipboard incinerators, and developed the draft unified interpretation

, as set out in annex 6 to document BLG 16/16

, for consideration and approval by MEPC 64.

4.2 5 The Committee approved the unified interpretation for continuous

- feed type shipboard incinerators, and request ed the Secretariat to disseminate it , together with the unified interpretations as specifi ed in paragraph 4.112.5, by MEPC.1/Circ.795.

Supplement to the International Air Pollution Prevention (IAPP) Certificate

4.2 6 The Committee recalled that MEPC 63 considered document MEPC 63/7/8 (IACS) highlighting that section 2.3 of the supplement to IA PP Certificate will lead to situations that do not accurately reflect the current or future means by which the ship intends to operate

either when inside/outside an Emission Control Area ( ECA ) or when lower sulphur limits enter into force. MEPC 63 agreed to invite IACS to develop a unified interpretation on this

matter (MEPC 63/23, paragraph 4.45)

.

4.2 7 The Committee considered document MEPC 64/7/3 (IACS) provid ing IACS u nified

i nterpretation MPC 101 regarding completion of the s upplement to the Internati onal Air Pollution Prevention (IAPP) Certificate . IACS interpret ed that " as documented by bunker delivery notes " in section 2.3 of the supplement allows for an " x " to be entered in advance ofMEPC 64/ 23

P age 22

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc the dates indicated in all of the relevant check boxes

, recogni zing that the bunker delivery

notes provide the subsequent means to check that a ship is actually operating in a manner consistent with the intent as given in section 2.3.

4.28 The Committee agree d to instruct the Working Group on air pollution and energy efficiency to develop a draft unified interpretation based on IACS u nified i nterpretation

MPC 101 as a basis.

Assessment of availability of fuel oil under MARPOL Annex VI

4.29 The Committee recalled that MEPC 62 had considered documents MEPC 62/4/5 (Uni ted States) providing the report of the Correspondence Group on the assessment of availability of fuel oil under MARPOL Annex VI, including a draft methodology framework to examine the availability of compliant fue l, and MEPC 62/4/21 (ICS) providing commen ts on the need for early validation and refinement of a fuel availability model

.

4.30 The Committee also recalled that some delegations had supported the proposal by ICS to undertake a preliminary study during the period 2012

- 2013 with a focus on availabi lity of compliant fuel oil in Emission Control Areas (ECA). Other delegations were of the view that carrying out such a preliminary study would not lead to an effective validation for global supply of compliant

- fuel oil in 2020 as the scope of the study w ould be limited only to ECA (MEPC 62/24, paragraphs 4.44 to 4.49)

.

4.31 The Committee noted that no submission had been received at MEPC 63 on this
matter, and it agreed to invite Member Governments and interested delegations to submit concrete proposals to MEPC 64 for further consideration

.

4.32 The Committee considered document MEPC 6 4 /4/1 7 (ICS) propos ing that, during the period 2012

- 2014, the fuel availability model proposed by the Correspondence Group on

the assessment of availability of fuel oil und er MARPOL Annex VI be used to carry out a preliminary study to provide fuel availability scenarios for the period 2015

- 2016.

ICS considere d that a preliminary assessment using data on the availability of compliant fuel

oil in Emission Control Areas would provide essential information for the validation and refinement of the model prior to the critical review of fuel availability that is to be carried out under regulation 14.8 of MARPOL Annex VI

.

4.33 The Committee considered document MEPC 64/4/41 (United States) opposing the early initiation of the assessment of availability of fuel oil under MARPOL Annex VI , as the results of an earlier preliminary analysis would be of little value in assessing fuel availability in 2020, for several reasons The United St ates concluded that performing an additional analysis either for an earlier period or for a different set of standards could not be likely to achieve additional reliability and would come at an additional cost.

4.34 A number of delegations recognized that a preliminary study for the assessment of the availability of compliant fuel oil in 2020

, could provide further information to industries, such as retail operations and distribution from refiners to suppliers etc. and that it would be important in identif ying sooner rather than later what action is necessary to ensure availability of compliant fuel oil, and supported the preliminary study proposed by ICS.

4.35 Other delegations expressed the view that the preliminary study could not provide

additional cer tainty with respect to the availability of compliant fuel oil due to the difference in fuel sulphur limits of the fuels to be studied, the specific geographic location that ECA compliant fuel oil is to be used, and that the assessment methodology developed by the Correspondence Group contains proven models that do not need revalidation , and so did n o t support the preliminary study proposed by ICS.MEPC 64/ 23

P age 23

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc 4.36 The Committee agreed that this matter should be re considered at a future session

and invited interested de legations to submit proposals to MEPC 66.

Review of the status of the technological developments to implement the Tier III NO

x emissions standards

4. 37 The Committee recalled that regulation 13.10 of MARPOL Annex VI calls for a

review of the status of te chnological developments to implement the Tier III NO

x emissions standards to begin in 2012 and be completed no later than 2013, and that

, following consideration and agreement of t erms of r eference, MEPC 62 established a c orrespondence

g roup to carry out this review (MEPC 62/24, paragraph 4.24).

4. 38 The Committee considered documents MEPC 6 4 /4/ 16 and MEPC 64/INF.8 (United States) providing an interim report on the work of the C orrespondence G roup on Assessment of Technological Developments to Implement t he Tier III NOx Emission Standards under

MARPOL Annex VI. The correspondence group made substantial progress in defining and evaluating technologies that are expected to be used to meet the Tier III NO

x emission limits, especially with regard to s elective c atalytic r eduction ( SCR) and exhaust gas re

- circulation (EGR) technologies . A final report will be submitted to MEPC 65 including a recommendation as to whether the effective date in regulation 13.5.1.1 of MARPOL Annex VI should be retained or, if adjust ment is needed, reason given behind that adjustment.

4. 39 The Committee considered document MEPC 64/4/35 (Japan) provid ing the results of technological development of SCR systems for compliance with the Tier III NO

x emission standard, including data of sh ipboard testing of SCR systems. Japan emphasi z e d that the results of the project indicate d that the SCR systems could satisfactorily comply with the

Tier III NO

x emission limits as set out in regulation 13.5.1.1 of MARPOL Annex VI. Japan

con cluded that S CR are a possible technology that can be used by ships to comply with the

Tier III NO

x emission standards.

4. 40 ICOMIA expressed the view that it ha d yet to be satisfied that all yacht designs

w ould be able to both accommodate the demands of SCR treatment systems and remain commercially viable. ICOMIA was of the view that all aspects of Tier III compliance including consideration of the certification and compliance with Tier III limit under operational conditions must be assessed in every possible detail

. As reque sted, the statement is set out

in annex 5.

4. 41 The Committee agreed to consider this matter further at MEPC 65, whe n the final report of the correspondence g roup will be submitted.

Treatment of Ozone

- depleting substances used to service ships

4. 42 The Committee recalled that MEPC 63 had agreed to request the Secretariat to continue liaising with Ozone Secretariat an d provide an update on the work of the Montreal

Protocol to MEPC to facilitate the Committee ' s deliberation (MEPC 63/23, paragraph 4.54)

.

4.4 3 The Committee considered document MEPC 64/4/4 (Secretariat) present ing updated information on consideration by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol of the treatment of Ozone Depleting Substances used by international shipping

.

4.4 4 The Commit tee noted documents MEPC 64/INF.10 (Secretariat) provid ing the report for a study on the treatment of O zone

- d epleting S ubstances used to service ships undertaken by Lloyd ' s Register , and MEPC 64/INF.28 (Secretariat) outlining the outcome of the 32nd Open

- e nded Working Group meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol including a " Draft decision on trade of controlled substances with ships sailing under a foreign flag "

.MEPC 64/ 23

P age 24

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc 4.4 5 The Committee agreed to request the Secretariat to continue liaising with the Oz one Secretariat, and provide an update on the work of the Montreal Protocol, for consideration at

its next session to facilitate the Committee ' s deliberation of this issue.

Sulphur monitoring for 2011

4.4 6 The Committee recalled that

, i n accordance with regulation 14 .2 of MARPOL

Annex VI and the 2010 Guidelines for monitoring the worldwide average sulphur content of fuel oils supplied for use on board ships adopted by resolution MEPC .192 ( 61 ), the results of sulphur monitoring should be presented to a subs equent session of the Committee every year (in this case, MEPC 64 ).

4.4 7 T he Committee note d the information provided in document MEPC 64/4 (Secretariat) on the outcome of the monitoring of the worldwide average sulphur content of marine fuel oils supplie d for use on board ship s through 2011 , which shows the average sulphur content of residual fuel (2.65%) and distillate fuel (0.14%) for 2011.

Guidelines for certification of engines using SCR system

4. 48 The Committee r ecall ed that MEPC 62 had adopted, b y resolution MEPC.198(62),

the 2011 G uidelines addressing additional aspects to the NO

x Technical Code 2008 with regard to particular requirements related to marine diesel engines fitted with SCR systems (MEPC 62/24, paragraph 4.56.5)

.

4. 49 The Committee considered document MEPC 64/4/2 (EUROMOT) propos ing to amend the formula for deriving the NO

x reduction rates in paragraph 2.3.11 of

the 2011 Guidelines. Due to deviations between onboard conditions and reference conditions for pre

- certification test, EUR OMOT emphasized that c inlet,pre

- certification should be

used as denominator in the formula for the NO

x reduction rates, instead of c inlet

.

4. 50 The Committee considered document MEPC 64/4/40 (United States) o pposing the

amend ment to the 2011 Guidelines pr oposed by EUROMOT as the amendment is based on the assumption that all SCR reductant dosing controllers will be " feed

- forward " type , meaning that the controller will dose reductant based on a predetermined rate

. The United States

considered that a cceptanc e of the amendment by EUROMOT w ould encourage calibration of

the SCR to the ideal conditions of the test bed only (feed

- forward control), which could result in higher NO

x emissions under actual conditions , and that " f eedback control " based reductant dosing should be considered as its commonly used in mobile land

- based applications

.

4.51 Some delegation s expressed the view that both types of control system for SCR reductant injection rate (feed

- forward and feedback control) should be allowed to comply with

Tier III NO

x emission limit.

4.52 The majority did not support the amendments to the 2011 Guidelines proposed by

EUROMOT with some delegations noting that there is a possibility that the stringency of the requirements in regulation 13 of MARPOL Annex VI w ould be reduced

.

On

- shore power supply

4.53 The Committee recalled that MEPC 54 had considered document MEPC 54/4/3 (Germany and Sweden) proposing standardization of on

- shore power supply connections for ships in ports, and MEPC 55 had considered documen t MEPC 55/4/6 (Secretariat) providing
a report on on

- shore power supply, and two documents commenting on the report (MEPC 55/4/13 by Sweden and MEPC 55/4/10 by IMarEST).MEPC 64/ 23

P age 25

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc 4.54 The Committee recalled also that MEPC 59 had noted the information provided by

I SO (MEPC 59/4/11) concerning the status of ongoing standardization work within ISO and IEC on the shore supply of electric power to ships in port (cold ironing). ISO and IEC subsequently published IEC/PAS 60092

- 510:2009.

4.55 The Committee considered doc ument MEPC 64/4/3 (Secretariat) presenting information on the development of an international standard, and the growing availability of ports with berths that can provide an on

- shore power supply to an appropriately equipped ship.

4.56 The Committee noted the information that ISO had published an on

- shore power supply ( " cold ironing " ) standard ISO/IEC/IEEE 80005

- 1 in July 2012, and that a list of ports providing on

- shore power supply is available on the IAPH website

, as set out in document

MEPC 64/4/3

.

4. 57 The majority was of the view that ports equipped with on

- shore power supply are limited and mandatory requirements for the on

- shore power supply should not be developed at this stage.

4. 58 The Committee agreed to request the Secretariat to disseminate the information relating to the on

- shore power supply, e.g. lists of relevant standards and ports providing on

shore power supply as MEPC.1/Circ.794.

E NERGY EFFICIENCY FOR SHIPS

4.59 The Committee recalled that MEPC 62 had adopted the amendments to

MARPO L Annex VI incorporating a new chapter 4 on regulations on energy efficiency for ships, which makes the EEDI mandatory for new ships, and the SEEMP for all ships (MEPC 62/24, paragraph 6.111).

4

. 60 The Committee recalled also that MEPC 63 had adopted four sets of important guidelines to support the implementation of new chapter 4 of MARPOL Annex VI, and identified other necessary guidelines and unified interpretations to be developed as soon as possible for smooth implementation of the amendments, which wi ll enter into force

on 1 January 2013.

Unified interpretation s for chapter 4 of MARPOL Annex VI

Definition of " new ships " for Phase s 1, 2 and 3, and " major conversion "

4.61 The C o mmittee noted that MEPC 63 had considered documents MEPC 63/4/9 (China) an d MEPC 63/4/12 (IACS) seeking interpretation of the terms " new ships " for

Phase s 1, 2 and 3, and " major conversion " in regulation 2.24 of MARPOL Annex VI.

MEPC 63 agreed that a unified interpretation for " major conversion " should be developed using docume nt MEPC 63/4/12 (IACS) as basis, taking into account comments made in document MEPC 63/4/9 (China), and invited IACS to develop a draft unified interpretation

and submit it to MEPC 64 for consideration (MEPC 63/23, paragraph 4.24)

.

4.62 The Committee cons idered document MEPC 6 4 /4/1 2 (IACS) providing draft unified interpretation for the definition of " new ships " for Phases 1, 2 and 3 of the EEDI framework, as well as an interpretation of the phrase " major conversion "

. IACS prepared two possible interpretat ions for the definition of new ships based on the definition of new ships for Phase 0.MEPC 64/ 23

P age 26

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc 4.63 The Committee considered document MEPC 64/4/45 (United States) propos ing an interpretation for major conversion in regulation 2.24.4 of MARPOL Annex VI that consid er s any conversion, regardless how extensive, that would make the ship subject to the relevant MARPOL provisions if it were a newly constructed ship, rather than a previously constructed ship. The United States provide d a list of seven questions to evalua te whether a ship is a major conversion.

4.6 4 The Committee agreed to forward these documents to the Working Group for further consideration and instruct it to develop unified interpretations.

Date on which Ship Energy efficiency Management Plan (SEEMP) is required to be placed on board existing ships

4. 6 5 The Committee recalled that MEPC 63 had considered document MEPC 63/7/7 (IACS) seeking the Committee ' s advice on regulation 5.4.4 of MARPOL Annex VI, in which verification of a SEEMP on board existing ships is required at the first intermediate survey or renewal survey of the IAPP Certificate on or after 1 January 2013. MEPC 63 agreed to invite IACS to develop a draft unified interpretation on this matter and submit it to MEPC 64 for

consideration (MEP C 63/23, paragraph 4.29)

.

4

. 66 The Committee considered document MEPC 64/4/31 (IACS) provid ing an IACS unified interpretation on the relationship between the International Energy efficiency (IEE) Certificate and International Air Pollution Prevention (IAP P) Certificate as requested at

MEPC 63. IACS s ought clarification that the validity of the IAPP certificate should not be impacted by the lack of a SEEMP before the first intermediate/renewal survey on or

after 1 January 2013. IACS also s ought clarificat ion whether port State control ( PSC ) action relating to SEEMP would be taken before the ship is obliged to carry an IEE certificate.

4.67 T he Committee considered document MEPC 6 4 / 7 /1 (Marshall Islands) seek ing clarification concerning the implementation of MARPOL Annex VI, chapter 4, with respect to the date on which the SEEMP is required to be placed on board existing ships . Marshall Islands provided two options for a possible unified interpretation on the timing for the existing ships to keep on board a SEEMP.

4. 68 Some delegations expressed the view that option 2 proposed in document

MEPC 64/7/1 would be an appropriate interpretation.

4. 69 Other delegations were of the view that, if option 2 was taken, a ship with verified

SEEMP and another ship with not yet verified SEEMP would co

- exist. This would impair the

robustness of regulations in chapter 4 of MARPOL Annex VI and might cause confusion during port State control inspection s

.

4

. 70 The Committee agreed that a unified interpretation on the timing for the existing ships to keep on board a SEEMP should be developed based on option 1 in annex to

document MEPC 64/7/1. The Committee instructed the Working G roup on Air Pollution and Energy efficiency to develop the unified interpretations with respect to the date on which the SEEMP is required to be placed on board existing ships.

4. 71 The Committee agreed that the w orking g roup should consider comments by t he Republic of Korea that the SEEMP should be developed in the working language used

on board sh ips , and by IACS on a need to clarify the applicability of the SEEMP to platforms

and drilling rigs as they are not specified in regulations 6.4 and 19 of MARPOL Annex VI.MEPC 64/ 23

P age 27

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc Calculation of required EEDI for specialized ships designed to carry fruit juices in bulk

4.72 The Committee considered document MEPC 64/4/ 36/Rev.1 (Liberia and ICS)

propos ing that ships dedicated to the carriage of fruit juice in refrigerated cargo holds should be considered not as chemical carriers but as other refrigerated cargo sh ips when referring

to t ables 1 and 2 of regulation 21 of MARPOL Annex VI. The co

- sponsors also propose t o develop an MEPC circular providing unified interpretations on the appropriate ship type to be applied under the EEDI regulations for small speciali z e d ship sectors in dedicated trades.

4

. 73 The Committee agreed to forward the document to the W orking G roup on Air

Pollution and Energy efficiency for further consideration

.

Guidelines for determining minimum propulsion power and speed to enable safe

mano euvring in adverse weather conditions

4. 74 The Committee recalled that MEPC 62 had agreed to insert regulation 21.5 stating that the installed propulsion power shall not be less than the propulsion power needed to maintain safe manoeuvrability of the ship under adverse weather conditions as defined in the guidelines to be developed by the Organization. MEPC 63 noted that IACS would develop a new iteration of the draft guidelines in time for MEPC 64 as an interim measure and would be the basis for a perman ent solution (MEPC 63/23, paragraph 4.17.5).

4

. 75 The Committee considered document MEPC 64/4/13 and MEPC 64/INF.7 (I ACS, BIMCO, INTERCARGO, INTERTANKO and OCIMF ) provid ing draft interim guidelines for determining minimum propulsion power to maintain the manoeuvrability of ships in adverse

conditions. The co

- sponsors developed the draft interim guidelines based on a three

- level assessment approach, in which ships are considered to have sufficient power to maintain the manoeuvrability in adverse conditions if it fulfils any of the three assessment levels.

4

. 76 The Committee considered document MEPC 64/4/37 ( Greece ) emphasiz ing that draft guidelines proposed in document MEPC 64/4/13 do not fully address underpowering

concerns for P hase 0 as the resulting re quired minimum installed power is substantially lower than actual current designs. Greece considers an interim minimum speed requirement for

P hase 0 is safer and more appropriate.

4.77 The Committee considered document MEPC 64/4/42 (Japan and the Republi c of Korea) opposing the proposal by Greece in document MEPC 64/4/37. The co

- sponsors highlighted that the minimum power lines for level 1 verification in the draft guidelines should be set for all the existing ships to comply with. The co

- sponsors, noti ng that there are many issues to be reviewed in detail, proposed that a correspondence group be established to

undertake this review and the relevant parts of resolution MSC.137(76) on Standards for ship manoeuvrability can be used as a voluntary interim g uidelines for Phase 0.

4.78 Some delegations supported the interim minimum speed requirements for P hase 0 proposed by Greece. Many delegations expressed the view that interim minimum propulsion power is an appropriate way forward to maintain the manoeuvr ability of ships and did n o t support the minimum speed requirements.

4. 79 Some delegations expressed the view that draft interim guidelines proposed by IACS is too stringent as 10 per cent of existing ships do n o t comply with level one of the minimum powe r requirements despite the fact that these ships operate safely without manoeuvring problems.MEPC 64/ 23

P age 28

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc 4. 80 The majority supported the draft interim guidelines proposed by IACS and recognized that the draft interim guidelines need to be considered carefully and fu rther

modified at this session.

4

. 81 The Committee agreed that the interim guidelines for determining minimum propulsion power to maintain the manoeuvrability of ships in adverse conditions should be developed based on the draft text provided in the annex to document MEPC 64/ 4/13, taking

into account comments provided in documents MEPC 64/4/37 and MEPC 64/4/42. The Committee instructed the Working Group on Air Pollution and Energy efficiency to develop draft interim guidelines with a view to finalization and adoption at this session, and consider

the need for technical advice from the SLF S ub

- Committee.

Speed trial and model test

4

. 82 The Committee recalled that the second I ntersessional M eeting of the W orking

G roup on Energy efficiency M easures for S hip s had considered this matter and invited ITTC

to finalize an ITTC standard on a method for performing sea trials within this year, taking into

account the proposal in document MEPC 62/5/5 (Norway). MEPC 63 noted that ITTC would develop a standard for asse ssment of speed and power performance by analysis of speed trial data in time for MEPC 64 (MEPC 63/23, paragraph 4.17.4).

4

. 83 The Committee considered documents MEPC 6 4 /4/15 and MEPC 64/INF.6 (ITTC) introducing the Recommended Procedure 7.5

- 04

- 01

- 01.2, " Speed/power trials, part 2, analysis of speed/power trial data " to replace ISO 15016 for the evaluation of sea trial

measurements. The procedure consists of two parts : part one addresses the preparation and conduct of spe ed/power sea trial measurements; a nd part two concerns the correction

methods for the sea trials , and improves on the existing ISO 15016 taking into account the

" Sea Trial Analysis " (STA) method

.

4.84 The Committee considered document MEPC 64/4/43/Rev.1 (Japan and the Republic of Korea) h ighlighting that the revised ITTC ' s method for analysis of speed correction standard in document MEPC 64/INF.6 (ITTC) contains only the direct power method, although ITTC suggests in document MEPC 64/4/15 that two power correction methods (ISO 15016 and di rect power method) can be used. The co

- sponsor s also stressed

that the correction method for current which is specified in paragraph 3.5

, cannot be found in

MEPC.64/INF.6.

4. 85 The Committee note d information by ISO on the recent activity to ISO 15016,

g uidelines for the assessment of speed and power performance by analysis of speed trial

data

. ISO established a new w orking g roup, WG 17, in TC 8/SC 6 (navigation of ship operations), to improve the Wind and Wave correction accuracy from the sea trial cond ition to EEDI condition, among others. The first expert meeting of the WG 17 was held and made

a draft annex A and annex B to ISO 15016 which narrow down the correction method and also improve the accuracy of the correction method itself, and decided that the draft will be put on the voting for issuing Publically Available Specification (PAS) , in this year. This PAS

w ill help the relevant p arties to calculate a ship ' s performance in calm water from sea trial data precisely.

4.86 The Committee agreed to forward documents MEPC 64/4/15 and

MEPC 64 /4/43/Rev.1 to the w orking g roup for further consideration

.MEPC 64/ 23

P age 29

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc IMO model course on energy

- efficient operation of ships

4

. 87 The Committee recalled that WMU had finalized a draft model course for energy efficiency op eration of ships

, as set out in the annex to document MEPC 63/INF.10.

MEPC 63 noted that, for other IMO model courses developed to support implementation of IMO Conventions, a validation group had been established, which reviews the model course in questi on and provides comments and recommendations on the course content and structure. MEPC 63 agreed to establish a validation group to review and update the draft model course on energy

- efficient operation of ships for consideration by the Committee at

MEPC 65 (MEPC 63/23, paragraph 4.34).

4

. 88 The Committee considered document MEPC 64/4/5 and MEPC 64/INF.3 (Secretariat) report ing progress on the development of the draft IMO Model Course on

energy

- efficient operation of ships , and suggesting that the Committ ee may wish to forward

the draft IMO model course to the validation group under the STCW convention to review and provide comments.

4

. 89 The Committee agreed to request the Secretariat to forward the draft IMO Model Course on energy

- efficient operation of ships to the validation group for model courses under the STCW convention to review and provide comments

.

Guidelines for calculation of the EEDI

4

. 90 The Committee recalled that the second I ntersessional M eeting of the W orking

G roup on Energy efficiency M easures for S hips had noted information provided in document MEPC 62/5/21 ( BIMCO, CESA, IACS, ICS, INTERCARGO, INTERTANKO and OCIMF ) on

" The Joint Industry Working Group " established to prepare industry guidelines to facilitate consistent application of the EEDI by supporting the guidelines developed by IMO (MEPC 63/4/11, paragraph 2.60)

.

4

. 91 The Committee considered document s MEPC 64/4/32 and MEPC 64/INF.22 (BIMCO, CESA, IACS, ICS, INTERCARGO, INTERTANKO, ITTC, OCIMF and WSC) pr oviding the

first versi on of industry guidelines to provid e agreed procedures for the computation and the verification of the EEDI, compliant with the relevant IMO guidelines in resolutions MEPC.212(63) and MEPC.214(63), to be used by the verifiers as well as the submitters

when verifying and computing EEDI respectively. The co

- sponsors also provide d supplementa ry information on the five topics raised during the development of the industrial guidelines.

4

. 92 The Committee agreed to encourage the co

- sponsors to further develop t he industry guidance, and invite d interested delegations to provide comments to the following focal point :

Mr. Jean

- Francois Segretain

e

- mail: jean

- francois.segretain@bureauveritas.com

4

. 93 The Committee considered document MEPC 64/4/29 (China) propos ing

amendments to the 2012 G uidelines on the method of calculation of the attained energy efficiency design index ( EEDI ) for new ships taking into account the case where ship is equipped with more than one main engine. China propose d amendments to calculatio n methods for shaft generators and for auxiliary engine power P AE for ships equipped with more than one main engine.

4.94 The Committee agreed to forward document MEPC 64/4/29 to the w orking g roup for

further consideration

.MEPC 64/ 23

P age 30

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc Matters relating to SEEMP

4.95 The Committee considered document MEPC 64/4/ 33 (CSC and WWF) propos ing an enhanced SEEMP (SEEMP Plus) to provide clearer guidance on energy efficiency measures and to support a more targeted approach to energy efficiency on board the ship.

The co

- sponsor s also propose d develop ment of appropriate standardiz ed monitoring, reporting and verification methodologies for the SEEMP.

4. 96 Some delegations expressed the view that SEEMP will be implemented

from 1 January 2013 , and i t is therefore too early or prema ture to amend requirements for

SEEMP by introduc ing the proposed " SEEMP Plus " because at least some experience in implementation is necessary

.

4. 97 The Committee agreed that the proposed amendments to SEEMP to introduce

" SEEMP Plus " were not to be conside red at this point in time

, noting that the document on the matter may be re submitted for consideration at a future session. China expressed the view that experience was required of SEEMP before any amendments should be considered.

Guid ance on treatment of innovative energy efficiency technologies

4.98 The Committee recalled that MEPC 63 had approved the report of the second Intersessional Meeting of the Working Group on Energy efficiency Measures for Ships in general and, in particular

, noted that Japan w ould further develop draft guidance for the

assessment of innovative energy efficiency technologies in calculation and verification of the attained EEDI in cooperation with interested members (MEPC 63/23, paragraph 4.17.4).

4. 99 The delegation of Greece e xpressed the view that a method of future adjustment of a ship ' s attained EEDI calculated as a result of utilizing certain innovative technologies

, for which insufficient actual experience exists and sea trial tests cannot fully confirm the device ' s perfor mance

, should be included in the guidance.

4.100 The delegation of Japan expressed the view that this guidance document should be regarded as a supplement document to the EEDI cal culation Guidelines (resolution MEPC.212(63)) and the EEDI Survey and Certif ication Guidelines (resolution MEPC.214(63)), and that therefore, it is a prerequisite to keep consistency amongst these documents, namely, use of calm sea conditions, without taking into account the wave or ship motions which occur in actual sea condition s.

4

. 101 The Committee agreed that document s MEPC 64/4/8 (Denmark, Germany and Japan) and MEPC 64/4/39 (Greece) be forwarded to the Working Group for consideration.

Guidelines for the calculation of the coefficient f

w

4

. 102 The Committee recalled that t he second I ntersessional M eeting of the W orking

G roup on Energy efficiency M easures for S hips had agreed that, for the purpose of calculation of the attained EEDI for regulation 20 and 21 of MARPOL Annex VI, f

w should

be 1.00. If calculate d f

w is used, th e attained EEDI using calculated f

w should be presented

as " attained EEDI weather " in order to clearly distinguish it from the attained EEDI under regulations 20 and 21 of MARPOL Annex VI (MEPC 63/4/11, paragraph 2.17)

.

4.103 The Committee also recalled th at MEPC 63 had noted that Japan would further develop draft guidelines for the calculation of f

w .MEPC 64/ 23

P age 31

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc 4. 104 The Committee agreed that document s MEPC 64/4/ 7 (Japan) , MEPC 64/4/28 (China) and MEPC 64/4/38 (Greece) be forwarded to the w orking g roup for considera tion.

Work in accordanc e with the work plan for energy efficiency measures

4.105 The Committee r ecall ed that MEPC 63 had endorsed the work plan and schedule for further development of technical and operational measures for ships (annex 12 to

document MEP C 63/23/Add.1), which includes development of regulatory frameworks for passenger ships, ro

- ro cargo ships and ro

- ro passenger ships, EEDI calculation method for ships having non

- conventional propulsion, review of EEDI for large size segment of oil

tankers and bulk carriers, and a review of requirements for small ship segments.

4.106 The Committee agreed that the following document s be forwarded to the working group for consideration :

Passenger ships, ro

- ro cargo ships and ro

- ro passenger ships

MEPC 64/4 /6 by Denmark, Japan, Norway and WSC

MEPC 6 4/4/9 by Denmark, Japan and Norway MEPC 64/4/10 by Denmark, Japan and Norway MEPC 64/4/11 by Denmark, Japan and Norway MEPC 64/4/14 by Germany, Sweden and CESA MEPC 64/4/19 by CLIA MEPC 64/4/20 by Denmark, Japan a nd Norway MEPC 64/4/23 by INTERFERRY MEPC 64/4/25 by Denmark, Japan, Norway and WSC MEPC 64/4/34 by CLIA

EEDI calculation method for ships having non

- conventional propulsion

MEPC 64/4/21 by Germany MEPC 64/4/26 by Japan

, Liberia and SIGTTO

Review of EED I for large size segment of oil tankers and bulk carriers

MEPC 64/4/27 by China

Review of requirements for small ship segments

MEPC 64/4/18 and MEPC 64/INF.9 by the Netherlands

Energy efficiency measures

4. 10 7 T he Committee note d document MEPC 64/INF. 23 (Clean Shipping Coalition)

elaborat ing the proposal for " A transparent and reliable hull and propeller performance

standard " , presented by the Bellona Foundation as a member of CSC at MEPC 63 ( MEPC 63/4/8) . CSC provide d an updated estimate of the poten tial for GHG emissions reductions related to improvements in hull and propeller performance based on a larger number of ship samples

.

Establishment of Working Group on Air Pollution and Energy efficiency

4.1 08 The Committee established the Working Group on Air P ollution and Energy efficiency , under the Chairmanship of Mr. Koichi Yoshida (Japan), with the following terms

and reference:MEPC 64/ 23

P age 32

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc " Taking into account relevant documents as well as comments and decisions made in plenary, the Working Group on Air Pollut ion and Energy efficiency is instructed to:

.1 finalize a unified interpretation for the definition of " new ships " for Phases 1, 2 and 3 of the EEDI framework , with a view to approval at this session;

.2 finalize a unified interpretation of the phrase " m ajor conversion "

, with a view to approval at this session;

.3 finalize a unified interpretation on the timing for existing ships to have on board a SEEMP, with a view to approval at this session;

.4 finalize the interim guidelines for determining minimum propulsion power to maintain the manoeuvrability of ships in adverse

conditions , with a view to adoption by MEPC resolution at this
session;

.5 consider the need for additional technical advice from the

SLF S ub

- Committee on manoeuvrability of ships in ad verse conditions ;

. 6 further develop and, if possible, finalize draft guidelines for the

calculation of the coefficient f

w , using the annex to document

MEPC 64/4/7 as a basis;

. 7 further develop and, if possible, finalize guidance on treatment of

innovat ive energy efficiency technologies, using document

MEPC 64/4/8 as a basis;

. 8 consider the need for the development of MEPC circular on the appropriate category to be applied for small specialized ship
sectors in dedicated trades;

. 9 review documents MEP C 64/4/29 on the EEDI calculation methods, MEPC 64/4/15 and MEPC 64/4/43/Rev.1 on speed trial
and model test;

.10 continue to work in accordance with the work plan and schedule for further development of technical and operational measures for ships endors ed by MEPC 63 (MEPC 63/23/Add.1, annex 12);

.11 finalize a draft unified interpretation for section 2.3 of the supplement to the IAPP Certificate, using the annex to document MEPC 64/7/3 as a basis;

.12 consider and recommend an appropriate way forward o n procedures for sampling of fuel oil being used on board ships;

.13 consider and recommend if an intersessional correspondence

group on energy efficiency should be established; and if so, develop draft terms of reference for the group; and

.1 4 submit a written report to plenary on Thursday, 4 October 201 2

. "MEPC 64/ 23

P age 33

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc Outcome of the Working Group on Air Pollution and Energy efficiency

4.1 09 The Committee received the report of the Working Group on Air Pollution and Energy efficiency (MEPC 64/WP.11). In his introd uction of the report, the Chairman of the

w orking g roup, Mr. Koichi Yoshida (Japan), emphasized that the w orking g roup had:

.1 finalized five sets of unified interpretations, namely a unified interpretation

for the definition of " new ships " for Phases 1, 2 and 3 of the EEDI framework; a unified interpretation of the phrase " major conversion " ; a unified interpretation on the timing for existing ships to have on board a SEEMP; a unified interpretation on the appropriate category to be applied

for dedicated f ruit juice carriers ; and a unified interpretation for section 2.3 of supplement to IAPP certificate;

.2 finalize d the draft MSC

- MEPC c ircular for the interim guidelines fo r determining minimum propulsion power to maintain the manoeuvrability of ships in a dverse conditions , for further consideration of the associated tables at MSC 91;

.3 finalized the draft interim guidelines for the calculation of the coefficient f

w for decrease of ship speed in respective sea condition for trial use ;

.4 finalized draft amendments to the 2012 Guidelines on the method of

calculation of the attained EEDI and draft amendments to the

2012 Guidelines on survey and certification of the EEDI ; and

.5 continued work in accordance with the work plan agreed at MEPC 63

.

4.110 The C ommittee noted the following amendments to document MEPC 64/WP.11:

.1 Paragraph 6.6 is replaced by the following:

" 6.6 The Group agreed that the parameters in table 1 of annex 2 should be determined, at MSC 91, by data sets in which data deviating b y more than two standard deviations is eliminated and the others are

included. " ;

.2 Paragraph 11.5 is replaced by the following:

" 11.5 The Group agreed that, as an interim measure until a revised

ISO 15016 is published, and the Committee concurs with the revised version of the ISO standard, the ITTC recommendation should be referred to in the guidelines as the preferred method by amending the footnote to paragraph 4.3.8 as contained in annex 5. The Group agreed to invite the Committee to approve the a mendments. " ; and

.3 Paragraph 12.14 relates to the review of EEDI for the large size segment of oil tankers and bulk carriers and so should paragraph 12.20bis.

4.111 The delegations of China, Denmark and Greece made statements on the report of

the Worki ng Group on Air Pollution and Energy efficiency (MEPC 64/WP.11)

, as set out in

annex 6.MEPC 64/ 23

P age 34

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc Action taken on the report of the W orking Group on Air Pollution and Energy efficiency

4.1 12 In concluding its consideration of the report of the w orking g roup, the Committee approved it in general and, in particular (paragraph numbers are those of document

MEPC 64/

WP.11 ) :

.1 approve d the draft unified interpretation for the definition of " new ships " for Phases 1, 2 and 3 of the EEDI framework under regulation 2.23 o f MARPOL Annex VI (paragraph 3.6);

.2 approve d the draft unified interpretation of the phrase " major conversion " under regulation 2.24 of MARPOL Annex VI (paragraph 4.5);

.3 approve d the draft unified interpretation on the timing for existing ships to

ha ve on board a SEEMP under regulations 5.4.4 and 22.1 of MARPOL Annex VI (paragraph 5.8);

.4 approved the draft unified interpretation on the appropriate category to be applied for dedicated fruit juice carriers (paragraph 9.4 );

.5 approve d the draft unif ied interpretation for section 2.3 of supplement to

IAPP certificate (paragraph 13.2);

the above five unified interpretations are set out in annex 7, and requested the Secretariat to disseminate them as MEPC.1/Circ.795;

. 6 a pproved , subject to concurren t decision by MSC 91, the draft MEPC

- MSC

c ircular for the interim guidelines for determining minimum propulsion power to maintain the manoeuvrability of ships in adverse conditions (paragraph 6.5), as set out in annex 2 to document MEPC 64/WP.11;

. 7 invit ed MSC 91 to note that the entry

- into

- force date of chapter 4 of

MARPOL Annex VI wil l be 1 January 2013 and the need to finalize the draft

MEPC

- MSC c ircular for the interim guidelines for determining minimum propulsion power to maintain the manoeuvrability of ships in adverse

conditions at that session (paragraph 6. 5 );

. 8 approved the draft interim guidelines for the calculation of the coefficient f

w for decrease of ship speed in representative sea condition for trial use (paragraph 7.3 )

, as set out in ann ex 3 to document MEPC 64/WP.11, and
request ed the Secretariat to disseminate as MEPC.1/Circ.796 ;

. 9 noted the view of the Working G roup relating to the procedures on sampling of fuel oil being used on board ( paragraph 14.2 ) that, for further

consideration on this matter, it would be necessary to consider further submissions that identify the compelling need for procedures and include concrete proposals, e.g. draft amendments to MARPOL Annex VI or draft unified interpretation and draft guidelines on samplin g fuel oil being used

on board ships ;

.10 adopted , by resolution MEPC.224(64), the amendments to the

2012 Guidelines on the method of calculation of the attained Energy efficiency Design Index (EEDI) for new ships (resolution MEPC.212(63) ) (paragraph 10.2 ) , as set out in annex 8;MEPC 64/ 23

P age 35

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc .11 approved the amendments to f ootnote 2 of the 2012 Guidelines on survey

and certification of the Energy efficiency Design Index (EEDI) (resolution MEPC.214(63) ) (paragraph 11.5) , as set out in annex 9; and

.12 agreed to establ ish an intersessional Correspondence Group on Energy efficiency Measure s for Ships under, the coordination of Japan 3 , with the following t erms of r eference:

.1 develop the draft guidelines for determining minimum propulsion power to enable safe manoeuvri ng in adverse conditions by

fine

- tuning the parameters using the draft text in document

MEPC 64/4/13 as the basis, and taking into account comments in documents MEPC 64/4/37 and MEPC 64/4/42 as they relate to the methodology set out in document MEPC 64/4/1 3, and comments made at MEPC 64 as they relate to minimum power;

.2 improve further the draft guidance on treatment of innovative energy efficiency technologies using the draft text in document

MEPC 64/4/8 as the basis a nd taking into account document

MEP C 64/4/39 and comments made at MEPC 64;

.3 review the interim guidelines for the calculation of the coefficient f

w for decrease of ship speed in representative sea condition for trial use taking into account document s MEPC 64/4/28 and MEPC 64/4/38

and com ments made at MEPC 64; and

.4 submit a report to MEPC 65.

4. 113 The Committee thanked the Chairman, Mr. Koichi Yoshida, and members of the group for their hard work.

5 REDUCTION OF GHG EMISSIONS FROM SHIPS

Order of discussions

5.1 Based on a proposal by its Chairman, the Committee agreed on the following order

of discussions:

.1 Further work on GHG emissions from ships:

.1 Update of the GHG emission estimate for international shipping;

.2 Market

- b ased Measures:

.1 Consideration and possible conso lidation of MBM proposals

,

.2 Impact assessment,

3 Coordinator :

Mr. Hideaki Saito Director for International Regulations Safety Standards Division

, Maritime Bureau Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism

Tel: 03

- 5253

- 8636

E

- mail: saito

- h55rp@mlit.go.jpMEPC 64/ 23

P age 36

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc .3 Climate finance and possible use of MBM revenues,

.4 Reduction target for international shipping,

.5 Relation between an MBM for international shipping under IMO

and the WTO Rules ; and

.3 UNFCCC matters.

Further work on GHG emissions from ships

5.2 The Committee recalled that MEPC 63 noted that uncertainty exists in the estimates and projections of emissions from international shipping and agreed that further work should take place to provide the Committee with reliable and up

- to

- date information to base its decisions on and requested the Secretariat to investigate possibilities and report to future sessions. The Committee also recalled that Member States were encouraged to submit

documents to this session.

5.3 The Committee considered document MEPC 64/5/5 (Secretariat) containing a draft outline for an update of the GHG emissions estimate for international shipping providing, among others, methodological aspects and information on the work dis tribution.

5.4 Several delegations welcomed and supported the draft outline for an update of GHG emissions data from international shipping on a global scale, highlighting the need for reliable, robust and credible up

- to

- date data to support the Committee ' s work regarding future possible measures to address GHG emissions from international shipping.

5.5 In this regard, the Committee noted the following views:

.1 a n update of the GHG estimate for international shipping must be undertaken in a fair, open and transparent manner and in coordination with the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice of the UNFCCC, whose agenda includes a specific item for the consideration of

emissions from fuel used for international aviation and maritime trans port, and that this work should take into consideration the methodological work developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC);

.2 further consideration is needed to be given to ensuring the estimates related to those made by other inte rnational organizations, that the work is scientifically based, equitable and balanced, which will be tasked to undertake the work, how the data will be used and the methodology to be used;

.3 there is an urgent need for information on the actual fuel con sumption of ships and hence highlighted the need of moving forward with a bottom

- up (ship activity) approach of the GHG emissions estimate as well as top

- down analysis which has been used in the past; and

.4 monitoring and reporting of data was also impor tant.

5.6 The Committee

, after the discussions

, endorsed, in principle, the outline for an update of the GHG emissions estimate as set out in the annex to document MEPC 64/5/5

, and agreed that the expert workshop to be held in 2013 should further conside r the methodology and assumptions to be used in the update. In this regard, the Committee called for donations to finance the expert workshop as well as the study.MEPC 64/ 23

P age 37

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc Market

- b ased Measures

Consideration and possible consolidation of MBM proposals

5.7 The C ommittee recalled that MEPC 63 had considered the various MBM proposals and whether they, or some of them, might be consolidated, thus making the number more manageable.

5.8 The Committee also recalled that for this session all proposals should have been further developed.

5.9 The Committee considered document MEPC 64/5/2 (Japan) presenting a first draft legal text for a modified EIS proposal based on the International GHG Fund proposal by Denmark et al. (GHG

- WG 3/3/4) and also noted document MEPC 64/INF. 15 presenting a schematic outline of the modified EIS (as set out in MEPC 64/5/2).

5.10 The Committee considered document MEPC 64/5/4 (Jamaica) providing additional details on the Port State Levy (PSL). Jamaica

, in the document, explains how the PSL woul d be applied and demonstrates that the proposal would not incur significant administrative

burdens.

5.11 The Committee considered documents MEPC 64/5/6 and MEPC 64/5/7 (United States). Document MEPC 64/5/6 identifies two major changes to the proposal in document MEPC 59/4/48 addressing GHG emissions by fostering improvements in ships ' energy efficiency . First, the establishment of mandatory attained efficiency standards potentially using a metric based on fuel consumption and secondly, the establishment o f a phased approach: a data collection phase (Phase I); a pilot phase (Phase II); and a full implementation phase (Phase III). Document MEPC 64/5/7 provides a draft regulatory text

for amendments to MARPOL Annex VI for Phases I and II of the revised propos al in

document MEPC 64/5/6.

5.12 The Committee considered document MEPC 64/5/9 (Brazil, China, India, Peru, Saudi Arabia and South Africa) emphasizing the importance of adopting decisions by consensus and the need to respect the principles and provisions of the UNFCCC, its Kyoto Protocol and the principle of CBDR. The co

- sponsors consider that priority should be given to the development of an ambitious MEPC resolution to ensure that financial, technological and capacity

- building support from developed cou ntries for the implementation of regulations on energy efficiency for ships by developing countries is provided. The co

- sponsors consider that all further decisions on MBMs must await the adoption of the resolution, and that future

consideration of MBMs mu st fully take into account potential impacts of those measures on developing countries.

5.13 The Co mmittee considered document MEPC 64/5/11 (ICS) highlighting concern with proposals intending to incentivize increases in energy efficiency by means of reduc tions in fuel consumption based on an arbitrary numerical index whether based on EEDI or some other formulation. ICS considers that if an MBM is to be adopted it should relate directly to the actual fuel consumption of individual ships in service.

5.14 T he Committee considered document MEPC 64/5/8 ( CSC) arguing that i n designing an MBM to reduce emissions, the Organization cannot avoid taking account of variations of ship speed, and that when the impact assessment looks at the MBMs currently on the table, it should assess how the impacts and effectiveness of the measures would be affected if ship speed was specifically addressed by the MBMs. The Committee further noted document MEPC 64/INF.14 ( CSC) summarizing a new study into the policy options, costs and benefits of regulating slow steaming.MEPC 64/ 23

P age 38

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc 5.15 Following a proposal by the Chairman , in view of time constraints for this item, and following comments by some delegations on the urgent need to finalize the draft MEPC resolution on promotion of technical co

- operation and transfer of technology relating to the improvement of energy efficiency of ships, the Committee agreed to keep the documents presented in abeyance and postpone further debate on MBMs to MEPC 65.

Impact assessment

5.16 The Committee agreed to postpone discussion of the impact assessment to

MEPC 65.

5.17 The Committee noted an intervention by the delegation of Norway highlighting that the proposal made by the United States in documents MEPC 64/4/6 and MEPC 64/4/7 is not,

due to its technical nature, an MBM proposal, and therefore should be considered under agenda item 4 at future sessions.

Climate finance and possible use of MBM revenues

5.18 The Committee recalled that MEPC 63 agreed that the debate on climate finance and possible use of MBM revenues should be considered further at MEPC 64 and invited Member States and observers to submit further input to the debate (MEPC 63/23, paragraph 5.37).

5.19 The Committee considered documents MEPC 64/5/10 and MEPC 64/5/12 (WWF).

Document MEPC 64/ 5/10 provides draft regulatory text on uses of financing generated from an MBM in form of additions to a potential convention based on the Rebate mechanism proposal. Document MEPC 64/5/12 provides results of incorporating trading distances to

calculate a c ountry ' s share of value

- distance of global imports from non

- adjacent countries for nearly 200 countries which may be used as the rebate and credit keys in the Rebate

Mechanism.

5.20 The Committee agreed to consider the documents by WWF at the next sessio n.

5.21 The Committee noted a general statement by the delegation of Egypt on issues and policies related to MBMs. As requested, the statement is set out in annex 10

.

Reduction target for international shipping

5.22 The Committee noted that this matter has been postponed several times due to time constraints and agreed that it could be further considered at a future session.

Relation between an MBM for international shipping under IMO and the WTO Rules

5.23 The Committee considered document MEPC 64/5/ 3 (India and Saudi Arabia) arguing that MBMs show incompatibility with the WTO Rules, and that the GH G

- WG 3 conclusion that MBMs are, in principle

, compatible with the WTO Rules was premature since most of the MBM proposals are not yet elaborated enough to support that conclusion.

5.24 The Committee agreed that the matter could be further considered at MEPC 65, subject to the impact assessment of the proposed MBMs.MEPC 64/ 23

P age 39

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc UNFCCC matters

5.25 The Committee noted document MEPC 64/5/1 (Secretariat) on the outcom e of the Conference of Subsidiary Bodies to the UNFCCC held in May 2012.

5.26 The Committee also noted document MEPC 64/INF.31 (Secretariat) providing information on the first Board meeting of the Green Climate Fund which was held

from 23 to 25 August 20 12 in Geneva, Switzerland.

5.27 The Committee further noted an intervention by the representative of the UNFCCC Secretariat, which provided a status report on the current state of negotiations in general and on bunker fuels in particular. As requested, th e statement is set out in annex 11

.

6 CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO MANDATORY

INSTRUMENTS

6.1 The Committee recalled that, at MEPC 63, it had approved in principle, subject to

MSC 90 ' s concurrent decision, proposed amendments to chapters 17, 18 and 19 of the

IBC Code with a view to adoption at this session. The proposed amendments, as set out in document MEPC 64/6 (Secretariat), incorporated numerous changes and developments which had been progressed through the ESPH Working Group since t he last amendments were adopted in 2007, addressing carriage requirements for many new products and including new data for a number of low

- flashpoint products in chapter 17 which previously had data missing for electrical equipment (column i). Additionall y, the proposals incorporated a fully revised chapter 19 (Index of Products Carried in Bulk).

6.2 The Committee noted additionally that, in line with the special character of the

IBC Code which is a mandatory instrument under both the MARPOL and SOLAS

Con ventions, MSC 90 had subsequently also approved the same proposals and that the proposed amendments to the IBC Code had been circulated by the Secretary

- General of the Organization, in accordance with article 16(2)(a) of the MARPOL Convention, under cover of

Circular letter No.3261 of 20 March 2012.

6.3 Noting that there was only one document commenting on the proposals (M EPC 64/6/1 (Norway and the United Kingdom)) and that this provided detailed observations on the proposed amendments rather than comments of a general nature, the Committee agreed to send the proposed listings and assoc iated comments directly to the

d rafting g roup for review and finalization.

Establishment of the Drafting Group

6.4 The Committee agreed to establish a Drafting Group on A m endments to the

IBC Code and, taking into account the documents submitted, instructed it to:

.1 review and finalize the texts of proposed amendments to chapters 17, 18

and 19 of the IBC Code; and

.2 submit a written report to the plenary on Thursday, 4 October 2012.

Outcome of the Drafting Group and adoption of the amendments

6.5 Having considered the report of the Drafting Group on A mendments to the

IBC Code (MEPC 64/WP.12), which met on 2 October 2012 under the chairmanship of

Mr. David MacRae (Unite d Kingdom), the Committee approved the report in general and, by consensus, consequently:MEPC 64/ 23

P age 40

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc .1 adopted, by resolution MEPC.225(64), the 2012 amendments to the

IBC Code (chapters 17, 18 and 19) , as set out in annex 12 ; and

.2 instructed the Secretariat to u ndertake a final check of the amendments for any editorial errors and, if necessary, to correct these in the final text of the amendments, ensuring that the amendments remain identical under both

SOLAS and MARPOL.

7 INTERPRETATIONS OF, AND AMENDMENTS TO, MARPOL AND RELATED

INSTRUMENTS

G ENERAL

7.1 The Committee noted that 10 documents had been submitted to MEPC 64 under this agenda item and that documents MEPC 64/7/1 (Marshall Islands) and

MEPC 64/7/3 (IACS), dealing with matters related to MARPOL Annex VI, had been considered under agenda item 4

– Prevention of air pollution from ships.

M ATTERS CONCERNING MARPOL A NNEX I

Discharge of settled

- out water during oil spill recovery operations

7.2 In introducing document MEPC 64/7, the observer from the In ternational Spill Control Organization (ISCO) suggested amending provisions in MARPOL Annex I, to allow for the release of decanted water with oil content in excess of 15 ppm during major oil pollution incidents and developing associated operational guidel ines, with a view to addressing practical issues that arise, where strict observance of MARPOL Annex I provisions governing oil discharge at sea can inhibit effectiveness of marine oil spill recovery operations.

7.3 Following discussion, the Committee agr eed that there was no need to amend MARPOL Annex I as the issue had been addressed in regulation 4.3 of that Annex.

7.4 With regard to the proposal of developing operational guidelines for situations where discharge of settled

- out water during oil recov ery operations would not comply with current MARPOL requirements, the Committee, noting the concern expressed by some delegations

that document MEPC 64/7 had not been submitted according to relevant provisions of the

Committees ' Guidelines, agreed that, if the observer from ISCO wishes to pursue the matter further, a proposal co

- sponsored by Member Governments for a planned output of the Committee should be submitted to a future session for consideration. In that connection, the Committee agreed that such G uidelines should only apply to international waters.

Recording incinerator capacity on the Supplement to the IOPP Certificate

7.5 The Committee recalled that MEPC 63, having considered document

MEPC 63/7/4 (IACS) proposing that it was unnecessary to rec ord incinerator capacity on the Supplement to the IOPP Certificate Forms A and B, due to the confusion caused by using different units of measurement, had decided not to pursue the matter further unless a proposal for an amendment to MARPOL Annex I is rece ived in the future.

7.6 In this connection, the Committee considered document MEPC 64/7/4 (Republic of Korea, United Kingdom and IACS) providing the co

- sponsors ' further rationale for the proposal contained in document MEPC 63/7/4. The co

- sponsors were of the view that the proposed amendment to MARPOL Annex I should be considered as a " consequential update " following the approval of revised Unified Interpretation to regulation 12.1 ofMEPC 64/ 23

P age 41

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc MARPOL Annex I, not as an amendment introducing new and substantive prov isions, and that the issue could be addressed by a drafting group.

7.7 Noting the support for the proposal, the Committee instructed the drafting group to prepare the text of draft amendments to Form A and Form B of Supplements to the IOPP

Certificate t o delete recording incinerator ' s capacity.

A PPLICATION OF MARPOL A NNEX IV AND THE BWM C ONVENTION TO SEWAGE OR GREY WATER

STORED IN BALLAST TA NKS

7.8 The Committee recalled that MEPC 63, having considered document

MEPC 63/2/18 (Norway) seeking clarificati on of application of the BWM Convention to grey water and sewage stored in ballast tanks, had agreed that handling of grey water and sewage water on board ships should be regulated under MARPOL Annex IV, and had invited Parties to propose relevant amendmen ts to that Annex for consideration at a future session

of the Committee.

7.9 The Committee had for its consideration the following two documents:

.1 document MEPC 64/7/2 (Norway) providing text of draft amendments to MARPOL Annex IV, with a view to regu lating the discharge of sewage water stored in ballast tanks, as well as text of draft consequential

amendments to Guidelines for ballast water management and development of ballast water management plans (G4) (resolution MEPC.127(53)); and

.2 document M EPC 64/7/7 (China) expressing the view that it was premature to draw the conclusion that handling of grey water and sewage water on board ships should be regulated under MARPOL Annex IV; and suggesting to determine the principles of application of MARPOL A nnex IV and the

BWM Convention for sewage stored in ballast tanks on the basis of analysis of different scenarios described in their document.

7.10 In the ensuing discussion, delegations expressed, inter alia, the following views:

.1 that since the BWM C onvention has not yet entered into force, it is premature to introduce new provisions in MARPOL Annex IV which

cross

- reference to the provisions of the BWM Convention;

.2 that grey water is not regulated under MARPOL Annex IV and any other

IMO instrument s;

.3 that detailed technical consideration is needed for the proposal by Norway

as well as the different scenarios described in document MEPC 64/7/7 (China);

.4 that there are concerns over the implications of the proposals, in terms of implementation a nd enforcement, as well as operational aspects;

.5 that there is a need to address the difficulties ships are facing where ships are not allowed to discharge sewage water in some ports and have to use additional tanks (including ballast water tanks) for temporary storage of sewage; andMEPC 64/ 23

P age 42

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc .6 that untreated sewage should be prohibited to be transferred to ballast water tanks as it will cause operational problems to the ballast water
management systems.

7.11 Noting the divergent views expressed and the fact that the BWM Convention has not yet come into force, the Committee agreed not to pursue the matter further at this stage.

In that connection, the Committee agreed that if interested Member Governments wish to consider the matter further, a proposal for a post

- biennium (2014

- 2015) output for the

BLG Sub

- Committee should be submitted to MEPC 65 for consideration.

F ORM OF THE I NTERNATIONAL S EWAGE P OLLUTION P REVENTION C ERTIFICATE

7.12 The Committee recalled that MEPC 63, having considered document

MEPC 63/7 /2 (India) proposing that the International Sewage Pollution Prevention Certificate should reflect the number of persons a ship is certified to carry, based upon the sewage treatment plant capacity or the sewage holding tank capacity, had noted the diverge nt views on the issue and had invited India and other interested delegations to submit a revised proposal to its future session if they wish to pursue the issue further.

7.13 In this connection, the Committee considered document MEPC 64/7/5 (India)

conta ining a revised proposal on the issue.

7.14 In the ensuing discussion, a number of delegations expressed the views that there was no possible correlation between the number of persons a ship is certified to carry and the sewage treatment plant capacity ( sewage holding tank capacity), as other factors, including the length of voyage, the use of port reception facility, as well as types of flush systems used, should also be taken into account.

7.15 With regard to the proposal of developing guidelines fo r defining number of persons based on the sewage treatment or holding (storage) capacity, some other delegations raised their concerns regarding the practicality and difficulty in developing such guidelines.

7.16 Noting that the proposal in document MEPC 64/7/5 did not receive sufficient support, the Committee agreed not to pursue this matter further.

P ROPOSAL FOR EXEMPTIO N OF SURVEY AND CERT IFICATION REQUIREMEN TS UNDER THE
MARPOL C ONVENTION FOR UNMANN ED AND NON

- SELF

- PROPELLED BARGES

7.17 In introducin g document MEPC 64/7/6, the delegation of the Republic of Korea proposed to identify unmanned and non

- self

- propelled barges as they had no onboard sources of pollutants to the marine environment, and to develop a method to exempt survey

and certification r equirements relating to each Annex of the MARPOL Convention for such ships.

7.18 In the ensuing discussion, many delegations indicated their support for the need to address the issue raised in the document, at the same time suggesting that careful technic al consideration was also needed with regard to the exemption of survey and certification requirements under specific MARPOL Annexes, as a blanket approach for exemption would not be appropriate.

7.19 Following the discussion, the Committee agreed to ref er document MEPC 64/7/6 to

FSI 21 for further consideration under the agenda item " Review of the Survey Guidelines

under the HSSC and the annexes to the Code or the Implementation of Mandatory IMO

Instruments " , with a view to defining when survey and certi fication requirements could beMEPC 64/ 23

P age 43

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc exempted for unmanned and non

- self

- propelled barges under a specific MARPOL Annex.

In that connection, the Committee invited Member Governments and international organizations to include in their delegations to FSI 21 suitab le experts on the subject.

I MPLEMENTATION OF REV ISED MARPOL A NNEX V

7.20 The Committee recalled that MEPC 63, having adopted the 2012 Guidelines for the implementation of MARPOL Annex V (resolution MEPC.219(63)), had agreed to the need to

introduce an i nterim measure for the discharge of solid bulk cargo residues in the context of implementation of the revised MARPOL Annex V and had invited interested Member Governments and international organizations to submit proposals and comments for such an

interim measure, which could be disseminated by means of an MEPC circular.

7.21 The Committee had for its consideration the following two documents:

.1 document MEPC 64/7/8 (Canada, Chile, Japan, United States, BIMCO and INTERCARGO) providing text of a draft M EPC circular on the classification of solid bulk cargoes to facilitate compliance with regulations 4.1.3

and 6.1.2 of the revised MARPOL Annex V; and

.2 document MEPC 64/7/9 ( INTERCARGO, ICS and BIMCO) expressing concerns over the lack of adequate port r eception facilities for the implementation of revised MARPOL Annex V according to a survey by the International Council on Mining and Metals, and proposing allowing further time to ensure full compliance.

7.22 The delegation of the Cook Islands, supported by some other delegations, while supporting the interim measure as proposed in document MEPC 64/7/8 and stressing the compelling need to consider the long

- term solution for the issue, expressed concern over the

difficulties that the Administrations and sh ipping industry may face in the transitional period. The delegation further expressed the view that it would be more desirable that a complete set of regulations and associated guidelines or guidance on the matter could have been adopted as a package when introducing the new requirements so as to alleviate, to the greatest extent, the extra burdens of the Administrations and shipping industry, in the implementing process.

7.23 The Committee, in noting the support, in general, for the draft MEPC circular contained in document MEPC 64/7/8, agreed to a proposal by the delegation of the Netherlands concerning the following further modifications to the draft text:

.1 the timeline (between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2014) for the provisional classificatio n of solid bulk cargoes should be specified in the title of the circular;

.2 the term " provisional classification " should be used when referring to a classification only based on criteria contained in paragraphs 3.2.1, 3.2.2

and 3.27 of the 2012 Guidelin es for the implementation of MARPOL

Annex V ; and

.3 the shipper should also notify the competent authority of the port State of unloading of the basis for the provisional classification.

7.24 A number of delegations expressed sympathy for the industry ' s concern over the lack of port reception facilities for solid bulk cargo residues including those entrained inMEPC 64/ 23

P age 44

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc washwater, while some other delegations raised doubt over the accuracy of the results of the survey conducted by the International Council on Mi ning and Metals as described in

document MEPC 64/7/9.

7.25 While the proposal for relaxation of compliance with the revised MARPOL Annex V concerning discharge of cargo holding wash water containing remnants of cargo residues in

a limited time was not su pported, the Committee agreed to instruct the drafting group to prepare an additional paragraph in the draft MEPC circular, requesting Parties to ensure the provision of adequate facilities at ports and terminals in accordance with MARPOL Annex V.

7.26 Th e Committee further instructed the Sub

- Committee on Dangerous Goods, Solid Cargoes and Containers (DSC) to consider how the long

- term implementation of the provisions of MARPOL Annex V concerning cargo residues could be facilitated by

amendments to the Int ernational Maritime Solid Bulk Cargoes Code, under the planned
output 5.2.3.3 " Mandatory instruments: development of amendments to the IMSBC Code, including evaluation of properties of solid bulk cargoes "

.

E STABLISHMENT OF THE D RAFTING G ROUP

7.27 The Committee established the Drafting Group on MARPOL Amendments and Associated Guidelines (see also paragraph 11.57) and instructed it, taking into account any comments, proposals and decisions made in plenary, to:

.1 finalize the draft MEPC circular on the classification of solid bulk cargoes

under the revised MARPOL Annex V, using text in the annex to document MEPC 64/7/8 (Canada, Chile, Japan, United States, BIMCO and INTERCARGO) as a basis;

.2 prepare text of draft amendments to Form A and Form B of Su pplements to IOPP Certificate to delete recording incinerator ' s capacity, taking into account document MEPC 64/7/4 (Republic of Korea, United Kingdom and IACS); and

.3 submit a written report to the plenary on Thursday, 4 October 2012.

R EPORT OF THE 

### D RA FTING G ROUP

7.28 Having considered the part of the report of the drafting group relating to this output (MEPC 64/WP.13), the Committee approved the report in general and took action as

indicated hereunder.

Provisional classification of solid bulk cargo es under the revised MARPOL Annex V between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2014

7.29 The Committee agreed to the provisional classification of solid bulk cargoes under

the revised MARPOL Annex V as follows:

.1 for the purposes of complying with regulatio ns 4.1.3 and 6.1.2 of the revised MARPOL Annex V, shippers of solid bulk cargoes should classify those cargoes using the seven criteria in paragraph 3.2 of

the 2012 Guidelines for the implementation of MARPOL Annex V

. Shippers should notify the competent authorities of the port State of loading and unloading of the basis for the provisional classification. As stated in paragraph 3.4 of the 2012 Guidelines, solid bulk cargoes should beMEPC 64/ 23

P age 45

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc classified and declared by the shipper as to whether or not they are ha rmful

to the marine environment. Such declaration as to whether or not the cargo

is harmful to the marine environment should be included in the information required in section 4.2 of the International Maritime Solid Bulk Cargoes Code;

.2 between 1 Janu ary 2013 and 31 December 2014, if adequate and reliable data on a solid bulk cargoes carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, reproductive toxicity, or specific target organ toxicity

– repeated exposure are not available, shippers of solid bulk cargoes should still make every effort to ensure that their solid bulk cargoes are classified to the extent possible using the seven criteria in paragraph 3.2 of the 2012 Guidelines;

.3 also, between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2014, while shippers are acquiring adequate a nd reliable data on a solid bulk cargoes carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, reproductive toxicity, or specific target organ toxicity

– repeated exposure, Administrations should accept provisional classifications of solid bulk cargoes that are based on the othe r criteria as contained in paragraphs 3.2.1, 3.2.2 and 3.2.7 of the 2012 Guidelines:

 data concerning acute aquatic toxicity; and/or

 data concerning chronic aquatic toxicity; and/or

 data concerning the synthetic polymer, rubber, plastic or plastic

feeds tock content of the solid bulk cargoes; and

.4 as of 1 January 2015, shippers ' classifications of solid bulk cargoes should be made using the seven criteria listed in paragraph 3.2 of the 2012 Guidelines.

7.30 The Committee requested Parties to MARPOL Annex V to ensure the provision of adequate facilities at ports and terminals for the reception of solid bulk cargo residues including

those entrained in the wash water.

7.31 The Committee instructed the Secretariat to disseminate the above

- mentioned

deci sions through MEPC.1/Circ.791.

Draft amendments to Form A and Form B of Supplements to IOPP Certificate to delete recording incinerator ' s capacity

7.32 The Committee approved the draft amendments to Form A and Form B of Supplements to the IOPP Certificat e under MARPOL Annex I, set out in annex 13 , for circulation, with a view to adoption at MEPC 65.

8 IMPLEMENTATION OF TH E OPRC CONVENTION AN D THE OPRC

- HNS

PROTOCOL AND RELEVAN T CONFERENCE RESOLUT IONS

8.1 The Committee considered six documents under this agenda item as follows: MEPC 64/8 (Secretariat) : Report of the thirteenth meeting of the OPRC

- HNS Technical Group; MEPC 64/8/1 (ROPME/MEMAC) : Maritime Emergency Response and Salvage

Co

- ordination Unit in the ROPME Sea Area (MERCU); MEPC 64/8/2 (ROPME/MEM AC) : The Regional Workshop on the National and Regional Hazardous and Noxious Substances (HNS) Contingency Plan; MEPC 64/INF.11 (China) : Research on the emergency heating technology by China to improve the effectiveness of recovering oil from shipwrecks;MEPC 64/ 23

P age 46

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc MEPC 64/INF.30 (ROPME/MEMAC) : Information on the M/T Stolt Valor incident; and

MEPC 64/WP.2, Report of the fourteenth meeting of the OPRC

- HNS Technical Group.

Reports of the thirteenth and fourteenth meeting of the OPRC

- HNS Technical Group

8.2 The Comm ittee recalled that the thirteenth session of the OPRC

- HNS Technical Group was held exceptionally

, from 5 to 9 March 2012, the week following MEPC 63, in order to allow delegations to participate in Interspill 2012. The Committee

further recalled that th e fourteenth session met from 24 to 28 September 2012, its usual time slot in the week prior to MEPC 64, and considered the reports of both TG 13 and TG 14.

8.3 The Committee approved the reports of TG 13 and TG 14

, which were issued under the symbol s MEP C 64/8 and MEPC 64/WP.2

, respectively, and, in particular:

.1 note d that the texts of following four manuals/guidelines , i.e.:

.1 Manual on Chemical Pollution to address legal and administrative aspects of HNS incidents;

.2 Parts I and II of the IMO D ispersant Guidelines ;

.3 IMO in situ burning guidelines ; and

.4 Operational guidelines on sunken and submerged oil assessment and removal techniques ;

had been finalized and would be submitted for the Committee ' s approval at MEPC 65;

.2 noted the progress made in the elaboration of guidelines for managing and coordinating international offers of assistance in the event of a major oil pollution incident;

.3 continued to urge delegations to submit information on HNS pollution

incidents to be inclu ded in the summary of incidents and to submit relevant

information to further expand the inventory of information resources on

OPRC/HN S

- related matters ;

.4 instructed the FSI Sub

- Committee not to eliminate the information on pollution incidents, as set ou t in annexes 4 and 9 of MSC

- MEPC.3/Circ.3, in view of the fact that this information is used for purposes beyond casualty investigations and is relevant to the work of the OPRC

- HNS Technical Group;

.5 noted the Secretariat ' s ongoing support to the Trien nial Oil Spill Conference Series;

.6 noted the results of the Technical Group ' s preliminary assessment of the high

- priority work related to HNS and oil, assigned to it by MEPC 61, and concurred with the Group ' s intention to finalize this work at TG 15;

. 7 welcome d the re

- election of Mr. Alexander von Buxhoeveden (Sweden) as

Chairman and Mr. Woo

- Rack Suh (Republic of Korea) as Vice

- Chairman of

the OPRC

- HNS Te chnical Group for the year 2013; andMEPC 64/ 23

P age 47

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc .8 approve d the draft planned output and provisional agenda of the fifteenth meeting of the OPRC

- HNS Technical Group and the scheduling of the Group ' s fifteen th session the week prior to MEPC 65

.

Maritime Emergency Response and Salvage Co

- ordination Unit in the ROPME Sea Area (MERCU)

8.4 The Committee considered d ocument MEPC 64/8/1 (ROPME/MEMAC), containing information on the implementation of the Maritime Emergency Response and Salvage

Co

- ordination Unit (MERCU) for the ROPME Sea Area

.

8.5 Having noted that the MERCU would be financed by contributions from the shipping industry, a number of delegations expressed concern regarding the new levy that would be applied to ships coming into port in the ROPME Sea area under this system, in particular, given the current economic climate.

8.6 Some delegations were also of the view that the information contained within the document under consideration did not provide sufficient information as to how and where these levies would be applied and how the funds would be utilized, nor assurance that the costs were proportionat e to the service provided.

8.7 The observer from ROPME clarified that the fee would be in the form of a service charge and would be much lower than port fees and charges in other areas of the world, and

, therefore

, is not expected to unduly burden the shi pping industry.

8.8 The Committee, having noted the implications of the new MERCU and related financing arrangements:

.1 instructed the Secretariat to prepare the information as an MEPC C ircular for subsequent dissemination to Member States and observing organizations ; and

.2 invited the interested delegations to forward their questions and information requirements to ROPME for appropriate clarification.

The Regional Workshop on the National and Regional Hazardous and Noxious Substances (HNS) Contingenc y Plans

8. 9 The Committee

, in considering doc ument MEPC 64/8/2 (ROPME/MEMAC) providing information on the IMO

- supported Regional Workshop on National and Regional Hazardous and Noxious Substances (HNS) Contingency Plans for the ROPME Sea Area,

held from 1 1 to 14 June 2012 in the State of Qatar, noted that there might be a need to

review and amend the Guidelines on places of refuge for ships in need of assistance (resolution A.949(23))

.

8. 10 Having considered the matter , the Committee concluded that there was no need for such an amendment. Following further clarification from the observer from ROPME on the specific needs of the region, he concluded by requesting technical assistance for the identification of appropriate places of refuge through the Organiz ation ' s Integrated Technical

Co

- operation Programme.MEPC 64/ 23

P age 48

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc E mergency heating technology to improve the effectiveness of recovering oil from shipwrecks

8. 11 The Committee noted the information contained in document MEPC 64/INF.11 (China), which provided informa tion on the research of emergency heating technology undertaken by China and suggested new measures to improve the emergency heating technology in recovering oil from shipwrecks

.

Information on the M/T Stolt Valor incident

8. 12 The Committee noted the in formation contained in MEPC 64/INF.30 (ROPME/MEMAC), providing a summary of information on the M/T Stolt Valor incident, which was a significant HNS incident that occurred in the ROPME Sea Area in March 2012,

and referred this document to TG 15 for inform ation.

8.13 In considering the observations and lessons learned, as set out in paragraphs 12 to 18 of the document under consideration, the delegation of the Netherlands and the observers from ICS, INTERTANKO and the P&I Clubs, expressed concern about the accuracy and manner in which the information was presented, noting that this differed significantly from the information that they had received from their respective constituents. Concerns were raised, in particular, with regard to paragraph 13, suggesti ng negligence of the crew, paragraph 15 suggesting the P&I Club s put costs before safety and environmental concerns and paragraph 17, with regard to the actions taken by the salvors.

8.14 The delegation of Liberia, as the flag Administration, provided a summary of events and of the actions taken in response to the M/T Stolt Valor incident. In particular, the delegation, supported by the observers from ITF, ICS, INTERTANKO, IPTA and BIMCO, expressed concern at the delay in identifying a place of refuge a nd with regard to the arrest orders that had been initiated against the ship ' s Master and Chief Engineer, which go against the principles set out in both the Guidelines on places of refuge for ships in need of

assistance ( resolution A.949 (23)) and the Gui delines on fair treatment of seafarers in the

event of a maritime accident (resolution A.987(24)). As requested

, the full statement by the delegation of Liberia is set out in annex 14.

8.15 The observer from INTERTANKO further informed the Committee that , given that the deadline for submission of documents to MEPC had passed by the time they had become aware of this document, precluding the submission of a document commenting on MEPC 64/INF.30, and given that both the place of refuge and criminalization of seafarers also came under the purview of the Maritime Safety Committee, INTERTANKO and a number of other observers from the shipping industry had correspondingly submitted a document to MSC 91 commenting on MEPC 64/INF.30, proposing specific actions.

8 .16 The delegation of Saudi Arabia noted that in the face of a major pollution incident, difficult choices were required, in particular to ensure the protection of the public and the environment, which must be the main priority in such incidents.

8.17 ROP ME/MEMAC reserved its right and rejected the statements made by the delegations of the Netherlands, Liberia and the observers from ICS, INTERTANKO and the P&I Clubs set out in paragraph 8.13. ROPME/MEMAC noted tha t MEMAC and its Member

States w ere monitor ing the situation on site throughout the incident and had undertaken an evaluation with regard to the identification of a place of refuge at that time. However, given the nature of the cargo, which represented a very serious threat to the highly sensitive coastal area and to a number of water intakes, notably the desalination and power plants in the vicinity, it was determined that the risk to the safety of a population of 15 million in theMEPC 64/ 23

P age 49

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc area of the incident was too great. It also stated that the salva ge team had lost control of the vessel for more than a week during the incident, in addition to other aspects which were believed to be acts of negligence. Given that the case is still under legal and technical investigation, only limited information coul d be released at this stage; however, ROPME/MEMAC expressed its willingness to share the information and lessons learned, with full transparency, with all parties and with the Committee, in due course. ROPME/MEMAC also noted the difficulty in identifying a place of refuge within the internal part of the ROPME Sea Area, and reiterated its view that consideration should be given to revising the Guidelines on places of refuge for ships in need of assistance ( resolution A.949(23))

.

9 IDENTIFICATION AND P ROTEC TION OF SPECIAL AREA S AND PARTICULARLY

SENSITIVE SEA AREAS

Designation of the Saba Bank as a Particularly Sensitive Sea Area

9.1 The Committee recalled that MEPC 62 had approved, in principle, the Saba Bank Particularly Sensitive Sea Area (PSSA) which h ad been proposed by the Netherlands (MEPC 62/9), and invited the Netherlands to submit detailed proposals for a ssociated protective measures (APMs) to NAV 58 for consideration.

9.2 In considering document MEPC 64/9 (Secretariat), which reported on the o utcome of NAV 58 on the matter, the Committee noted that NAV 58 had considered the information provided by the Netherlands (NAV 58/3) and had approved the establishment of an Area To Be Avoided for ships 300 GT or over and a mandatory No Anchoring Area for all ships, as Associated Protective Measures (APMs) for the Saba Bank PSSA. The Committee also noted that the approved APMs for the PSSA , as set out in annex 4 to the annex of document

MEPC 64/9, are subject to the decision of MSC 91 in November 2012.

Instructions to the informal Technical Group on PSSAs

9.3 The Committee, having considered the outcome of NAV 58 on the matter, and the comments made by Plenary, decided to establish an i nformal technical group on PSSAs, under the Chairmanship of Mr. Pau l Nelson (Australia), and instructed it to:

.1 review the information provided in document MEPC 64/9 and, taking into

account comments from the Plenary, prepare a draft MEPC resolution, based on the draft text in the annex, with a view to designating the " Saba

Bank PSSA " ; and

.2 provide a written report, including recommendations, to Plenary on

Thursday, 4 October 2012.

Report of the informal Technical Group on PSSAs

9.4 The Committee, having considering the report of the informal Technical Group (MEPC 64/WP.14), as introduced by its Chairman Mr. Paul Nelson (Australia), approved its report, as amended and, in particular, adopted resolution MEPC. 226 (64), as set out in

annex 15 , designating the Saba Bank as a PSSA.

9.5 The Committee thanked Mr. Nelson (Australia) and the members of the group for

the effi cient work they had carried out.MEPC 64/ 23

P age 50

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc 10 INADEQUACY OF RECEPTION FACILITIES

10.1 The Committee noted that the consideration of the inadequacy of port reception facilities is a standing item on its agenda, b ut that no submissions relating thereto had been

received at this session.

10.2 The Committee also noted that the policy of " zero tolerance of illegal discharges from ships " can only be effectively enforced when there are adequate reception facilities in ports. The Committee agreed that all Parties to the MARPOL Convention, in particular port States, should do their utmost to fulfil their treaty obligations on providing reception facilities for wastes generated during the operation of ships.

10.3 The Comm ittee recalled that all work items of the Committee ' s Action Plan on Tackling the Inadequacy of Port Reception Facilities have been completed following the adoption by MEPC 63 of amendments to the respective MARPOL Annexes on regional arrangements for port reception facilities (resolutions MEPC.216(63) and MEPC.217(63))

and of the 2012 Guidelines for the development of a regional reception facilities plan (resolution MEPC.221(63)).

10.4 Furthermore, the Committee recalled that, as part of the A ction Plan a pproved by MEPC, TC 61 agreed to include the Plan of Assistance and Training on Port Reception Facilities for Developing Countries as a priority theme for the next ITCP biennium 2012

- 2013. In this regard, the Committee was informed that two workshops on po rt reception facilities are being planned: one in November 2012 in Antwerp for the benefit of Mediterranean and Arab countries, and the other one in 2013 in the United States for the benefit of Caribbean

countries.

10.5 The delegation of Belgium subsequen tly informed the Committee in more detail on the IMO Regional Workshop on Port Reception Facilities, which is being organized under the ITCP from 27 to 29 November 2012 in Antwerp, Belgium. The workshop will be co

- hosted by the Flemish Public Waste Agency and the Antwerp Port Authority in cooperation with the Regional Marine Pollution Emergency Response Centre for the Mediterranean Sea (REMPEC). The Committee was informed that the main objective of the workshop is to inform the participating countries from the Eastern and Southern Mediterranean as well as from Oman and Yemen about best practices in the field of port reception facilities for ship

- generated waste and cargo residues. The workshop will also cover the issue of inadequacy of reception facilities, port waste management planning and incentives for the delivery of ship

- generated waste, as well as downstream waste treatment and links with the Basel Convention and its guidelines. The delegation of Belgium stated that the outcome of this workshop would be brought to the attention of MEPC 65.

10.6 The Committee was also informed that, since the last session of the Committee, the Secretariat has provided technical expertise to two workshops on port waste management, one organized by the Inter

- American Com mittee on Ports in Uruguay, and the other by the German organization for technical co

- operation (GIZ) in Thailand.

10.7 The Committee further recalled that the 1999 edition of the Comprehensive Manual on port reception facilities is in need of updating, a nd that the revision of the manual had been included in the Global Programme of the ITCP for 2012

- 2013, as had been requested by MEPC 61.MEPC 64/ 23

P age 51

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc 11 REPORTS OF SUB

- COMMITTEES

OUTCOME OF BLG 16

11.1 The Committee noted that the Sub

- Committee on Bulk Liquids and Gases (BLG)

held its sixteenth session from 30 January to 3 February 2012 and its report on that session was circulated under the symbols of BLG 16/16 and BLG 16/16/Add.1. Matters of relevance to the work of the Committee were reported in document MEPC 6 4/11.

11.2 The Committee approved, in general, the report of BLG 16 (BLG 16/16 and Add.1),
and took action as indicated hereunder, recalling that MEPC 63 had already taken action on urgent matters emanating from BLG 16.

Outcome of ESPH 17

11.3 The Com mittee endorsed the decisions taken by BLG 16 regarding the outcome of

ESPH 17 , noting MSC 90 ' s concurrent decision.

Evaluation of the Trade

- named mixtures

11.4 The Committee endorsed BLG 16 ' s evaluation of the Trade

- named mixtures presenting safety haza rds, as set out in paragraph 3.30.1 of document BLG 16/16, for

inclusion in List 3 of the MEPC.2/Circular.

Evaluation of cargo tank cleaning additives

11.5 The Committee endorsed BLG 16 ' s evaluation of cargo tank cleaning additives found to meet the req uirements of regulation 13.5.2 of MARPOL Annex II, as set out in annex 1 of document BLG 16/16, for inclusion in the next edition of the MEPC.2/Circular.

Amendments to the 2011 Guidelines for the carriage of blends of petroleum oil and

biofuels

11.6 The Committee approved the proposed amendments to the 2011 Guidelines for the carriage of blends of petroleum oil and biofuels (MEPC.1/Circ.761), as set out in annex 3 of document BLG 16/16, and instructed the Secretariat to issue MEPC.1/Circ.761/Rev.1

accordi ngly.

Development of Guidelines for port State control under the 2004 BWM Convention

11.7 The Committee agreed to refer document BLG 16/4 and the report of the Ballast Water and Biofouling Working Group (BLG 16/WP.4) to FSI 21 for consideration in the

c ontext of developing Guidelines for port State control under the 2004 BWM Convention.

Guidance for minimizing the transfer of invasive aquatic species as biofouling (hull fouling) for recreational craft

11.8 The Committee approved the draft Guidance for minimizing the transfer of invasive aquatic species as biofouling (hull fouling) for recreational craft, as set out in annex 5 of document BLG 16/16, and instructed the Secretariat to distribute it as MEPC.1/Circ.792.MEPC 64/ 23

P age 52

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc Matters related to MARPOL Annex VI

11.9 The Committee noted that the outcome of BLG 16 on matters related to

MARPOL Annex VI, as reported in paragraphs 3.7 to 3.10 of document MEPC 64/11, had been addressed under agenda item 4.

O UTCOME OF DE 56

11.10 The Committee noted that the Sub

- Comm ittee on Ship Design and Equipment (DE) held its fifty

- sixth session from 13 to 17 February 2012 and its report was circulated under the symbol of DE 56/25. Matters of relevance to the work of the Committee were reported in

document MEPC 64/11/1.

Develop ment of the Code for ships operating in polar waters

11.11 The Committee noted DE 56 ' s decision to keep any decision on environmental requirements to be included in the draft Polar Code in abeyance, pending further
consideration at DE 57, as well as the S ub

- Committee ' s view that the MSC and the MEPC should prioritize their discussion on how to make the Polar Code mandatory in the most expeditious way possible.

11.12 In this connection, the Committee recalled that MEPC 63, having resolved the issue

of how to make the Polar Code mandatory and having agreed that the Code should only include new issues and additional requirements which do not appear in other instruments,

had instructed the DE Sub

- Committee to take into account these decisions as the work on

t he draft Code is progressed. The Committee also noted that MSC 90 had agreed to include in the agenda for MSC 91 an item on " Making the Polar Code mandatory "

.

Draft amendments to the Condition Assessment Scheme

11.13 The Committee approved the draft ame ndments to the Condition Assessment

Scheme (CAS) (resolution MEPC.94(46) , as amended ), emanating from the adoption of the International Code on the Enhanced Programme of Inspections during Surveys of Bulk Carriers and Oil Tankers, 2011 (2011 ESP Code) (res olution A.1049(27)), set out in

annex 16 , for circulation, with a view to adoption at MEPC 65.

2012 Guidelines on implementation of effluent standards and performance tests for sewage treatment plants

11.14 The Committee noted that DE 56 had completed i ts work on the draft 2012

Guidelines on implementation of effluent standards and performance tests for sewage treatment plants , however, it had been unable to resolve the nitrogen and phosphorous removal standards for sewage plants installed on passenger s hips operating in

MARPOL Annex IV Special Area. DE 56 considered two options on the removal standards for nitrogen and phosphorous based on equivalent shore

- side target limits for communities of either 300 to 2,000 persons or 2,000 to 10,000 persons and d ecided to keep both sets of options in square brackets for further consideration by the Committee.

11.15 The Committee had for its consideration the following two documents commenting

on the draft 2012 Guidelines:

.1 document MEPC 64/11/6 (CLIA) sugge sting that the target limits for

shore

- based communities of 300 to 2,000 persons be applied by analogy and recommending Total Nitrogen Standards of 35 mg/l or at least 30 per cent reduction and Total Phosphorus Standards of 2.0 mg/l or at least 70
per cent reduction ; andMEPC 64/ 23

P age 53

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc .2 docu ment MEPC 64/11/4 (Finland and United Kingdom) providing further information on the application of dilution compensation factor Q i /Q

e under

the draft 2012 Guidelines and proposing additional text to expand the guidance in this resp ect.

11.16 In the ensuing discussion, the Committee noted the split views over the two options on the removal standards for nitrogen and phosphorous, with a very slight majority of the delegations who took the floor supporting the more stringent standard s.

11.17 Those delegations supporting the more stringent standards, stressed that a number of the companies (at least six) had indicated that the proposed standards were achievable, and that onshore equipment could be designed for marine use and made ava ilable before the application date for those standards. Those delegations were of the view that the best available technologies should be used on board with a view to achieving the greatest extent of protection of the marine environment, in particular, of the vulnerable environment of the Baltic Sea Special Area.

11.18 Those delegations supporting the less stringent standards, emphasized that even those standards would provide an adequate level of protection of the marine environment

and it would not be helpful to set up aspirational standards for treatment of sewage at sea that are more stringent than the shore

- based reception facilities within a special area. Those delegations believed that any standard should be achievable and practicable; setting up

a spirational standards would only create unnecessary problems for the implementation process in the future.

11.19 The delegation of the Netherlands informed the Committee of some preliminary results on a survey conducted on the performance status of the s ewage treatment plants installed on board ships, which indicated that a vast majority of the equipment did not meet the existing sewage treatment standards due to improper use of detergent, lack of maintenance or not following the operational instructions. The Netherlands delegation

, therefore

, stressed the importance of implementation and in particular of awareness on the use and maintenance of the equipment with all involved where it comes to the existing requirements under MARPOL Annex IV.

11.20 The C hairman proposed that the more stringent standards be used, subject to a review to be undertaken at MEPC 67 (second part of the year 2014), and invited the Committee to revisit this issue at a later stage of the session (see paragraph 11.60).

11.21 Conseq uently, the Committee instructed the drafting group to finalize the draft

MEPC resolution on the 2012 Guidelines on implementation of effluent standards and performance tests for sewage treatment plants , subject to the Committee ' s further

consideration of the removal standards for nitrogen and phosphorous.

Type approval of shipboard incinerators

11.22 The Committee endorsed the recommendation of DE 56 that incinerators with

a capacity greater than 1,500 kW and up to 4,000 kW can be type

- approved under t he existing Standard Specification for Shipboard Incinerators (resolution MEPC.76(40), as amended by resolution MEPC.93(45)) , and instructed the Secretariat to issue MEPC.1/Circ.793 for this

decision.MEPC 64/ 23

P age 54

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc O UTCOME OF STW 43

11.23 The Committee noted that the Sub

- Committee on Standards of Training and Watchkeeping (STW) held its forty

- third session from 30 April to 4 May 2012 and its report on that session was circulated under the symbol STW 43/14. Matters of relevance to the work of the Committee were reporte d in document MEPC 64/11/2.

ISM

- related Guidelines

11.24 The Committee approved two sets of draft Assembly resolutions on Revised Guidelines on implementation of the ISM Code by Administrations and on Revised Guidelines for the structure of an integrat ed system of contingency planning for shipboard emergencies, set out in annexes 17 and 18 , respectively, for consideration and adoption at the twenty

- eighth session of the Assembly, subject to concurrent decision of MSC 91.

11.25 The Committee approved th e revised MEPC

- MSC circular on Guidelines for the operational implementation of the ISM Code by companies, as set out in annex 8 of document STW 43/14, subject to concurrent decision of MSC 91.

11.26 The delegation of the Bahamas, in indicating their inte ntion to submit further comments on the draft amendments to the ISM Code (STW 43/14, annex 6) to MSC 91, expressed the concern that the proposed addition of a footnote to paragraph 1.2.3.2 of the ISM Code only refers to the list of IMO safety

- related requi rements and recommendations (MSC.1/Circ.1371), which could potentially mislead users to conclude that non

- mandatory instruments on environmental matters issued by the MEPC and its subsidiary bodie s do not

need to be taken into account to the same extent. T he Committee noted the concern expressed and invited MSC 91 to consider this issue.

O UTCOME OF FSI 20

11.27 The Committee noted that the Sub

- Committee on Flag State Implementation (FSI) held its twentieth session from 26 to 30 March 2012 and its repor t was circulated under the symbol of FSI 20/19. Matters of relevance to the work of the Committee were reported in

document MEPC 64/11/3.

11.28 The Committee approved, in general, the report of FSI 20 (FSI 20/19), and took

action as indicated hereunder.

Reporting requirements in IMO instruments

11.29 The Committee noted that, in the context of reporting requirements in IMO instruments, FSI 20 continued its consideration of the potential for validating electronic reporting as a means to achieve complian ce with the reporting requirements, whilst also addressing issues related to data storage and other relevant capabilities of the IMO Global Integrated Shipping Information System (GISIS).

11.30 The Committee endorsed FSI 20 ' s decision to consider, at its next session, the draft Assembly resolution on notification and circulation through GISIS of information related to mandatory reporting requirements, as set out in the annex to document FSI 20/3/1.

11.31 The Committee also endorsed FSI 20 ' s invitation to interested Member States to submit their proposals on draft guidelines on communication of information under IMO

instruments to a future session of the Sub

- Committee, in particular on domestic legislation, including the frequency of such reporting and t he language in which information should be provided.MEPC 64/ 23

P age 55

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc 11.32 In this connection, the Committee instructed the Sub

- Committee to examine in detail the difficulties encountered by Member States in complying with the various mandatory reporting requirements, wh ile taking into account the request of A 27 to the Council, to establish the Ad Hoc Steering Group for Reducing Administrative Requirements (resolution A.1043(27)), with a view to avoiding any duplication of work.

Certificates and documents to be carried on board ships

11.33 With regard to certificates and documents to be carried on board ships, the

Committee endorsed FSI 20 ' s decision to further clarify the meaning of " originals " to be

carried on board at a future session.

11.34 The Committee instructed the Sub

- Committee to initiate revisions to the

Revised list of certificates and documents required to be carried on board ships (FAL.2/Circ.123

- MEPC.1/Circ.769

- MSC.1/Circ.1409), as may be necessary, and endorsed the request to the Secretariat to prepare a note containing those requirements, which may

result in the revision of the above

- mentioned circular and/or amendment to appendix 12 of the Procedures for PSC, as appropriate.

Regulation for non

- convention ships

11.35 The Committee noted that a draft G lobalReg ( the modular set of standards of harmonized regulations and model national legislation for ships not covered by the 1974 SOLAS Convention) together with a model course, were developed in 2010 by IMO consultants, taking into account existing model regulations for non

- Convention ships developed by IMO for different regions, as well as all available IMO documents on safety regulations for ships not covered by SOLAS Convention.

11.36 With regard to the FSI 20 ' s request of the Committee to instruct th e FSI

Sub

- Committee to coordinate a detailed technical review of GlobalReg by all relevant

sub

- committees, in order to develop a non

- mandatory instrument on regulations for

non

- convention ships and to identify a process for keeping it updated, the delegati ons of the Netherlands, the United States and Panama expressed the views that as the MSC had been assigned as the sole parent organ for the relevant planned output (5.2.1.18 of HLAP for 2012 and 2013), the issue should be strictly dealt with by the MSC and that there was no justification for the Organization to keep updating the GlobaReg, in view of the large volume of the work involved and the busy agenda of the Committee.

11.37 The Committee concurred with the views that it would not be appropriate to e xtend the scope of the above

- mentioned planned output and the GlobalReg.

11.38 The delegation of Indonesia, in referring to the Organization ' s initiative of the creation of country profiles to address the real capacity

- building needs of developing

countr ies, including enhancing the formulation of national maritime legislation, expressed the

view that a detailed technical review of GlobalReg by all relevant sub

- committees with a view to developing a comprehensive non

- mandatory instrument on regulations f or

non

- convention ships would be beneficial in this respect.MEPC 64/ 23

P age 56

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc Certified true copy of amendments to conventions

11.39 The Committee requested the Secretariat to release a version of the certified true copy of amendments to a convention on IMODOCS, in trac k changes, and to establish a time limit for the circulation of the certified true copies, preferably at the time of adoption, taking into account the views expressed by the Legal Office.

11.40 With regard to FSI 20 ' s proposal to request the Secretariat t o invite States depositing instruments of ratification to submit relevant and related domestic documents leading to the ratification that could be made accessible to other States, the Committee, in noting that TC 62 had considered the same proposal, agreed to concur with the view of

TC 62 (TC 62/15, paragraphs 3.14 and 3.15). In this connection, the Committee also agreed not to consider any further, at this stage, the option of expanding the GISIS to mak e accessible related domestic documents due to concer ns over the administrative burden inherent in the expansion of GISIS and the translation of materials.

Draft IMO Instruments Implementation Code (III Code)

11.41 The Committee recalled that MEPC 62 and MSC 89 had approved the draft IMO Instruments Implem entation Code (III Code), as set out in annex 26 to document MSC 89/25, for submission to the Assembly, at its twenty

- eighth session, for adoption, and had requested the Secretariat to provide FSI 20 with a comprehensive review of the options available on the process of making the III Code and auditing mandatory and the rationale thereof.

11.42 The Committee endorsed FSI 20 ' s view that, although the III Code is intended to become mandatory at the adoption stage, it would be non

- mandatory until it is made

m andatory by relevant IMO instruments; and that the version of the III Code, as approved by

MSC 89 and MEPC 62, which contains both provisions in mandatory terms and provisions of a recommendatory nature, needs to be redrafted in non

- mandatory form

.

11.43 The Committee approved the draft IMO Instruments Implementation Code (III Code), with the associated draft Assembly resolution, as redrafted by FSI 20, set out in

annex 19 , with a view to submission to the Assembly, at its twenty

- eighth session, for adopt ion, subject to concurrent decision of MSC 91.

11.44 The Committee endorsed FSI 20 ' s recommendation that amendments to the relevant instruments should be adopted after the III Code has been adopted by the Assembly; and that the preferred method of refer encing would be to incorporate the symbol of the Assembly resolution adopting the III Code into the text of the amendments to the mandatory instruments. This reference would neither include the standard words

" as amended " nor mention the article of the ins trument concerned regarding the use of the tacit acceptance procedure. Using this method, the resolution reference alone could,

in future, be replaced and updated using the article

- based tacit acceptance procedure

.

11.45 The Committee noted that FSI 20, having reviewed various scenarios proposed in document FSI 20/12 for making the III Code mandatory, had agreed, in general, that the normal amendment procedures currently exercised by the Com mittees should be pursued,

i.e. introducing amendments to IMO ins truments through the article

- based tacit acceptance procedure, on the basis of normal sequence of events and meetings of the MSC and

the MEPC. In this context, the Committee noted the information contained in document

MEPC 64/11/3/Add.1 concerning a possib le timeframe to make the draft III Code and auditing mandatory and agreed to coordinate the entry into force dates of amendments to relevant IMO instruments for making the III Code mandatory.MEPC 64/ 23

P age 57

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc 11.46 The Committee approved the draft amendments to MARPOL Ann exes I, II, III, IV, V

and VI to make the III Code and auditi ng mandatory, set out in annex 20 , with a view to adoption at MEPC 66 (after the envisaged adoption of the III Code at A 2 8 ).

11.47 The delegation of Cyprus made a statement after the approva l of the draft III Code

and the draft amendments to MARPOL to make the Code and auditing mandatory, set out in

annex 21 . The delegations of Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lit huania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom associated

themselves with the statement.

11.48 The Committee endorsed FSI 20 ' s recommendation concerning future amendments

to the III Code and the applicable provisions of the mandatory instruments. FSI 20 recommended that, once a new Code is adopted by the Assembly, amendments to the mandatory instruments making the III Code mandatory shoul d be adopted to replace the symbol of the corresponding Assembly resolution number which had adopted the old version of the Code with the symbol of the new Assembly resolution adopting the new version of the

Code . The amendments to all relevant mandatory instruments making the Code mandatory

should enter into force at the same time, in order to avoid having different versions of the Code in force simultaneously.

11.49 The Committee instructed the Sub

- Committee to develop, at its next session, a new

non

- mandatory instrument in the form of an Assembly resolution , solely containing the

annexes to the current non

- mandatory Code for the implementation of mandatory IMO
instruments, to be reviewed in the future in the same way as the annexes to the

non

- mandatory Code have been updated regularly since its initial adopt ion.

Draft Code for recognized organizations (RO Code)

11.50 The Committee recalled that t he draft Code for recognized organizations (RO Code) should be made mandatory under SOLAS, MARPOL and Load Lines Conventions by amending those mandatory provisions referring to resolutions A.739(18) on G uidelines for the Authorization of Organizations Acting on Behalf of the Administration and A.789(19) on Specifications on the Survey and Certification Functions of Recognized Organizations acting

on behalf of the Ad

ministration

, under the tacit acceptance procedure. The Committee

endorsed FSI 20 ' s recommendation that the adoption of separate MSC and MEPC

resolutions as the most legally sound way forward for adopting and amending the RO Code. In this connection, the C ommittee further endorsed FSI 20 ' s recommendation to amend only those instruments that refer expressly to resolutions A.739(18) and A.789(19), i.e. MARPOL

A nnexes I and II under its purview, to make the RO Code mandatory.

11.51 The Committee endorsed FSI 20 ' s request to the Secretariat to further communicate with the ISO Secretariat to obtain clarification or approval for referencing its standards in the RO Code and, if required, conduct a study with interested delegations to adjust the text of the

RO Code

.

11.52 Having considered the two square

- bracketed versions of the proposed new footnote to be added to the entry on " liability " , as it appears under paragraph 8.4 of appendix 3 of the

RO Code, the Committee agreed to use the second version of the footno te.

11.53 The delegation of Panama expressed concern on the inclusion of a footnote on the liability issue and reiterated their general opposition for the inclusion of a footnote in the

RO Code.MEPC 64/ 23

P age 58

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc 11.54 The Committee, having considered documents MEPC 64/11 /5 and

MEPC 64/11/5/Corr.1 (IACS) commenting on the draft Code for Recognized Organizations agreed, in general, to the modifications to the draft RO Code as proposed by the IACS observer. With regard to the last sentence of paragraph 3.6.3 of part II of the RO Code, the Committee agreed to further amend it to read:

" Records specified in 3.6.4.2 for a ship shall be retained for a minimum period

of 3 years beyond the period for which statutory certification and services are provided by the RO to that ship , or a longer period if specified in the agreement between the flag State and the RO "

.

11.55 The Committee instructed the drafting group established under agenda item 7 to review and finalize the draft Code for recognized organizations (RO Code), using te xt in annex 6 of document FSI 20/19 as a basis, taking into account documents MEPC 64/11/5 and MEPC 64/11/5/Corr.1 (IACS).

11.56 The delegation of Cyprus made a statement in connection with the approval of the

draft RO Code and the draft amendments to MA RPOL to make the Code mandatory, which

is also set out in annex 21 . The delegations of Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Norway, P oland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom associated themselves with the above

- mentioned statement.

A DDITIONAL TERMS OF R EFERENCE TO BE ADDED TO THE DRAFTING GROU P ESTABLISHED UNDER

AGENDA ITEM 7

11.57 Having considered all the docum ents under this agenda item, the Committee agreed to add the following terms of reference to the drafting group established under agenda item 7 (see paragraph 7.27):

.1 finalize the draft MEPC resolution on the 2012 Guidelines on implementation of effluen t standards and performance tests for sewage treatment plants, using text in annex 15 to document DE 56/25 as a basis, and taking into account document MEPC 64/11/3 (Finland and the United Kingdom); and

.2 review and finalize the draft Code for recognize d organizations (RO Code), using text in annex 6 of document FSI 20/19 as a basis, taking into account documents MEPC 64/11/5 and MEPC 64/11/5/Corr.1 (IACS).

R EPORT OF THE DRAFT ING GROUP

11.58 Having considered the part of the drafting group relating to this output, the

Committee took the action as indicated hereunder.

2012 Guidelines on implementation of effluent standards and performance tests for sewage treatment plants

11.59 The Committee noted that the drafting group had completed it s work on the

draft 2012 Guidelines.

11.60 The Committee, having further considered the Chairman ' s proposal concerning the removal standards for nitrogen and phosphorous (see paragraph 11.20 ), agreed that:MEPC 64/ 23

P age 59

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc .1 t he geometric mean of the total nitrogen and phosphorus co ntent of the samples of effluent taken during the test period should not exceed:

.1 total nitrogen 4 : 20 Qi/Qe mg/l or at least 70% reduction 5 ;

.2 total phosphorus: 1.0 Qi/Qe mg/l or at least 80% reduction 6

.

.2 t he requirements of the above

- mentioned rem oval standards for nitrogen and phosphorous should apply to sewage treatment plants installed on:

.1 new passenger ships when operating in a MARPOL Annex IV special area and intending to discharge treated sewage effluent

into the sea on or after 1 January 2016; and

.2 existing passenger ships when operating in a MARPOL Annex IV special area and intending to discharge treated sewage effluent

into the sea on or after 1 January 2018.

.3 a review of the Nitrogen and Phosphorus removal standard set forth in paragraph 4.2.1 of the Guidelines should be undertaken by the Committee at its sixty

- seventh session (second part of year 2014) to determine that the required removal standards for Nitrogen and Phosphorus are met by type approved sewage treatment plants, o r such systems in development, taking into account the results of on board and ashore testing in accordance with section 5 of the 2012 Guidelines. In order to accomplish this, the Committee decided to establish a review group at MEPC 67.

.4 the Committe e, based on the information provided by the review group, should decide whether it is possible for ships to comply with the standard in paragraph 4.2.1 with the dates set out in paragraph 1.2.3. If a decision is taken that it is not possible or practicable for ships to comply, then the Guidelines should be amended accordingly.

11.61 The Committee instructed the Secretariat, when preparing the final version of

the 2012 Guidelines, to insert text of sub

- paragraphs 11.60.3 and 11.60.4 into the Guidelines

as new paragraphs 4.4 and 4.5. Consequently, the Committee adopted, by resolution

MEPC.2 27 (64), the 2012 Guidelines on implementation of effluent standards and performance tests for sewage treatment plants , set out in annex 22

.

Draft Code for recognized orga nizations (RO Code)

11.62 The Committee approved the draft Code for recognized organizations (RO Code), as contained in annex 6 to document FSI 20/19, with a view to adoption at MEPC 65, subject

to concurrent decision of MSC 91.

11.63 The Committee appr oved the draft amendments to MARPOL Annexes I and II to make the RO Code mandatory, set out in annex 23 , for circulation, with a view to adoption at

MEPC 65 after the adoption of the RO Code at the same session

.

4 Total nitrogen means the sum of total Kjeldahl nitrogen (organic and ammoniacal nitrogen) nitrate

- nitrogen

and nitrite

- nitrogen.

5 Reduction in relation to the load of the influent.

6 Reduction in relation to the load of the influent.MEPC 64/ 23

P age 60

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc 12 WORK OF OTHER BODIES

O UTCOME OF MSC 90

12.1 The Committee noted that the ninetieth session of the Maritime Safety Committee (MSC 90) was held from 16 to 25 May 2012 and its report on that session was circulated under the symbols MSC 90/28 and addenda. The outcome of MSC 90, relevant to the wor k

of the Committee , was summarized in document MEPC 64/12/1.

12.2 The Committee noted, in general, the outcome of MSC 90 on all issues of relevance

to it and agreed to take MSC ' s action into account, as appropriate, under the relevant items

of its agenda.

12.3 In this connection, the C ommittee note d that the outcome of MSC 90 concerning the approval of amendments to the IBC Code; the adoption of the Associated Protective Measure for the Strait of Bonifacio PSSA; the recommendation of discontinuing receiv ing document in hard copies for information on status of conventions; the role of the human element; the biennial agenda for BLG and FSI S ub

- C ommittees; and application of the

Committee ' s guidelines; had been addressed under agenda items 6, 9, 13, 17, 19 a nd 20, respectively.

12.4 The Committee further note d that the outcome of MSC 90 concerning action taken by BLG 16 on the outcome of ESPH 17 and the progress made by the DE Sub

- Committee in the development of a mandatory Polar Code had been addressed und er agenda item 11.

12.5 The Committee also n ote d the following information and actions taken by MSC 90,

which were of interest to it:

.1 the adoption, by resolution MSC.325(90), inter alia, a new regulation VI/5

- 2

of the 1974 SOLAS Convention concernin g the prohibition of the blending of bulk liquid cargoes during the sea voyage ;

.2 the adoption, by resolution MSC.328(90), of amendments to the International Maritime Dangerous Goods (IMDG) Code ;

.3 in the context of Goal

- based New Ship Construction S tandard, the progress made in the development of the Guidelines for the approval of equivalents and alternatives as provided for in various IMO instruments, including the MARPOL Convention;

.4 the progress made with respect to formal safety assessment;

.5 the intention to further consider the issue of online access to certificates and documents at MSC 91; and

.6 the progress made in the development of IMO model courses and Global Integrated Shipping Information System (GISIS).MEPC 64/ 23

P age 61

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc O UTCOME OF LEG 99

12.6 T he Committee noted that the ninety

- ninth session of the Legal Committee (LEG 99)

was held from 16 to 20 April 2012 and its report on that session was circulated under the symbol LEG 99/14. The matters of interest to the Committee were summarized in documen t
MEPC 64/12/2.

12.7 T he Committee note d , in general, the outcome of LEG 99 on issues of relevance to
it, and in particular:

.1 that LEG 99 adopted, by resolution LEG.5(99), amendments of the limitation

amounts in the Protocol of 1996 to the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims, 1976 , which represent an increase of 51 per cent in limits; and

.2 that LEG 99 agreed to further analyse the liability and compensation issues connected with transboundary pollution damage resulting from of fshore oil exploration and exploitation activities, with the aim of developing guidance

to assist States interested in pursuing bilateral or regional arrangements ; and that LEG 99 also agreed that there was no compelling need to develop

an international co nvention on th e subject

.

O UTCOME OF TC 62

12.8 The Committee noted that the sixty

- second session of the Technical Co

- operation Committee (TC 62) was held from 6 to 8 June 2012 and its report on that session was circulated under the symbol TC 62/15

. The matters of interest to the Committee were summarized in document MEPC 64/12/3.

12.9 The Committee further noted that the outcome of TC 62 concerning marine environment protection

- related matters were to be considered under agenda item 16

– Technical co

- o peration activities for the protection of the marine environment.

O UTCOME OF C 108

General

12.10 The Committee noted that the 108th session of the Council (C 108) was held

from 11 to 14 June 2012 and its summary of decisions was issued under the symbol

C 108/D . The matters of interest to the Committee were summarized in document

MEPC 64/12/5, including the Council ' s decision concerning the report of MEPC 63.

12.11 The Committee noted that the Council had approved the report of the sixty

- third

session of the Marine Environment Protection Committee, as set out in document C 108/7,

and had decided to transmit it, together with its comments and recommendations, to the
twenty

- eighth regular session of the Assembly, in accordance with Article 21(b) of the

IM O Convention.

12.12 The Committee also noted that the Council had approved the planned intersessional meetings of the OPRC

- HNS Technical Group in 2012 and the ESPH Working Group in 2013.

12.13 The Committee further note d , in general, the outcome of C 10 8 on matters of

relevance to it concerning s trategy, planning and reform

, resource management

, V oluntar y IMO Member State Audit Scheme, and World Maritime Day, and

, in particular :MEPC 64/ 23

P age 62

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc .1 that the Council had agreed to the inclusion of an unplanned output

" the Secretary

- General ' s review and reform mechanism " in the HLAP for
the current biennium, which, inter alia , included the restructuring of the

sub

- committees;

.2 that the Council had agreed to a m easure to cross

- reference certain meeting decisions in order to reduce translation and printing costs.

All c ommittees should have in their reports a new section entitled " Action requested of other IMO bodies " to facilitate subsequent cross

- referencing by other IMO bodies; and

.3 that the Council had endorsed Secr etary

- General ' s proposal that the theme of World Maritime Day for 2013 should be: " Sustainable Development:

IMO ' s contribution beyond Rio+20 "

.

Outcome of JWGMSA 5

12.14 The Committee was advised that C 108 had considered the outcome of the

fifth session of the Joint Working Group on the Member State Audit Scheme (JWGMSA 5),

and had noted that it had been invited to decide, no later than its 109th session, on the issue of confidentiality in the context of a mandatory scheme , in particular, with regard to t he disclosure of audit reports to all Member States . In this respect, C 108 had requested the Joint Working Group to provide the outcome to the MSC and the MEPC for their consideration in the context of the mandatory instruments within their purview, prior

to a decision being taken by C 109.

12.15 The Committee considered the outcome of JWGMSA 5 (M EPC 64/12 ), on the issue of confidentiality and the reporting format, particularly on whether its role, with respect to the

International Convention for the Prev ention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocols of 1978 and 1997 relating thereto, or those of Member States that are Parties to those instruments, is affected with respect to the application of the provisions of those instruments by the disclosure of the following:

.1 audit results in the form as provided for in the executive summary report;

and

.2 a State ' s comments on the progress of implementation of its corrective action plan.

12.16 The Committee noted that the outcome of the f ifth session of the Joint Working Group was also submitted to MSC 90 in document MSC 90/22/3 and that MSC 90 ' s consideration on this issue is reported in paragraphs 19 to 21 of document MEPC 64/12/1. On the issue of confidentiality, MSC 90 noted that a gen eral need for transparency was supported by a number of delegations, whilst other delegations expressed some concerns.

A number of delegations, in highlighting the core objectives of the audit scheme, both in its current voluntary form and a future mandato ry scheme, in particular, the fundamental need to further assist Member States to improve their capabilities and overall performance in the implementation of the mandatory IMO instruments through the provision of technical
assistance, whilst at the same ti me providing valuable input to the regulatory function of the Organization, expressed the view that the availability of audit reports could also foster the achievement of the aforementioned objectives. Several delegations also emphasized that the sovereign ty of Member States and any differences in national practices should be respected.MEPC 64/ 23

P age 63

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc 12.17 The Committee also noted that, i n addressing the questions posed to it on the release of the executive summary report and a Member State ' s comments on the progress o f implementation of its corrective action plan, MSC 90 agreed, by a slight majority, that the release of the executive summary report and the related Member State ' s comments thereon, would have no negative impact on its role or that of a Member State as a Party to the instruments concerned. It also acknowledged that the release of the report and comments could positively impact the work of the MSC, particularly in its review of the implementation of instruments and the regulatory work of the Organization.

12.18 The delegation of Cyprus, supported by some other delegations, expressed the view that one of the key elements that the IMO Member State Audit Scheme could achieve its intended objectives is the maximum disclosure of the audit results, and that in s upporting the maximum disclosure, it is understood that some limitations and various other aspects should be taken into account in order to achieve a pragmatic and workable result.

12.19 The delegation of China stressed that all the activities associated with the IMO Member State Audit Scheme, including the release of the executive summary report, should only serve the objective of further assisting Member Governments to improve their capabilities and overall performance in order to be able to comply with the IMO instruments to which they are party, as defined in resolution A.1018(26).

12.20 Following discussion, the Committee concurred with the views of MSC 90

.

O UTCOMES OF THE JOINT SESSION OF THE S CIENTIFIC G ROUPS UNDER THE L ONDON C ONVENTION AND P ROTO COL

12. 21 The Committee noted the information contained in document MEPC 64/INF.29 concerning the outcome of the joint session of the Scientific Groups under the London Convention and Protocol (21 to 25 May 2012) with regard to their work on the revision of joint

LC

- LP/MEPC Guidance on managing spoilt cargoes (LC

- LP.1/Circ.30 and MEPC.1/Circ.688) and the development of outreach and training materials thereof. In this context, the Committee noted that a new version of the joint Guidance on managing spoilt c argoes had been prepared for consideration of LC 34

- LP 7, the outcome of which would be reported to a

future session of the MEPC.

O UTCOME OF THE U NITED N ATIONS C ONFERENCE ON S USTAINABLE D EVELOPMENT

12.22 The Committee noted the information contained i n document MEPC 64/12/4, as well as that provided orally by the Secretariat, concerning the outcome of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development ( Rio+20), held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 20

- 22 June 2012, which marked the twentieth anniversar y of the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil and

the tenth anniversary of the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg, South Africa. The objective of the Conference w as to reaffirm the commitment of the principles of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development and past action plans by securing renewed political commitment for sustainable development, assessing the progress to date and the remaining gaps in the i mplementation of the outcomes of the major summits on sustainable development, and addressing new and emerging challenges.

12.23 The Committee noted that i n the lead

- up to Rio+20, the IMO Secretariat had contributed to a number of reports and publications and participated in the preparatory process for the Rio+20 Conference. During the Conference, IMO participated in a high

- level

Round Table on " Looking at the way forward in implementing the expected outcomes of theMEPC 64/ 23

P age 64

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc Conference " where the Secretary

- General highlighted shipping ' s contribution to sustainable maritime development in environmental, social and economic aspects. IMO also led a side

event on " Sustainable Maritime Development

– Contribution of Maritime Transport to Green

Growth and Inclusive Develo pment " , in partnership with the maritime industry and other

stakeholders.

12.24 The Committee noted that other side

- events with IMO ' s participation included

" United Nations System: Together for the future we want " , organized by the United Nations System C hief Executive Board for Coordination; " The Oceans Day at Rio+20 " , a high

- level

ocean event organized by Global Oceans Forum ; " Rio+Social " , a global event gathering technology, social media and global leaders; " Marine litter

– preventing our oceans from

be coming dumps " and " Greening the Blue World: Green Economy Approach for Oceans,

Coasts and SIDS "

, both organized by UNEP

.

12.25 The Committee recalled that, in his opening speech of this meeting, the Secretary

- General had highlighted the outcome document o f the Rio+20 Conference, entitled

" The Future We Want " , and IMO ' s own contribution to the follow

- up of the United Nations led work within the context of Sustainable Development Goals. To this end, the Secretary

- General defined eight key elements or " pillar s " on which IMO ' s Sustainable Development Goals for shipping and the maritime industries should focus. These are:

.1 safety culture and environmental stewardship;

.2 energy efficiency ;

.3 new technology and innovation;

.4 maritime education and tr aining;

.5 maritime security and anti

- piracy actions;

.6 maritime traffic management;

.7 maritime infrastructure development; and

.8 implementation of global standards developed, adopted and maintained by IMO.

12.26 In recalling his opening spee ch of this meeting, the Secretary

- General stated that, as a result of Rio+20, the United Nations has been taking serious initiatives to generate an overarching set of sustainable development goals, which are a very important opportunity for the Organizatio n and the shipping industry to generate a concept of sustainable development goals for the maritime industry and the shipping industry. He continued that the future of this global economy and welfare, all depends on the concept of sustainable development, and without shipping, as well as international transportation, we cannot really think about the future of the global economy.

12.27 The Secretar y

- General further stated that efforts should not be spared to generate a good concept for our sustainable devel opment goals, with a view that IMO ' s contribution will be reflected in the overarching sustainable development goals which will be established by the United Nations. In this connection, under the leading role of the Council, the MEPC, the

Technical Co

- ope ration Committee, as well as the Maritime Safety Committee will have their roles to play to move towards our sustainable development goals.MEPC 64/ 23

P age 65

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc 12.28 The delegation of Brazil, in expressing their appreciation to the Secretary

- General ' s remarks and the prepara tion of document MEPC 64/12/4 by the Secretariat, made a

statement on the outcome of Rio+20, set out in annex 24.

12.29 The delegation of China, in expressing their appreciation to the Secretary

- General ' s remarks, associated themselves with the statement made by the delegation of Brazil.

The Chinese delegation further stressed that

, in the process of making international regulations and providing the legislative framework for shipping, the Organization should endeavour to ensure the sustainable developmen t of the shipping industry

, and that any measure taken should be practicable and feasible, as well as alleviat ing any potential negative impacts to it.

13 STATUS OF CONVENTIONS

13.1 The Committee noted the information on the status of IMO conventions and other instruments relating to marine environment protection as at 18 June 2012 (MEPC 64/13),

as follows:

.1 annex 1, showing the status of the IMO conventions and other instruments relating to marine environment protection;

.2 annex 2, showing the statu s of MARPOL;

.3 annex 3, showing the status of the amendments to MARPOL;

.4 annex 4, showing the status of the 1990 OPRC Convention;

.5 annex 5, showing the status of the 2000 OPRC

- HNS Protocol;

.6 annex 6, showing the status of the 2001 AFS Convention ;

.7 annex 7, showing the status of the 2004 BWM Convention; and

.8 annex 8, showing the status of the 2009 Hong Kong Convention.

13.2 The Committee also noted the following information provided by the Secretariat

since document MEPC 64/13 was issued o n 18 June 2012:

.1 w ith regard to annex 2 on the status of MARPOL Convention:

- Niue deposited its instrument of accession to MARPOL Annexes I, II,
III, IV, V and VI on 27 June 2012;

- the Netherlands deposited its instrument of accession to MARPOL

Annex VI on 27 June 2012; and

- the Republic of Indonesia deposited its instrument of accession to MARPOL Annexes III, IV, V and VI on 24 August 2012.

.2 w ith regard to annex 7 on the status of the BMW Convention:

- Denmark deposited its instrument of accession on 11 September 2012

.

13.3 The Committee further noted the following information:MEPC 64/ 23

P age 66

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc .1 the delegation of Argentina stated that their Government would deposit

their instrument of accession to the BWM Convention and MARPOL

Annex VI soon; and

.2 the delegation s of the Russian Federation and the United States stated that their Governments had deposited their instrument of accession to the AFS Convention on 9 and 21 August 2012, respectively.

13.4 The Committee further noted that MSC 90, having noted that the information on the conventions, protocols and amendments thereto related to the work of the MSC and their status, as presented in a document to every session of the MSC, is also available on the

IMO public website www.imo. org , agreed to discontinue the practice of producing hard

- copy documents on the matter. MSC 90 also recommended that the MEPC discontinue hard

- copy information on the status of the Conventions.

13.5 The Committee agreed to MSC 90 ' s recommendation. There fore, the item on " status

of conventions " should be deleted from the agenda of the Committee f o r its future sessions.

14 HARMFUL ANTI

- FOULING SYSTEMS FOR SHIPS

14.1 The Committee noted that t he International Convention on the Control of Harmful

Anti

- Fou ling Systems on Ships had been in force since 17 September 2008 and that, to date, the Convention has 62 Parties, representing 80.33 per cent of the gross tonnage of the

world ' s merchant fleet. All those States that have not yet ratified this Convention w ere invited to do so at the earliest opportunity.

14.2 The Committee, noting that no documents had been submitted to the current session, invited Member States and observer organizations to provide information or proposals under this item to future sessio ns of the Committee, recognizing its importance for the smooth and coordinated implementation of the Anti

- fouling Systems Convention.

15 PROMOTION OF IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF MARPOL AND

RELATED INSTRUMENTS

15.1 The Committee recalled that this i s a standing item on the its agenda with the purpose of fostering compliance and dealing with implementation issues in respect of MARPOL and related instruments, mandatory or recommendatory.

15.2 The Committee, noting that no documents had been submitted to the current session, invited delegations and observers to submit relevant documents or information to

the next session of the Committee

.

16 TECHNICAL CO

- OPERATION SUB

- PROGRAMME FOR THE PR OTECTION OF

THE MARINE ENVIRONME NT

16.1 The Committee noted the information provided in document MEPC 64/16 on the Organization ' s technical co

- operation activities related to the protection of the marine environment, during the period from 1 December 2011 to 1 July 2012, under the Integrated

Technical Co

- operation Prog ramme (ITCP) as well as under the major projects which are financed through external sources. These activities were aimed at assisting Member States in the implementation of the provisions of the relevant IMO instruments, including AFS, BWM, MARPOL, OPRC, OPRC

- HNS, London Convention/Protocol and the Hong Kong Ship Recycling Convention.MEPC 64/ 23

P age 67

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc 16.2 The Committee further noted that, during the period under review, significant progress has been achieved through the major projects, namely the Marine Electronic Highw ay Demonstration Project; the GEF

- UNDP

- IMO GloBallast Partnerships project and its related initiatives, including the Global Industry Alliance (GIA); the GI WACAF project which aims at assisting the West, Central and Southern African region in implementing the OPRC Convention; the IMO

- KOICA Project on building capacities in East Asian countries to address greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from ships; the feasibility study on LNG

- fuelled

short

- sea and coastal shipping in the wider Caribbean region; the IMO

- KOIC A

- PEMSEA project on environmental sensitivity mapping in the gulf of Thailand and the EU

- funded SAFEMED II project, implemented by the Regional Marine Pollution Emergency Response Centre for the Mediterranean Sea (REMPEC) on behalf of IMO.

16.3 The Comm ittee further noted that the sixty

- second session of the Technical

Co

- operation Committee (TC 62) was held from 6 to 8 June 2012 and its report on that session was circulated under the symbol TC 62/15. The matters of interest to the Committee

were summariz ed in document MEPC 64/12/3. In particular, the Committee noted that TC 62 considered and approved the ITCP biennial report for 2010

- 2011 and that TC 62 acknowledged with appreciation the Secretary

- General ' s initiative on the Review and Reform

of Technical Co

- operation, relating to the creation of country profiles to address the real capacity

- building needs of developing countries. The Committee also noted that TC 62 strongly supported the Secretary

- General ' s strategic direction for technical co

- operation, to be implemented, inter alia, through enhanced assistance in the formulation of national maritime transport policies for developing countries.

16.4 In summing up, the Chairman recalled that the constituent programmes of IMO ' s ITCP could only be delivered if the required funding is secured from IMO ' s internal resources

and/or external donor contributions. He e xpressed appreciation for all the financial and

in

- kind contributions to the ITCP and major projects and invited Member States and international org anizations to continue and, if possible, increase their appreciable support for

IMO ' s technical co

- operation activities so that successful delivery of the programme could be

achieved.

17 ROLE OF THE HUMAN ELEMENT

17.1 The Committee recalled that MSC 89

, subject to the concurrence of MEPC 62, had agreed, in principle, to entrust a leading and coordinating role to the STW Sub

- Committee for the implementation of the Organization ' s strategy to address the Human Element.

17.2 The Committee also recalled tha t MEPC 62, due to time constraints, had deferred

the consideration of the decision of MSC 89 until MEPC 63.

17.3 The Committee further recalled that MEPC 63, having concurred with the decision of MSC 89, subject to review of this arrangement after a few y ears to decide if it had achieved the objectives, had agreed that the Committee could refer Human Element matters relating to environmental issues directly to the Joint MSC/MEPC Working Group on the Human Element, and that the Working Group should consider the issues referred to it, without further discussion in the plenary of the STW Sub

- Committee.

17.4 The Committee, having noted that MSC 90 had noted its decision on the matter and given that there were items in the agenda of the STW Sub

- Committee rele vant to the work of the Committee, such as " Enhancing the efficiency and user

- friendliness of the ISM Code "

, agreed to keep this item in its agenda for the next session.MEPC 64/ 23

P age 68

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc 18 NOISE FROM COMMERCIAL SHIPPING AND ITS ADVERSE IMPACTS ON

MARINE LIFE

18.1 The Co mmittee recalled that MEPC 62, having noted that a new output had already been planned on the biennial agenda of the DE Sub

- Committee to develop technical guidelines to address the issue of noise from commercial shipping and its adverse impacts

on marine l ife, instructed the DE Sub

- Committee to address this issue. MEPC 62 also decided to keep the item on the Committee ' s agenda to consider the outcome of the

DE Sub

- Committee on the matter.

Outcome of DE 56 on noise from commercial shipping and its impact on marine life

18.2 The Committee noted that the DE Sub

- Committee held its fifty

- sixth session

from 13 to 17 February 2012 and its report has been circulated under the symbol of

DE 56/25. The Committee also noted that DE 56, having considered document D E 56/24 (United States), providing information on the issue and offering recommendations and

a framework concerning the development of non

- mandatory, technical guidelines to minimize underwater noise, in particular, identifying four specific high

- focus are as that should be assessed for potential underwater noise reduction, i.e. propulsion, hull design, onboard machinery and operational modifications, established a Correspondence Group on Minimizing Underwater Noise, under the coordination of the United Stat es, and instructed it to:

.1 taking into account document DE 56/24 and the information contained in documents MEPC 59/19 and MEPC 60/18, giving special consideration to the priority focus areas identified in the two latter documents, continue to

examine t he available options for ship

- quieting technologies and operational practices;

.2 develop non

- mandatory draft guidelines for reducing underwater noise from commercial ships; and

.3 submit a report to DE 57.

18.3 The Committee invited DE 57 to report the outcome of this work to MEPC 65 (May 2013)

for consideration.

19 WORK PROGRAMME OF THE COMMITTEE AND SUBSIDIARY BODIES

Items in the biennial agendas of the DE, DSC, FP, COMSAR, NAV, SLF and STW

Sub

- Committees relating to environmental issues

19.1 The C ommittee noted that the biennial agendas of the DE, DSC, FP, COMSAR, NAV, SLF and STW Sub

- Committees relating to environmental issues have been approved by MSC 90 and MEPC 63 and noted further that the post biennial agendas, as proposed by

the said Sub

- Com mittees, have been approved by MSC 90.

19.2 The Committee, having considered document MEPC 64/WP.3, approved the items in the biennial and post

- biennial agendas of the DE, DSC, FP, COMSAR, NAV, SLF and

STW Sub

- Committees, which relate to environmental iss ues, as set out in annex 25.

Biennial agenda of the BLG Sub

- Committee and provisional agenda for BLG 17

19.3 The Committee recalled that MEPC 63 agreed to the planned outputs of

the 2012

- 2013 biennium, taking into account the inclusion by BLG 16 of a new agenda item on the development of international measures for minimizing the transfer of invasive aquatic species through biofouling of ships.MEPC 64/ 23

P age 69

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc 19.4 The Committee noted that MSC 90 considered and approved the BLG

Sub

- Committee ' s planned outputs of the 2012

- 2013 biennium, including the unplanned outputs as proposed by BLG 16 on biofouling of ships.

19.5 The Committee noted that, pursuant of resolution A.1038(27) on the High

- level Actions and related planned outputs for 2012

- 2013 biennium , the Secretariat, in consultation with the Chairman, consequently updated the planned outputs of the BLG Sub

- Committee as approved by MSC 90 and MEPC 63 with the inclusion of all planned and unplanned outputs under the purview of the Sub

- Committee.

19.6 The Committee, having considered annex 1 to document MEPC 64/WP.4, approved the revised agenda of the BLG Sub

- Committee and the provisional agenda for BLG 17 and requested the Secretariat to inform the MSC accordingly. The biennial agenda of the

BLG Sub

- Committee and the prov isional agenda for BLG 17, as approved, are set out in

annex 26.

Biennial agenda of the FSI Sub

- Committee and provisional agenda for FSI 21

19.7 The Committee noted that MSC 90 and MEPC 63 approved the biennial agenda of

the FSI Sub

- Committee for the 201 2

- 2013 biennium and the provisional agenda for FSI 21.

19.8 The Committee further noted that the biennial agenda of the FSI Sub

- Committee, as approved by MSC 90 and MEPC 63, has been consequentially updated based on the planned outputs for the MSC and MEP C for the 2012

- 2013 biennium.

19.9 The Committee, having considered annex 2 to document MEPC 64/WP.4, approved the updated biennial agenda of the FSI Sub

- Committee and the provisional agenda for

FSI 21 and requested the Secretariat to inform the MSC accor dingly. The biennial agenda of

the FSI Sub

- Committee and the provisional agenda for FSI 21, as approved, are set out in

annex 27.

Report on the status of the planned outputs for the MEPC for the 2012

- 2013 biennium

19.10 The Committee noted that, in acco rdance with paragraph 9.1 of the Guidelines on the application of the Strategic Plan and the High

- level Action of the Organization adopted by resolution A.1013(26), the reports on the status of planned outputs included in the High

- level Action Plan and pri orities for the 2012

- 2013 biennium should be prepared and annexed to the report of each session of the s ub

- c ommittees and c ommittees, and to the biennial report of the Council to the Assembly. Such report should separately identify unplanned outputs

accep ted for inclusion in the biennial agendas.

19.11 The Committee further noted that resolution A.1013(26) also requests that, in preparing such report, each organ of the Organization should consolidate therein all the reports on the status of planned output s which it has received since its previous report.

19.12 The Committee noted that, pursuant to resolution A.1038(27), the Assembly requested the MEPC to take specific action on the approved High

- level Action Plan of the Organization and priorities for the 2012

- 2013 biennium , in particular table 2 on the High

- level actions and related planned outputs in full observance of the Guidelines contained in resolution A.1013(26).

19.13 The Committee, having considered document MEPC 64/WP.5 on the report on the

sta tus of planned outputs for MEPC for the 2012

- 2013 bien nium as contained in

resolution A.1038(27), which was updated based on the outcome of MEPC 63 and MSC 90,MEPC 64/ 23

P age 70

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc endorsed the status of planned outputs for the 2012

- 2013 biennium and authorized the

Secretariat to update the status of planned outputs for the 2012

- 2013 biennium, taking into account the progress made at this session. The updated report on the status of planned outputs for the MEPC for 2012

- 2013 biennium is set out in annex 28

.

Activities, priori ties and plan of meeting

- weeks of the Committees and their subsidiary

bodies for the 2014

- 2015 biennium

19.14 The Committee recalled that paragraph 3.5 of the Guidelines on the organization

and method of work of the Maritime Safety Committee and the Marin e Environment Protection Committee and their subsidiary bodies (MSC MEPC.1/Circ.4/Rev.2) requires that, at the end of the first year of the biennium, the Committee Chairmen should submit to their respective committees a joint plan covering the activities, priorities and meetings of the Committees and their subsidiary bodies for the coming biennium, for consideration in the subsequent year, with a view to inclusion in the Secretary

- General ' s relevant budget proposals.

19.15 The Committee noted that, in prep aring the activities and priorities of the Committees and their subsidiary bodies (MEPC 64/WP.6), advice was sought from the

Chairmen of the sub

- committees on the number of sessions their sub

- committees would

need for the 2014

- 2015 biennium, based on the s ub

- committees ' present biennial agendas and anticipated needs regarding work which might be required during the next biennium.

19.16 The Committee recalled that the Secretary

- General provided information to the Council (C 108/3/3) on a possible future res tructuring of the sub

- committees, and that the Council, having expressed its appreciation and support for his initiative, noted that C 109 will consider the above matter in more detail and, in this regard, proposals contained in

document MEPC 64/WP.6 have been prepared on the basis of the current sub

- committees arrangements and might be subject to change following consideration by the Council and the Committees of any change to the sub

- committees ' structure.

19.17 The Committee further noted that, with reg ard to activities and priorities of the Committees, the Chairman noted that the Assembly, at its twenty

- seventh session, had approved resolution A.1038(27) on the High

- level Action Plan of the Organization and priorities for the 2012

- 2013 biennium , which i dentified the high

- level actions, including priorities for specific items for the respective Committees, necessary to achieve the strategic objectives in the Strategic Plan for the Organization (for the six

- year period 2012

-

2017) (resolution A.1037(27)).

19.18 The Committee further noted that the Chairmen also noted the provisions of resolution A.900(21), which sets out the objectives of the Organization in the 2000s and provides specific directions as to the areas on which the Committees should focus thei r attention during the current decade, as well as the provisions of resolution A.901(21) on IMO

and technical co

- operation in the 2000s

.

19.19 The Committee recalled that MEPC 63 and MSC 90 had approved the biennial agendas of the sub

- committees, includin g priorities for each output and target completion dates or number of sessions needed to complete them as shown in annex 29 of the report of MSC 90 (MSC 90/28/Add.1).

19.20 Taking into account the technical workload of the Organization and budgetary

const raints, the priorities assigned by the Assembly in resolution A.1038(27) to subjects for consideration by the MSC and MEPC and the advice provided by the Chairmen of the

Sub

- Committees, the Committee:MEPC 64/ 23

P age 71

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc .1 did not agree to the proposed two (2) meeting

- weeks for the FP and DE

Sub

- Committees, respectively, for 2014 footnoted in the plan of meeting

- weeks for the MSC and MEPC for the biennium 2014

- 2015;

.2 noted that C 109 would discuss the reduction of sessions requiring interpretation to eight per sub

- committe e meetings (C 109/3/1, paragraph 25) and, on this basis, did not agree to the proposed 10 plenary

sessions of the DE Sub

- Committee in each of the next two sessions regardless of any reduction in the number of meeting

- weeks;

.3 noted the suggestions of som e delegations that Member States should prioritize the planned/unplanned outputs to be given to sub

- committees with respect to their own priorities and the Chairmen of the sub

- committees should be encouraged to attend the Committees ' meetings; and

.4 app roved, subject to the concurrent decision by MSC 91, the plan of meeting

- weeks for the MSC and MEPC and their subsidiary bodies for the

biennium 2014

- 2015, as listed in the table below, for inclusion in the Secretary

- General ' s relevant budget proposals:

Year MSC MEPC BLG DSC FP FSI COMSAR NAV DE SLF STW Total

2014 2.5 2 1 1 1 * 1 1 1 1 ** 1 1 13.5

2015 1.5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11.5

Grand total (weeks) 25

Items to be included in the agendas of MEPC 65, MEPC 66 and MEPC 67

19.21 The Committee, having considered document MEPC 64/WP.7 and taking into account the decisions made at this session, approved the items to be included in the agendas for MEPC 65, MEPC 66 and MEPC 67 and the proposed groups, as set out in

annex 29.

Dates for MEPC 65, MEPC 66 and MEPC 67

19.22 The Committee noted that MEPC 65 would be held from 13 to 17 May 2013 and that MEPC 66 and MEPC 67 were tentatively scheduled to be held in March 2014 and

October 2014, respectively.

Working/review/draft ing groups at MEPC 65

19.23 The Committee agreed, in principle, to establish the following working/review/drafting groups at MEPC 65:

.1 Ballast Water Review Group;

* The Chairman of FP has proposed two meeting

- weeks in 2014, on the basis that no FP session has been held in 2012, the bulky agenda and the urgent matters post poned during 2012.

** The Chairman of DE has proposed two meeting

- weeks in 2014. However, this number could be reduced if

the Sub

- Committee is permitted to have 10 plenary sessions requiring interpretation in a five

- day period,

in each of the next two se ssions.MEPC 64/ 23

P age 72

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc .2 Working Group on Air Pollution and Energy efficiency ;

.3 Working Group on the Draft R esoluti on on Promotion of Technical

Co

- operation and Transfer of Technology relating to the Improvement of Energy efficiency of Ships; and

.4 Drafting Group on Amendments to Mandatory Instruments.

Correspondence groups

19.24 The Committee agreed to esta blish the following intersessional Correspondence Group, which would report to MEPC 65:

.1 Correspondence Group on Ship Recycling;

.2 Correspondence Group on Energy efficiency for Ships;

.3 Correspondence Group on Assessment of Technological Developmen ts to Implement the Tier III NO

x Emission Standard under MARPOL Annex V;

and

.4 Cor respondence Group on the Assembly Resolution on the Application of

BWM Convention.

Intersessional meetings

19.25 The Committee agreed to hold the following intersessional meetings, subject to approval by the Council:

.1 OPRC/HNS Technical Group to be held in the week before MEPC 65

in May 2013, which should report to MEPC 65; and

.2 ESPH Working Group to be held in October 2013.

20 APPLICATION OF THE COMMITTEES ' GUIDELIN ES

20.1 The Committee recalled that MEPC 63 and MSC 90 agreed to the request of C/ES.26, in accordance with paragraph 4 of resolution A.1013(26), to include in the

Committees ' Guidelines (MSC

- MEPC.1/Circ.4/Rev.2) the checklist for identifying

administrati ve burdens to be used when preparing the analysis of implications, which is required when submitting proposals for inclusion of unplanned outputs.

20.2 The Committee noted that the Committees ' Guidelines, with the addition of the
checklist, had been disse minated as MSC

- MEPC.1/Circ.4/Rev.2 and that its application will

be adhered to in the conduct of the work of the Committee.

21 ELECTION OF THE CHAIRMAN AND VICE

- CHAIRMAN FOR 2013

21.1 The Committee, in accordance with rule 17 of its Rules of Procedure, u nanimously

re

- elected Mr. Andreas Chrysostomou (Cyprus) as Chairman and Mr. Arsenio Dominguez (Panama) as Vice

- Chairman, both for 2013.MEPC 64/ 23

P age 73

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc 22 ANY OTHER BUSINESS

Marine Environmental Awareness Raising Posters: Sargasso Sea

22.1 The Committee noted that d ocu ment MEPC 64/INF.24 (GlobalMET Ltd, IUCN, Nautical Institute and WWF) contained an example of a poster which aims to raise marine

environmental awareness of seafarers and others about sensitive sea areas frequented by ships and the associated environmental and marine life features

. The Sargasso Sea was

chosen as the first of a series of similar proposed poster s because of concerns about the impact s of ships on the fauna and flora of this unique region. The posters can be displayed

in messrooms on board sh ips , as well as in shor e

- based academies and elsewhere and can be purchase d at: http://www.maritimetraining.com/Search/sargasso.

The P rotection and M anagement of the Sargasso Sea: Summary Science Case and Supporting Evidence Case

22.2 The Committee also noted that d ocument MEPC 64/INF.2 5 (IUCN) contained the

summary of a recent publication entitled " The Protection and Management of the Sargasso Sea: Summary Science Case and Supporting Evidence Case "

. The report provides the scientific and other supporti ng evidence of the importance of the Sargasso Sea located

within the North Atlantic sub

- tropical gyre and will be used as part of the process to secur e international recognition of the importance of the Sargasso Sea and of establishing appropriate manageme nt and precautionary regimes within existing instruments

and organizations such as the IMO and the International Convention for the

Conservation of Atlantic Tuna. The full report can be viewed or downloaded at: http://www.sargassoalliance.org/case

- for

- pro tection

.

The Expo 2012 Yeosu Korea and the launch of the Oceans Compact

22.3 The Committee further noted that d ocument MEPC 64 /INF.32 (Secretariat) provide d

information about the 2012 International Exposition, held in Yeosu, Republic of Korea,

from 12 Ma y to 12 August 2012. IMO provided input to the Expo, both as part of the
permanent United Nations exhibition, and in a temporary exhibition showcasing IMO ' s work

for the wider audience.

22.4 The Committee also further noted information about t he Oceans Compact, a new initiative on ocean matters by the United Nations Secretary

- General , which was launched during the Yeosu Expo. The Oceans Compact set s out a strategic vision for the United

Nations system to deliver more coherently and effectively on its oc ean

- related mandates,

consistent with the Rio+20 outcome document " The Future we want "

. The Oceans Compact will be accompanied by an integrated and results

- based " Action Plan " which will be overseen by the UN

- Oceans coordinating mechanism to which IMO is a member. A time

- bound Advisory Group that includes Executive Heads of involved U nited Nations system organizations, high

- level policy

- makers, scientists, leading ocean experts, private sector representatives, representatives of non

- governme nt al organizati ons and civil society organizations will facilitate stakeholder dialogue and accelerate support in various quarters for concrete actions towards the common goal of " Healthy Oceans for Prosperity "

.

Other issues

22.5 The Committee noted the invitation by t he observer from ISCO to envir o nmental NGOs to provide input on its work related to the development of Knowledge

- b ased Response Planning for Marine Incidents involving oil and HNS and its intention to formalize this invitation by letter in the c oming weeks

.MEPC 64/ 23

P age 74

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc 22.6 The observer from IACS informed the Committee of the recent addition to the

information on their website related to easy and free

- of

- charge access to IACS Unified Interpretations (UIs), consisting of a new spreadsheet that provides a means of linkin g IACS

UIs to MARPOL, MEPC circulars and other IMO instruments. Details can be found at : www.iacs.org.uk/publica tions.aspx?pageid=4§ionid=4.

Actions requested of other IMO bodies

22.7 The actions requested of other IMO bodies are summarized as fol lows ( paragraph numbers are those of the report of MEPC 64).

22.8 The Maritime Safety Committee, at its ninety

- first session, is invited to:

.1 note that the MEPC 64 approved , subjec t to concurrent decision by

MSC 91, the draft MEPC

- MSC Circular for the interim guidelines for determining minimum propulsion power to maintain the manoeuvrability of ships in adverse conditions, and the need to finalize, at MSC 91, the

above

- mentioned circular, bearing in mind that the e ntry into force date of chapter 4 of MA RPOL Annex VI will be 1 January 2 013 (paragraphs 4.112.6 and 4.112.7);

.2 note that MEPC 64 adopted, by resolution MEPC.225(64), the 2012 amendments to the IBC Code (paragraph 6.5 and annex 12);

.3 note that MEPC 64 approved the draft Assembly resolut ion on the revised Guidelines on implementation of the ISM Code by Administrations, subject to concurrent decision of MSC 91 (paragraph 11.24 and annex 17) ;

.4 note that MEPC 64 approved the draft Assembly resolution on the revised

Guidelines for the str ucture of an integrated system of contingency planning for shipboard emergencies, subject to concurrent decision of MSC 91 (paragraph 11.24 and annex 18);

.5 note that MEPC 64 a pproved the revised MEPC

- MSC circular on the Guidelines for the operational implementation of the ISM Code by companies, s ubject to concurrent decision of MSC 91 (paragraph 11.25);

.6 consider, with the view to addressing, the concern with regard to the proposed addition of a footnote to paragraph 1.2.3.2 of the ISM Code in

rela tion to MSC.1/Circ. 1371 (paragraph 11.26)

.7 note that MEPC 64 approved the draft IMO Instruments Implementation

Code (III Code), with the associated draft Assembly resolution, with a view to submission to the Assembly, at its twenty

- eighth session, for adoption, subject to concurrent decision of MSC 91 (paragraph 11.43 and annex 19);

.8 note that MEPC 64 approved the draft amendments to MARPOL to make the III Code and auditing mandatory, with a view to adoption at MEPC 66 (after the envisaged adoptio n of the III Code at A 28) (paragraph 11.46 and annex 20);

.9 note that MEPC 64 approved the draft Code for recognized organizations (RO Code), with a view to adoption at MEPC 65, subject to concurrent

decision of MSC 91 (paragraph 11.62);MEPC 64/ 23

P age 75

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc .10 note t hat MEPC 64 approved the draft amendments to MARPOL Annexes I and II to make the RO Code mandatory, for circulation, with a view to adoption at MEPC 65 (paragraph 11.63 and annex 23);

.11 note that the actions taken by MEPC 64 on the outcome of MSC 90 on all issues of relevance to it under the relevant items of its agenda (paragraphs 12.2 to 12.5);

.12 note that MEPC 64 concurred with the views of MSC 90 on the outcome of

the fifth session of the Joint Working Group on the Member State Audit Scheme, particularly on the issue of confidentiality in the context of a mandatory audit scheme (paragraph 12.14 to 12.20);

.13 note that MEPC 64 agreed to MSC 90 ' s recommendation with regard to discontinuing hard

- copy information on the status of the Conven tions (paragraph 13.5);

.14 note that MEPC 64 approved the items in the biennial and post

- biennial agendas of the DE, DSC, FP, COMSAR, NAV, SLF and STW

Sub

- Committees, which relate to environmental issues (paragraph 19.2 and annex 25);

.15 note that ME PC 64 approved the revised agenda of the BLG

Sub

- Committee and the provisional agenda for BLG 17 (paragraph 19.6 and annex 26);

.16 note that MEPC 64 approved the updated biennial agenda of the

FSI Sub

- Committee and the provisional agenda for FSI 21 ( paragraph 19.9 and annex 27); and

.17 note that MEPC 64 approved, subject to concurrent decision by MSC 91, the plan of meeting

- weeks for the MSC and MEPC and their subsidiary

bodies for the biennium 2014

- 2015, for inclusion in the Secretary

- General ' s

re levant budget proposals (paragraph 19.20).

22.9 The Sub

- Committee on Bulk Liquids and Gases (BLG), at its seventeenth session,

is instructed to:

.1 develop a BWM circular on the application of the BWM Convention to Offshore Support Vessels based on the proposals in documents

MEPC 64/2/14 and MEPC 64/2/20 (paragraph 2.29);

.2 in developing sampling and analysis procedures for port State control, take

into account MEPC 64 ' s decision that such procedures should be no more stringent than what is required for Type Approval of ballast water management systems (paragraph 2.36);

.3 note that MEPC 64 invited Member Governments and international organizations to submit case studies including quantitative data

and information to document problems with the supp ly, operation and suitability of Type

- Approved ballast water management systems to the

BLG Sub

- Committee to facilitate more informed analysis of these aspects (paragraph 2.38.4);MEPC 64/ 23

P age 76

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc .4 review resolution MEPC.175(58) on information reporting on type approved ballast water management systems, taking into account text contained in annex 1 of document MEPC 64/WP.8 (paragraph 2.38.4);

.5 prepare additional guidance with regard to application of the provisions

contained in Guidelines (G8), including expansion of BWM.2/Circ.28 (paragraph 2.38.5);

.6 consider the proposals made in document MEPC 64/2/15 on monitoring and sampling of certain ballast water management systems and advice the MEPC accordingly, noting that MEPC 64 extended deadline for

submissions of m ore than six pages commenting on document

MEPC 64/2/15 to Friday, 30 November 2012 (paragraph 2.38.6);

.7 note that MEPC 64 approved MEPC.1/Circ.795 on unified interpretation for

continuous

- feed type shipboard incinerators (paragraph 4.25);

.8 note ME PC 64 ' s view that, in order to progress the development of the procedures on sampling of fuel oil being used on board matter, it would be necessary for future submissions to demonstrate the compelling need for such procedures and to provide concrete propos als on the matter (paragraph 4.112.9) ;

.9 note that MEPC 64 adopted, by resolution MEPC.225(64), the 2012

amendments to the IBC Co de (paragraph 6.5 and annex 12);

.10 note that MEPC 64 approved, in general, the report of BLG 16 (paragraph 11.2) ;

.1 1 note that MEPC 64 endorsed the decisions taken by BLG 16 regarding the

outcome of ESPH 17 (paragraph 11.3);

.12 note that MEPC 64 endorsed BLG 16 ' s evaluation of the Trade

- named mixtures presenting safety hazards, for inclusion in List 3 of the

MEPC.2/ Circular (paragraph 11.4);

.13 note that MEPC 64 endorsed BLG 16 ' s evaluation of cargo tank cleaning additives found to meet the requirements of regulation 13.5.2 of MARPOL Annex II, for inclusion in the next edition of the MEPC.2/Circular (paragraph11 .5);

.14 note that MEPC 64 approved MEPC.1/Circ.761/Rev.1 on the amendments to the 2011 Guidelines for the carriage of blends of petroleum oil and biofuels (paragraph 11.6);

.15 note that MEPC 64 approved MEPC.1/Circ.792 on guidance for minimizing

the transfer of invasive aquatic species as biofouling (hull fouling) for recreational craft (paragraph 11.8); and

.16 note that MEPC 64 approved th e revised agenda of the BLG

Sub

- Committee and the provisional agenda for BLG 17 (paragraph 19.6 and annex 26).MEPC 64/ 23

P age 77

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc 22.10 The Sub

- Committee on Flag State Implementation (FSI), at its twenty

- first session,

is instructed to:

.1 in developing sampling and analysis procedures for port State control, take

into account MEPC 64 ' s decision that such procedures should be no more stringent than what is required for Type Approval of ballast water management systems (paragraph 2.36);

.2 consider document MEPC 64/7/6 with a view to defining when survey and certification requirements could be exempted for unmanned and

non

- self

- propelled barges under a specific M ARPOL Annex (paragraph 7.19);

.3 in the context of revision of MSC

- MEPC.3/Circ.3 and the related GISIS
module, not to eliminate the information on pollution incidents, in view of the

fact that this information is use d for purposes beyond casualty investigations and is relevant to the work of the OPRC

- HNS Technical Group (paragraph 8.3.4);

.4 note that MEPC 64 approved, in general, the report of FSI 20

(paragraph 11.28);

.5 note that MEPC 64 endorsed FSI 20 ' s decis ion to consider, at its next

session, the draft Assembly resolution on notification and circulation through GISIS of information related to mandatory reporting requirements (paragraph 11.30);

.6 note that MEPC 64 endorsed FSI 20 ' s invitation to interes ted Member States to submit their proposals on draft guidelines on communication of

information under IMO instruments to a future session of the FSI

Sub

- Committee, in particular on domestic legislation, including the frequency of such reporting and the lan guage in which information should be provided (paragraph 11.31);

.7 examine in detail the difficulties encountered by Member States in complying with the various mandatory reporting requirements, while taking

into account the request of A 27 to the Counc il, to establish the Ad Hoc Steering Group for Reducing Administrative Requirements (resolution A.1043(27)), with a view to avoiding any duplication of work (paragraph 11.32);

.8 note that MEPC 64 endorsed FSI 20 ' s decision to further clarify the

meaning of " originals " to be carried on board at a future session (paragraph 11.33);

.9 initiate revisions to the Revised list of certificates and documents required

to be carried on board ships (FAL.2/Circ.123

- MEPC.1/Circ.769

- MSC.1/Circ.1409), as may be necessa ry, noting that MEPC 64 requested the Secretariat to prepare a note containing those requirements, which may

result in the revision of the above

- mentioned circular and/or amendment to appendix 12 of the Procedures for PSC, as appropriate (paragraph 11.34);

.10 in the context of FSI 20 ' s request to coordinate a detailed technical review of GlobalReg by all relevant sub

- committees, note the MEPC 64 ' s view that it would not be appropriate to extend the scope of the relevant plannedMEPC 64/ 23

P age 78

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc output (5.2.1.18 of HLAP for 2012 and 2013) and the G lobalReg

(paragraph 11.37);

.11 note that MEPC 64 requested the Secretariat to release a version of the

certified true copy of amendments to a convention on IMODOCS, in track changes, and to establish a time limit for the circ ulation of the certified true copies, preferably at the time of adoption, taking into account the views expressed by the Legal Office (paragraph 11.39);

.12 in respect of FSI 20 ' s proposal to request the Secretariat to invite States

depositing instruments of ratification to submit relevant and related domestic documents leading to the ratification that could be made accessible to other States, note that MEPC 64 concurred with the view of TC 62 (paragraph 11.40);

.13 note that MEPC 64 approved the draft I MO Instruments Implementation

Code (III Code), with the associated draft Assembly resolution, with a view to submission to the Assembly, at its twenty

- eighth session, for adoption, subject to concurrent decision of MSC 91 (paragraph 11.43 and annex 19);

.14 note that MEPC 64 approved the draft amendments to MARPOL to make the III Code and auditing mandatory, with a view to adoption at MEPC 66 (after the envisaged adoption of the III Code at A 28) (paragraph 11.46 and annex 20);

.15 note that MEPC 6 4 endorsed FSI 20 ' s recommendation concerning future amendments to the III Code and the applicable provisions of the mandatory instruments (paragraph 11.48);

.16 develop a new non

- mandatory instrument in the form of an Assembly resolution, solely conta ining the annexes to the current non

- mandatory Code for the implementation of mandatory IMO instruments, to be reviewed in the future in the same way as the annexes to the non

- mandatory Code have been updated regularly since its initial adoption (paragraph 11.49);

.17 note that MEPC 64 endorsed FSI 20 ' s request to the Secretariat to further communicate with the ISO Secretariat to obtain clarification or approval

for referencing its standards in the RO Code and, if required, conduct

a study with interest ed delegations to adjust the text of the RO Code (paragraph 11.51);

.18 note that MEPC 64 approved the draft Code for recognized organizations (RO Code), with a view to adoption at MEPC 65, subject to concurrent

decision of MSC 91 (paragraph 11.62);

.19 note that MEPC 64 approved the draft amendments to MARPOL Annexes I and II to make the RO Code mandatory, for circulation, with a view to adoption at MEPC 65 (paragraph 11.63 and annex 23); and

.20 note that MEPC 64 approved the updated biennial agenda of the

FSI Sub

- Committee and the provisional agenda for FSI 21 (paragraph 19.9 and annex 27).MEPC 64/ 23

P age 79

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc 22.11 The Sub

- Committee on Ship Design and Equipment (DE), at its fifty

- seventh session, is instructed to:

.1 in the context of developing the draft P olar Code, bear in mind MEPC 63 ' s

decisions on how to make the Polar Code mandatory and that the Code should only include new issues and additional requirements which do not appear in other instruments (paragraph 11.12) ;

.2 note that MEPC 64 approved dra ft amendments to the Condition Assessment Scheme (CAS) (resolution MEPC.94(46)) which is mandatory under MARPOL Annex I, for circulation, with a view to adoption at

MEPC 65 (paragraph 11.13 and annex 16) ;

.3 note that MEPC 64 adopted, by resolution MEPC. 227(64),

2012 Guidelines on implementation of effluent standards and performance tests for sewage treatment plants (paragraph 11.61 and annex 22);

.4 note that MEPC 64 endorsed the recommendation of DE 56 that incinerators

with a capacity greater than 1 ,500 kW and up to 4,000 kW can be
typ e

- approved under the existing Standard Specification for Shipboard

Incinerators (resolution MEPC.76(40), as amended by resolution MEPC.93(45)) (paragraph 11.22); and

.5 note that MEPC 64 approved the items in the bien nial and post

- biennial agendas of the DE, DSC, FP, COMSAR, NAV, SLF and STW

Sub

- Committees, which relate to environmental issues (paragraph 19.2 and annex 25).

22.12 The Sub

- Committee on Dangerous Goods, Solid Cargoes and Containers (DSC), at its eighteen th session, is instructed to:

.1 consider how the long

- term implementation of the provisions of

MARPOL Annex V concerning cargo residues could be facilitated by

amendments to the International Maritime Solid Bulk Cargoes Code (paragraph 7.26); and

.2 n ote that MEPC 64 approved the items in the biennial and post

- biennial agendas of the DE, DSC, F P, COMSAR, NAV, SLF and STW

Sub

- Committees, which relate to environmental issues (paragraph 19.2 and annex 25).

22.13 The Sub

- Committee on Standards of Training and Watchkeeping (STW), at its forty

- fourth session, is instructed to:

.1 note that MEPC 64 approved draft Assembly resolution on the revised Guidelines on implementation of the ISM Code by Administrations, subject to concurrent decision of MSC 91 (para graph 11.24 and annex 17) ;

.2 note that MEPC 64 approved draft Assembly resolution on the revised Guidelines for the structure of an integrated system of contingency planning for shipboard emergencies, subject to concurrent decision of

MSC 91(paragraph 11 .24 and annex 18);

.3 note that MEPC 64 a pproved the revised MEPC

- MSC circular on Guidelines for the operational implementation of the ISM Code by companies, s ubject to concurrent decision of MSC 91(paragraph 11.25);MEPC 64/ 23

P age 80

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc .4 consider, with the view to addres sing, the concern with regard to the proposed addition of a footnote to paragraph 1.2.3.2 of the ISM Code (paragraph 11.26); and

.5 note that MEPC 64 approved the items in the biennial and post

- biennial agendas of the DE, DSC, FP, COMSAR, NAV, SLF and STW

Sub

- Committees, which relate to environmental issues (paragraph 19.2 and annex 25).

22.14 The Sub

- Committee on Safety of Navigation (NAV), at its fifty

- ninth session, is instructed to note that MEPC 64 designated, by resolution MEPC.226 (64), the Saba B ank as a Particularly Sensitive Sea Area (paragraph 9.4 and annex 15).

***MEPC 63/23 Annex 1, page 1

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc ANNEX 1

STATEMENT BY THE OBSERVER OF ICS ON THE REPORT

OF THE BALLAST WATER REVIEW GROUP

Thank you, Mr. Chairman

, for allowing us to respond to the report of the Ballast Water Review Group.

Whilst we certainly appreciate the valiant efforts of the chairman to progress the discussions; we are very disappointed that the very real concerns of industry have been yet again to a large extent sidelined or ignored.

With few exception s, the tenor of the working group report suggests that all is rosy in the developing world of ballast water treatment system availability and efficacy, as well as the capacity of the global shipbuilding and repair community to cope with the vast number of vessels which will be required to install systems in the future according to the implementation

schedule

.

We are particularly disappointed that the existing identified challenges for moving
type

- approved systems from controlled test conditions to the rea l world of vessel operations, which we and others elaborated on during the review group discussions have been disregarded.

We wish to emphasize the point that the Ballast Water Management Convention was NOT designed to assure the ability of a ballast wate r treatment system to meet the D

- 2 standard in the vacuum of a test facility. Rather the Convention was designed to assure the ability to

meet the D

- 2 standard by a system installed on an operating vessel. It is clear that enforcement and compliance acti ons will not be taken against treatment system manufacturers or test facilities but rather against shipowners and their crews who have installed a type

- approved system that, when subject to the variabilities of the global operating environment, fails to pe rform as required by the Convention. These variabilities have resulted in documented failures of systems which have already been issued type approvals, failures caused by a variety of operating conditions including but not limited to variable
salinities, flow rates, water temperature and levels of suspended sediment. We believe Type Approval D

- 2 compliance verification should not simply be restricted to operation on a wet Wednesday in July with a specific water temperature of 17.2 degrees Celcius.

A type

- approved system should generally be expected to operate effectively under all normal operating conditions encountered.

We are consequently disappointed at the unwillingness of the review group to pursue reopening of the Guidelines (G8). We do appreciate the sensitivities expressed by some delegations in this regard. While not agreeing with the decision, we respect the review

group ' s decision to attempt to correct these inadequacies through revision and updating of resolution MEPC.175(58). In fact, we wo uld suggest that the review group ' s recognition of the need to update these documents implicitly recognizes the problems with the current Guidelines (G8).

The current Guidelines (G8) provide a great deal of flexibility to Administrations in the

issuance o f type approvals, this leads to varying degrees of robustness in the type approval process, and in fact, in the certification itself as regards essential test condition parameters, which we believe should be included as part of the type approval documentat ion. While we generally support flexible implementation of any program, flexibility which results in variable test results impacting the real world operating capability of a system installed aboard shipMEPC 64/ 23

Annex 1, page 2

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc cannot be supported. Guidance on guidance to volunt ary guidelines surely cannot be an appropriate way to support such important legislation. This has again reinforced our earlier concerns regarding PSC sampling for compliance which we believed would have been alleviated by the pragmatic way forward sugges ted in our submission.

Yet again it is apparent that the legislators ignore realities in blindly pursuing the status quo. This was an opportunity to provide a final much needed fix to the very real type approval problems that have been highlighted to, and recognized by, the majority of the review group.

***MEPC 63/2 3 Annex 2, page 1

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc AN NEX 2

RESOLUTION MEPC. 222 (64)

Adopted on 5 October 2012

2012 GUIDELINES FOR THE SURVEY AND CERTIFICATION

OF SHIPS UNDER THE HONG KONG CONVENTION

THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION COMMITTEE,

RECALLING Article 38(a) of the Convention on the International Maritime Organization concerning the functions of the Marine Environment Protection Committee conferred upon it by the international conventions for the prevention and control of marine pollut ion,

RECALLING ALSO that the International Conference on the Safe and Environmentally Sound Recycling of Ships held in May 2009 adopted the Hong Kong International

Convention for the S afe and E nvironmentally S ound R ecycling of S hips, 2009 (the Hong Kong C onvention) together with six Conference resolutions,

NOTING that Article 5 of the Hong Kong Convention prescribes that ships subject to survey and certification shall be surveyed and certified in accordance with the regulations in the Annex to the Hong Ko ng Convention

,

NOTING ALSO that regulation 10.2 of the Annex to the Hong Kong Convention requires that surveys of ships for the purpose of enforcement of the provisions of the Hong Kong

Convention shall be carried out taking into account the guidelines de veloped by the Organization,

NOTING FURTHER that regulation s 11.1 and 11.11 of the Annex to the Hong Kong Convention require that the International Certificate on Inventory of Hazardous Materials and the International Ready for Recycling Certificate shall be issued taking into account the guidelines developed by the Organization,

HAVING CONSIDERED, at its sixty

- fourth session , the draft 2012 Guidelines for the Survey and Certification of Ships under the Hong Kong Convention developed by the Working Group on Ship Recycling,

1. ADOPTS the 2012 Guidelines for the s urvey and c ertification of s hips under the Hong Kong Convention

, as set out in the a nnex to this resolution;

2. INVITES Governments to apply the 2012 Guidelines for the s urvey and c ertification

of ships under the Hong Kong Convention upon the entry into force of the Convention; and

3. REQUESTS the Committee to keep the Guidelines under review.

* * *MEPC 64/ 23

Annex 2, page 2

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc ANNEX

201 2 GUIDELINES FOR THE SURVEY AND CERTIFICATION

OF SHIPS UNDER THE HONG KONG CONVENTION

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Objective of the g uidelines

Article 5 of the Hong Kong International Convention for the Safe and Environmentally Sound Recycling of Ships, 2009, (hereafter referred to as " the Convention " ) prescribes that each party shall ensure tha t ships flying its flag or operating under its authority and subject to survey and certification are surveyed and certified in accordance with the regulations in the annex to the Convention. The purpose of this document is to provide guidelines for the

sur vey and certification of ships under the Convention (hereafter referred to as

" the guidelines " ), covered in " Part C

– Survey and certification " of the annex to the Convention (regulations 10 to 14)

. These g uidelines will assist Administrations and recogniz ed organizations in the uniform application of the provisions of the Convention and help shipowners, shipbuilders, suppliers, ship recycling facilities and other interested parties to understand the process of conducting surveys and issuing and endorsing c ertificates.

1.2 Approach of the g uidelines

These guidelines provide the procedures for conducting surveys to ensure that ships comply with the Convention, and the requirements for issuing and endorsing an International Certificate on Inventory of Hazard ous Materials and issu ing an International Ready for Recycling Certificate.

1.3 These guidelines apply to surveys of ships of 500 gross tonnage and above, as specified in article 3 of the Convention.

1.4 In the event that a new survey method is developed , or in the event that the use of a certain Hazardous Material is prohibited and/or restricted, or in the light of any other relevant experience gained, these guidelines may need to be revised in the future.

2 DEFINITIONS

The terms used in these guidelin es have the same meaning as those defined in article 2 of the Convention and regulation 1 of the annex to the Convention, unless expressly provided

otherwise.

2.1 " Date of Construction " , as referred to in the forms of the International Certificate on

Inve ntory of Hazardous Materials and the International Ready for Recycling Certificate, means the date used by the Administration to determine whether the ship is a " new ship " or

an " existing ship " in accordance with the relevant provisions of regulations 1.3 and 1.4 of the

Annex to the Convention.

3 SURVEYS

3.1 Initial survey

The aim of the initial survey is to verify whether p art I of the Inventory of Hazardous Materials has been prepared in accordance with the Convention requirements. There are different requirements for the initial surveys of new ships and for those of existing ships.MEPC 64/ 23 Annex 2, p age 3

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc 3.1.1 Initial survey for new ships 1

3.1.1.1 In the case of a new ship, an initial survey should be conducted before the ship is put in service.

3.1.1.2 Prior to the initia l survey for a new ship, a request for the initial survey should be submitted by the shipowner or shipyard to the Administration or to a recognized organization along with the ship data required for the International Certificate on Inventory of Hazardous

M aterials, as follows:

.1 name of ship;

.2 distinctive number or letters;

.3 port of registry;

.4 gross tonnage;

.5 IMO number;

.6 name and address of shipowner;

.7 IMO registered owner identification number;

.8 IMO company identification number; and

.9 da te of construction.

3.1.1.3 The request for an initial survey for a new ship should be supplemented by Part I of the Inventory of Hazardous Materials

– which identifies Hazardous Materials contained in ship structure and equipment, their location and appr oximate quantities

– along with the Material Declaration and Supplier ' s Declaration of Conformity in accordance with

the 2011 Guidelines for the Development of the Inventory of Hazardous Materials ( resolution MEPC.197(62) , as amended ) , and all other docume nts used to develop the Inventory of

Hazardous Materials.

3.1.1.4 The survey should verify that p art I of the Inventory of Hazardous Materials identifies the Hazardous Materials contained in the ship structure and equipment, their location and approximate quantities, by checking the Material Declaration and Supplier ' s Declaration of Conformity, and should clarif y that the ship complies with regulations 4 and 5 of the annex to

the Convention . The survey should also verify that the Inventory of Hazardous Mat erials, especially the location of Hazardous Materials, is consistent with the arrangements, structure and equipment of the ship, through onboard visual inspection.

3.1.1.5 The International Certificate on Inventory of Hazardous Materials should be issued either by the Administration or by any person or organization authorized by it, after successful completion of the initial survey, to any new ships to which regulation 10 of the annex to the

Convention applies.

3.1.2 Initial survey for existing ships

3. 1.2.1 In the case of an existing ship, an initial survey should be conducted before the

International Certificate on Inventory of Hazardous Materials is issued and not later than five years after the entry into force of the Convention. The initial survey s hould be harmonized with the renewal surveys required by other applicable statutory instruments of the Organization, in line with regulations 5.2 and 10.5 of the annex to the Convention and with the principles established in resolution A.1053(27), as amend ed ( Survey Guidelines under the Harmonized System of Survey and Certification (HSSC), 2011 ).

1 In ascertaining whether a ship is a "new ship" or an "existing ship" according to the Convention, the term "a similar stage of construction" in regulation 1.4.2 of the annex to the Convention means the stage at which:

.1 construction identifia ble with a specific ship begins; and

.2 assembly of that ship has commenced comprising at least 50 tonnes or one per cent of the estimated mass of all structural material, whichever is less

.MEPC 64/ 23

Annex 2, page 4

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc 3.1.2.2 Prior to the initial survey for an existing ship, a request for the initial survey should be submitted by the shipowner to the Administration or to a recog nized organization along with the ship data required for the International Certificate on Inventory of Hazardous Materials as listed in paragraph 3.1.1.2 above.

3.1.2.3 The request for an initial survey for an existing ship should be supplemented by

Part I of the Inventory of Hazardous Materials, and/or the visual/sampling check plan developed in accordance with the 2011 Guidelines for the development of the inventory of

hazardous materials

.

3.1.2.4 Part I of the Inventory of Hazardous Materials

– which identifie s Hazardous Materials contained and/or potentially contained in ship structure and equipment, their location and approximate quantities

– should be developed through a visual check and/or sampling check on board the ship, based on the visual/sampling check plan in accordance

with the 2011 Guidelines for the development of the inventory of hazardous materials

. It should then be submitted by the shipowner to the Administration or a recognized organization along with supporting information such as the report o f the visual/sampling check and/or any Material Declaration and Supplier ' s Declaration of Conformity

.

3.1.2. 5 The visual/sampling check plan and Part I of the Inventory of Hazardous Materials should be prepared by personnel with the requisite knowledge an d experience to conduct the assigned task, in accordance with the 2011 Guidelines for the development of the inventory

of hazardous materials , as may be amended.

3.1.2.6 The survey should verify that Part I of the Inventory of Hazardous Materials

identifi es the Hazardous Materials contained and/or potentially contained in the ship structure and equipment, their location and approximate quantities, by checking supporting information such as the report of the visual check and/or sampling check and/or any Mat erial Declaration and Supplier ' s Declaration of Conformity. The survey should also clarify that the ship complies with regulations 4 and 5 of the annex to the Convention. Classification as

" potentially containing hazardous materials " should be noted in the remarks column of the Inventory of Hazardous Materials. The survey should further verify that the Inventory of Hazardous Materials, especially the location of Hazardous Materials, is consistent with the arrangements, structure and equipment of the ship, t hrough onboard visual inspection.

3.1.2. 7 The International Certificate on Inventory of Hazardous Materials should be issued either by the Administration or by any person or organization authorized by it, after successful completion of the initial survey, to any existing ships to which regulation 10 of the annex to the Convention applies, except for existing ships for which an initial and a final survey are conducted at the same time; i n such case s , only an International Ready for Recycling

Certificate sho uld be issued.

3.2 Renewal survey

3.2.1 A renewal survey should be carried out at intervals specified by the Administration not exceeding five years.

3.2.2 Prior to the renewal survey, a request for the renewal survey should be submitted by the shipown er to the Administration or to a recognized organization along with the ship data required for the International Certificate on Inventory of Hazardous Materials as listed in paragraph 3.1.1.2 above.MEPC 64/ 23 Annex 2, p age 5

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc 3.2.3 The request for a renewal survey should be supplem ented by the latest version of

p art I of the Inventory of Hazardous Materials, and Material Declaration and Supplier ' s Declaration of Conformity regarding any change, replacement or significant repair of structure, equipment, systems, fittings, arrangement s and material since the last survey.

3.2.4 The survey should verify that p art I of the Inventory of Hazardous Materials is properly maintained and updated to reflect changes in ship structure and equipment, by checking Material Declaration and Supplier ' s Declaration of Conformity, and should clarify that the ship complies with regulations 4 and 5 of the annex to the Convention. The survey should also verify that the Inventory of Hazardous Materials, especially the location of
Hazardous Materials, is consi stent with the arrangements, structure and equipment of the ship, through on

- board visual inspection. The survey should further verify that any decision by the shipo wner to delete equipment, system and/or area previously classed as " potentially containing hazardous materials " from Part I of the Inventory of Hazardous Materials is based on clear grounds for believing that the equipment, system and/or area in question contain no

Hazardous Materials

.

3.2.5 A new International Certificate on Inventory of Hazar dous Materials should be issued either by the Administration or by any person or organization authorized by it after successful completion of the renewal survey, in accordance with regulation 11 of the annex to

the Convention

.

3.3 Additional survey

3. 3.1 An additional survey, either general or partial according to the circumstances, may be conducted at the request of the shipowner after change, replacement or significant repair of the structure, equipment, systems, fittings, arrangements and material, whi ch has an impact on the Inventory of Hazardous Materials.

3.3.2 Prior to the additional survey, a request for the additional survey should be submitted by the shipowner to the Administration or to a recognized organization along with the ship data require d for the International Certificate on Inventory of Hazardous Materials as listed in paragraph 3.1.1.2 above.

3.3.3 The request for an additional survey should be supplemented by the latest version

of p art I of the Inventory of Hazardous Materials, and Ma terial Declaration and Supplier ' s Declaration of Conformity regarding any change, replacement or significant repair of structure, equipment, systems, fittings, arrangements and material since the last survey.

3.3.4 The survey should verify that Part I of the Inventory of Hazardous Materials is properly maintained and updated to reflect changes in ship structure and equipment, by checking Material Declaration and Supplier ' s Declaration of Conformity, and should clarify that the ship complies with regulation s 4 and 5 of the annex to the Convention. The survey should also verify that the Inventory of Hazardous Materials, especially the location of
Hazardous Materials, is consistent with the arrangements, structure and equipment of the ship, through on

- board vi sual inspection. The survey should further verify that any decision by the owner to delete equipment, system and/or area previously classed as " potentially containing hazardous materials " from Part I of the Inventory of Hazardous Materials is based

on clea r grounds for believing that the equipment, system and/or area in question contain no

Hazardous Materials

.MEPC 64/ 23

Annex 2, page 6

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc 3.3.5 The International Certificate on Inventory of Hazardous Materials should be endorsed either by the Administration or by any person or organiz ation authorized by it after successful completion of the additional survey, in accordance with regulation 11 of the annex

to the Convention.

3.4 Final survey

3. 4.1 A final survey should be conducted before a ship is taken out of service and before

the r ecycling of the ship has started.

3.4.2 Prior to the final survey, a request for the final survey should be submitted by the shipowner to the Administration or to a recognized organization along with the ship data listed in paragraph 3.1.1.2 above and the Ship Recycling Facility data required for the International Ready for Recycling Certificate as follows:

.1 name of the Ship Recycling Facility(ies);

.2 distinctive Recycling Company identity number (as listed on the Document

of Authorization to conduct Ship Recycling (DASR));

.3 full address; and

.4 date of expiry of DASR.

In cases where multiple Ship Recycling Facilities are involved, the appropriate information for

all the Facilities should be provided prior to the final survey.

3.4.3 The request f or a final survey should be supplemented by:

.1 the International Certificate on Inventory of Hazardous Materials, the Inventory of Hazardous Materials, and Material Declaration and Supplier ' s Declaration of Conformity regarding any change, replacement o r significant repair of the structure, equipment, systems, fittings, arrangements and/or material since the last survey;

.2 the approved Ship Recycling Plan; and

.3 a copy of the DASR.

3.4.4 Prior to the final survey:

.1 Part I of the Inventory of Haz ardous Materials should be properly maintained and updated to reflect changes in ship structure and equipment

, and Part II for operationally generated wastes and Part III for stores should be developed by the shipowner taking account of plan n ed or expected operations before the arrival at the Ship Recycling Facility, and of the

2011 Guidelines for the development of the inventory of hazardous

materials , as may be amended; and

.2 the Ship Recycling Plan should be developed by the authorized Ship Recycling F acility, taking account of information includ ing the Inventory of Hazardous Materials provided by the shipowner; a s required by

r egulation 9 of the annex to the Convention, the Ship Recycling Plan should be either explicitly or tacitly approved by the Comp etent Authority authorizing the Ship Recycling Facility.MEPC 64/ 23 Annex 2, p age 7

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc 3.4.5 The survey should verify the following:

.1 that the Inventory of Hazardous Materials as required by regulation 5.4 of the annex to the Convention is in accordance with the requirements of the

Conve ntion, including that p art I of the Inventory of Hazardous Materials is properly maintained and updated to reflect changes in ship structure and equipment since the last survey, and that p arts II and III of the Inventory of Hazardous Materials identify the Hazardous Materials on board the ship, their location and approximate quantities ; planned or expected operations during the period between the final survey and the arrival at the Ship Recycling Facility should be taken into consideration ;

.2 that the Shi p Recycling Plan, as required by regulation 9 of the annex to the Convention, properly reflects the information contained in the Inventory of Hazardous Materials as required by regulation 5.4 and contains information concerning the establishment, maintenan ce and monitoring of

Safe

- for

- entry and Safe

- for

- hot

- work conditions ; i n the case of tacit approval of the Ship Recycling Plan, the written acknowledgement of receipt of the Ship Recycling Plan sent by the Competent Authority in

accordance with r egulation 9.4 and the end date of the 14

- day review period should also be verified ;

.3 that the Ship Recycling Facility(ies) where the ship is to be recycled holds a valid DASR in accordance with the Convention; and

.4 that any decision by the shipo wner to delete equipment, system and/or area previously classed as " potentially containing hazardous materials "

from the Part I of the Inventory of Hazardous Materials is based on clear grounds for believing that the equipment, system and/or area in question

contain no H azardous Materials

.

3.4.6 The International Ready for Recycling Certificate should be issued either by the Administration or by any person or organizations authorized by it, after successful completion of the final survey, to any ships to which regulation 10 of the annex to the Convention applies.

3. 5 Flag transfer

3.5.1 The certificates cease to be valid when a ship transfers to the flag of another State and the Government of the State to which the ship transfers should not issue new certificates

until it is fully satisfied that the Inventory of Hazardous Materials is being properly maintained

and that there have been no unauthorized changes to the structure, machinery or equipment. When so requested, the Government of the State whose flag the ship was formerl y entitled to fly is obliged to forward as soon as possible to the new Administration a cop y of the

certificate carried by the ship before the transfer and, if available, copies of the relevant
survey reports and records. When fully satisfied by an inspect ion that the Inventory of

Hazardous Materials is being properly maintained and that there have been no unauthorized changes, the new Administration may, in order to maintain harmonization of the surveys

, give due recognition to initial and subsequent surve ys carried out by or on behalf of the former Administration and issue new certificates having the same expiry date as the certificates that ceased to be valid because of the change of flag.MEPC 64/ 23

Annex 2, page 8

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc 3.5.2 The Government of the State to which the ship transfers sho uld also make sure that

the Inventory of Hazardous Materials complies with the legislation, guidelines and any additional requirements of this State.

3.5.3 If the flag transfer takes place after the final survey and after the International Ready for Recyc ling Certificate has been issued, the Government of the State to which the ship transfers should not issue the new certificate until fully satisfied that the conditions on the basis of which the International Ready for Recycling Certificate had been issued remain valid.

4 SURVEYS OF SHIPS PRIOR TO ENTRY INTO FORCE OF THE CONVENTION

4 .1 Prior to the entry into force of the Convention, an Administration may conduct surveys of ships in accordance with these guidelines, and may then issue a statement of compl iance to that effect.

4 .2 Ships capable of documenting full compliance with the Convention through such a statement of compliance may be issued with a certificate on that basis upon entry into force of the Convention, subject to any additional requirement s by the Administration. For the

certificate to be issued , it may not be necessary for the ships to prepare the visual/sampling

check plan required by r egulation 5.2 of the a nnex to the Convention if the Inventory of Hazardous Materials has been developed in accordance with the process stipulated in either paragraph 4.1 or 4.2 of the 2011 Guidelines for the D evelopment of the Inventory of

Hazardous Materials and has been verified through the process of issuing the statement of compliance

.

5 MARKET SURVEILL ANCE

5 .1 Each party may undertake market surveillance whereby sample analyses are conducted on equipment or materials which are on their market complete with Material Declaration and Supplier ' s Declaration of Conformity and which have not yet been placed on board, in order to ensure the appropriate enforcement of article 9 of the Convention and the accuracy of the Material Declaration and Supplier ' s Declaration of Conformity.

5 .2 Where Material Declaration and Supplier ' s Declaration of Conformity are dete cted by market surveillance to be inaccurate, each party and the Organization should take the necessary measures by applying articles 10 and 12 of the Convention.

5 .3 When conducting market surveillance and taking the necessary measures under these guide lines, all possible efforts should be made not to impose an excessive burden on suppliers, ships and ship recycling facilities.

***MEPC 64/23 Annex 3, page 1

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc ANNEX 3

RESOLUTION MEPC.223(64)

Adopted on 5 October 2012

2012 GUIDELINES FOR THE INSPECTION OF SHIPS

UNDER THE HONG KONG CONVENTION

THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION COMMITTEE,

RECALLING Article 38(a) of the Convention on the International Maritime Organization concerning the functions of the Marine Environment Protection Committee conferred upon it by the internatio nal conventions for the prevention and control of marine pollution,

RECALLING ALSO that the International Conference on the Safe and Environmentally Sound Recycling of Ships held in May 2009 adopted the Hong Kong International Convention for the

S afe and E

nvironmentally S ound Re cycling of S hips, 2009 (the Hong Kong Convention) together with six Conference resolutions,

NOTING that a rticle 8 of the Hong Kong Convention prescribes that a ship to which the Hong Kong Convention applies may, in any port or offs hore terminal of another Party, be subject to inspection by officers duly authorized by that Party for the purpose of determining whether the ship is in compliance with the Convention, taking into account the guidelines developed by the Organization,

HAVI NG CONSIDERED, at its sixty

- fourth session , the draft 2012 Guidelines for Inspection of Ships under the Hong Kong Convention developed by the Working Group on Ship Recycling,

1. ADOPTS the 2012 Guidelines for the inspection of ships under the Hong Kong

Co nvention , as set out in the a nnex to this resolution;

2. INVITES Governments to apply the 2012 Guidelines for the inspection of ships under the Hong Kong Convention upon the entry into force of the Convention ; and

3. REQUESTS the Committee to keep the Gu idelines under review.

* * *MEPC 64/ 23

Annex 3, page 2

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc ANNEX

2012 GUIDELINES FOR THE INSPECTION OF SHIPS UNDER

THE HONG KONG CONVENTION

1 GENERAL

1.1 This document is intended to provide basic guidance for conducting port State control inspections in compliance with the Hong Kong International Convention for the Safe and Environmentally Sound Recycling of Ships, 2009, (hereafter referred to as " the

Convention " ) and to afford consistency in conducting these inspections, recognizing deficiencies and applying control procedures.

1.2 The regulations of the Convention contain the following compliance provisions:

.1 an International Certificate on Inventory of Hazardous Materials is required for all ships, except ships of less than 500 gross tonnage, ships operating throughout thei r life only in waters subject to the sovereignty or jurisdiction of the State whose flag the ship is entitled to fly, and existing ships for which both an initial survey and a final survey are conducted at the same
time, in which case the International Rea dy for Recycling Certificate is issued after the survey;

.2 Administrations may establish appropriate alternative measures to demonstrate compliance by ships of less than 500 gross tonnage and/or ships operating throughout their life only in waters subje ct to the sovereignty or jurisdiction of the State whose flag the ship is entitled to fly;

and

.3 an International Ready for Recycling Certificate is required for all ships

of 500 gross tonnage or above being taken out of service and before the recycling of the ship has started.

1.3 Article 8 of the Convention provides for control procedures to be followed by a State party with regard to foreign ships visiting its ports. The Procedures for Port State Control, 2011 , adopted through Assembly resolution A.10 52(27)

, apply in addition to these guidelines.

2 INSPECTIONS OF SHIPS REQUIRED TO CARRY AN INTERNATIONAL

CERTIFICATE ON INVENTORY OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS OR

INTERNATIONAL READY FOR RECYCLING CERTIFICATE

2.1 Initial inspections

2.1.1 After boarding and h aving been introduced to the master or responsible ship ' s officer, the port State control officer (PSCO) should verify that there is on board the International Certificate on Inventory of Hazardous Materials (regulation 11.1) 1 or the International Ready fo r Recycling Certificate (regulation 11.11), both supplemented by the Inventory of Hazardous Materials, and examine reports of previous port State control inspections.

1 As required by regulations 5.2 and 11.1, for existing ships, an International Certificate on Inventory of Hazardous Materials, accompanied by the verified Inventory of Hazardous Materials, shall be issued not

later than five years after the entry into force of th e Convention

, except for those ships for which both an

i nitial survey and a final survey are conducted at the same time.MEPC 64/ 23 Annex 3, p age 3

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc 2.1.2 T he validity of the International Certificate on Inventory of Hazardous Materials o r International Ready for Recycling Certificate should also be confirmed by verifying that the certificate is properly completed and signed and that the required surveys have been performed , and that the identification/verification number on the Inventory of Hazardous Materials corresponds to that shown on the certificate(s)

.

2.1. 3 If the certificate and the Inventory of Hazardous Materials are valid and appropriate,

and the PSCO ' s general impressions and visual observations on board confirm compliance

wi th the Convention, the PSCO should generally confine the inspection to any reported

deficiencies.

2.1. 4 If, however, the PSCO ' s general impressions or observations on board reveal clear grounds (see paragraph 2.1. 5 ) for believing that the condition of th e ship, or its structure or equipment, do not correspond substantially with the particulars of the certificate or with the Inventory of Hazardous Materials, the PSCO may proceed to a more detailed inspection.

2.1. 5 Clear grounds to conduct a more detailed inspection include:

.1 evidence that a certificate required by the Convention is missing or clearly
invalid;

.2 evidence that the Inventory of Hazardous Materials required by the Convention is missing or clearly invalid;

.3 the absence of structure or equipment identified in p art I of the Inventory of

Hazardous Materials ;

.4 the absence of an entry in p art I of the Inventory of Hazardous Materials for structure or equipment that the PSCO believes to contain Hazardous Materials listed in appendices 1 an d 2 to the Convention 2 ; and

.5 no evidence of implementation of a procedure on board the ship for maintaining p art I of the Inventory of Hazardous Materials

.

2.2 More detailed inspections

The PSCO should verify that controls of Hazardous Materials list ed in appendix 1 to the Convention are effectively implemented, referring to relevant certificates 3 or documents that may specify structure or equipment presumed to contain these Hazardous Materials.

The PSCO should note that detailed inspections are limit ed to confirming whether effective controls of Hazardous Materials listed in appendix 1 to the Convention are in place. Failure to update the Inventory of Hazardous Materials should not

, therefore

, constitute a detainable deficiency

, but any inconsistencie s in the Inventory should be reported to the flag Administration of that ship, and should be redressed at the time of the next survey.

2 For this purpose, a reference should be made to the i ndicative l ist that identifies any equipment, system and/or area on board that is presumed to contain Hazardous Materials, as noted in s ection 2.2 of

a ppendix 5 of the 20 1 1 Guidelines for the Development of the Inventory of Hazardous Materials (resolution MEPC.197(62) , as amended ).

3 For example, the International Air Pollution Prevention ( IAPP ) Certificate should be referred to for

ozone

- depleting substances.MEPC 64/ 23

Annex 3, page 4

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc 2.3 Detainable deficiencies

2.3.1 In exercising its functions, the PSCO should use professional judgment to determine whether to detain a ship until any noted deficiencies are corrected or to allow it to sail with certain deficiencies that do not pose an unreasonable threat to the safe and environmentally sound recycling of ships. In doing so, the PSCO should be guided by the principle s and requirements of the Convention.

2.3.2 In order to assist the PSCO in the use of these guidelines, there follows a list of deficiencies which are considered to be of such a serious nature that they may warrant the detention of the ship involved:

.1 failure to carry a valid International Certificate on Inventory of Hazardous

Materials

, or , if appropriate, a valid International Ready for Recycling Certificate;

.2 non

- compliance with the control measures for Hazardous Materials listed in

a ppendix 1 to the Convention

.

3 INSPECTIONS OF NON

- PARTY SHIPS

3.1 Ships of non

- P arties to the Convention are not entitled to be issued with an

International Certificate on Inventory of Hazardous Materials or an International Ready for Recycling Certifica te . Therefore, the PSCO should ask for documentation that contains the same information as in the above certificates supplemented by the Inventory of Hazardous

Materials and take this into account in determining compliance with the relevant requirements

of the Convention.

3.2 In all other aspects the PSCO should be guided by the procedures for ships required to carry a certificate.

3.3 The PSCO should ensure that, in accordance with article 3.4 of the Convention, no more favourable treatment is applied t o ships of non

- Parties to the Convention.

***MEPC 64/23 Annex 4, page 1

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc ANNEX 4

STATEMENT BY THE DELEGATION OF VENEZUELA ON THE DRAFT

MEPC RESOLUTION ON PROMOTION OF TECHNICAL CO

- OPERATION AND

TRANSFER OF TECHNOLOGY RELATING TO THE IMPROVEMENT OF ENERGY

EFFICIENCY OF SHIPS

Tha nk you Mr. Chairman. I think that the Venezuelan position and its concerns in historical terms with respect to our conduct on this matter are more than clear, and we also recognize the position of the other parties in general, which is why we are maintaini ng our commitment to joining the search for solutions to the greatest possible satisfaction of the parties. We recognize the tremendous and inconceivable effort that we parties have made under the excellent chairmanship of Mr. Arsenio Domínguez, which has led us to a clearly positive

outcome.

We support your summary, although having observed the debate, we would like to add that, over and above what we predicted and analysed, it still surprises us that we continue to be

somewhat deadlocked and that this ca uses such complications for us as an organization. This makes us think that what is becoming evident here is a serious breach and even

weakness in our decision

- making system in the Organization and its Member States. In our opinion we are reaping the fruit s of past decisions. We refer to when an instrument like this amendment to MARPOL Annex VI emerges, apparently by majority decision. We believe that perhaps we should look back and evaluate it, and would accordingly put forward the following considerations :

1. We must seek consistency with the policies of fairness and equality among peoples which are enshrined within a principle lying at the heart of the United Nations, and which are also binding. The autonomy or specialized nature of this organization sho uld not be a reason to isolate ourselves, still less distance ourselves from universal principles in environmental matters.

2. Historically the Venezuelan State has opposed discrimination, and these amendments could present a serious problem for countries whose inability to comply with the requirements established could lead to the decline or weakening of their economies. For Venezuela, it is unacceptable to attempt to speak of market measures, which is why we are taking the liberty of calling upon the par ticipants in this forum to join forces, venturing to add that we congratulate them on their good judgement in having postponed discussion of that subject until our next meeting, MEPC 65, after this matter
has been resolved;

3. Prior to any discussion of M arket

- based M easures in relation to MARPOL Annex VI, it will be necessary to identify, discuss and approve mechanisms to facilitate technology transfer and funding for capacity creation in order to enable compliance with the new rules on energy efficiency of ships. As we well know, we are trying here to find the flexibility to apply decisions step by step, taking first things first, and thereby wisely creating the win

- win situation that is so necessary.

We request that our statement be included in the repo rt. Lastly, I thank the plenary for its indulgence and patience throughout my statement. Thank you very much.

***MEPC 64/23 Annex 5, page 1

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc ANNEX 5

STATEMENT BY THE OBSERVER OF ICOMIA ON THE REVIEW OF THE

STATUS OF THE TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS TO IMPLEMENT

TIER III NO X EMISS ION STANDARDS

Thank you Mr

. Chairman.

We wish to express our thanks and admiration to Mr

. Samulski for his excellent work in leading the Correspondence G roup in the Tier III review.

ICOMIA fully supports IMO ' s commitment to emissions reductions. In a ddition to our contribution to the Correspondence Group we have also been committed to increasing wider Large Yacht industry Tier III awareness and have encouraged the development of technological solutions. As stated in our contribution to the Correspond ence Group interim report, there is no doubt technologies are available to meet Tier III.

While we remain optimistic for the outcome, we have concerns that have yet to be satisfied that all yacht designs will be able to accommodate the demands of SCR tr eatment and remain commercially vi able. Until then, we hope the C ommittee agrees with our view that all aspects of Tier III compliance including considerations of the certification requisites vs. meeting Tier III under operational conditions must be asses sed in every possible detail and we shall continue to contribute to the CG in the next phase of its work.

Finally Mr

. Chairman, w e would be grateful if this intervention is recorded in the report of the

committee.

***MEPC 63/23 Annex 6, page 1

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc ANNEX 6

STATEMENTS BY THE DELEGATI ONS OF CHINA, DENMARK AND GREECE

ON THE REPORT OF THE WORKING GROUP ON AIR POLLUTION AND

ENERGY EFFICIENCY (MEPC 64/WP.11)

Guidelines for the calculation of the coefficient f

w (paragraph 7)

Statement by the delegation of China

As demonstrated in Chin a ' s submission MEPC 64/4/28, the theoretical model of the

calculation of f

w in the current draft Guidelines is too complicated for implementation, as it takes into consideration both the frequency spectrum and the wave direction spread function,

whi ch is n ot mature at this stage.

China has proposed two options for the revision of the model in its submission, which is, either to remove the wave direction spread function from the model; or to add the calculation

and verification of wave added resistance in o blique regular wave in the model. Unfortunately, the Working Group did not have thorough discussions on this issue as well as

China ' s proposals, and as a result, China ' s proposals were not properly reflected in the draft

Guidelines.

In order to ensure th e applicability and practicability of the draft Guidelines, China is of the

view that the draft Guidelines should take into account China ' s proposals and should only be circulated for implementation on a trial basis at this stage. The Committee is request ed to

review this issue at its future sessions when sufficient data would become available.

Statement by the delegation of Greece

In relation to paragraph 7.2.3 (MEPC 64/WP.11), Greece pointed out that retaining the words

" if calculated " in the EEDI gui delines, means that f

w and EEDI weather value may not be calculated. Greece is of the view that the disentangling of f

w from the regulation EEDI value, allowed the early completion of the regulations under Chapter 4 of MARPOL Annex VI, and in the opinion o f Greece, this was done with the understanding that when guidelines for the regulation of f

w were ready, the value of f

w and the resulting EEDI weather value of the vessel would be prominently reported in the ship ' s EEDI Technical File. Greece emphasized t hat while the regulation 20 " attained EEDI " value is a theoretical sea trial value, the EEDI weather is a truer indication of a ship ' s actual energy efficiency for its whole operating life.

Following advice from Chairman of WG, it was agreed that the issue of reporting f

w and

EEDI weather will be discussed in depth at next session, after the current trial period of the draft interim guidelines of the coefficient f

w .

Ro

- ro cargo ships and ro

- ro passenger ships (paragraph 12)

Statement by the delegation of D enmark

Denmark is seriously concerned about the use of MEPC 64/4/14 as a basis for the further

work on ro

- ro ships. By introducing the ships speed in a correction factor as proposed, the influence of the propulsion power is eliminated and there will be n o incentive to reduce the power and thus the CO 2 burden of the ships. In several cases the EEDI will be lowered when the power is increased

– this will not reduce CO 2 emissions from this segment of ships.

***MEPC 63/23 Annex 7, page 1

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc ANNEX 7

UNIFIED INTERPRETATION S TO MARPOL A NNEX VI

Regulation 2

Definitions

Regulation 2.23 read s as follows:

" 23 New ships means a ship:

.1 for which building contract is placed on or after 1 January 2013; or

.2 in the absence of a building contract, the keel of which is laid or

which is at a similar stage of construction on or after 1 July 2013;

or

.3 the delivery of which is on or after 1 July 2015. "

Interpretation :

For application of the definition " new ships " specified in regulation 2.23 of MARPOL Annex VI to each Phase specified in t able 1 of regulation 21 of MARPOL Annex VI, it should be interpreted as follows:

1. the date specified in regulation 2.23.1 of MARPOL Annex VI should be replaced with the start date of each Phase;

2. the date specified in regulation 2.23.2 of MARPOL Anne x VI should be replaced with the date 6 months after the start date of each Phase; and

3. the date specified in regulation 2.23.3 of MARPOL Annex VI, should for Phase 1, 2 and 3 be replaced with the date 48 months after the start date of

each Phase.

With the above interpretations, the required EEDI of each Phase is applied to the following new ship which falls into one of the categories defined in regulations 2.25 to 2.31 of MARPOL Annex VI and to which chapter 4 of MARPOL Annex VI is applicable.

(a) The required EEDI of Phase 0 is applied to the following new ship:

1. for which the building contract is placed in Phase 0, and the delivery is before 1 January 2019; or

2. the building contract of which is placed before Phase 0, and the delivery is

on or a fter 1 July 2015 and before 1 January 2019; or

in the absence of a building contract,

3. the keel of which is laid or which is at a similar stage of construction on or after 1 July 2013 and before 1 July 2015, and the delivery is

before 1 January 2019; o rMEPC 64/ 23

Annex 7, page 2

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc 4. the keel of which is laid or which is at a similar stage of construction

before 1 July 2013, and the delivery is on or after 1 July 2015 and

before 1 January 2019.

(b) The required EEDI of Phase 1 is applied to the following new ship:

1. for which the building contract is placed in Phase 1, and the delivery

is before 1 January 2024; or

2. the building contract of which is placed before Phase 1, and the delivery is on or after 1 January 2019 and before 1 January 2024; or

in the absence of a buildin g contract,

3. the keel of which is laid or which is at a similar stage of construction on

or after 1 July 2015 and before 1 July 2020, and the delivery is

before 1 January 2024; or

4. the keel of which is laid or which is at a similar stage of construct ion

before 1 July 2015, and the delivery is on or after 1 January 2019 and before 1 January 2024.

(c) The required EEDI of Phase 2 is applied to the following new ship:

1. for which the building contract is placed in Phase 2, and the delivery is

before 1 January 2029; or

2. the building contract of which is placed before Phase 2, and the delivery is on or after 1 January 2024 and before 1 January 2029; or

in the absence of a building contract,

3. the keel of which is laid or which is at a similar stage of construction on

or after 1 July 2020 and before 1 July 2025, and the delivery is

before 1 January 2029; or

4. the keel of which is laid or which is at a similar stage of construction

before 1 July 2020, and the delivery is on or after 1 January 2024 a nd before 1 January 2029.

(d) The required EEDI of Phase 3 is applied to the following new ship:

1. for which the building contract is placed in Phase 3; or

2. in the absence of a building contract, the keel of which is laid or which is at

a similar sta ge of construction on or after 1 July 2025; or

3. the delivery of which is on or after 1 January 2029.

Regulation 2.24 reads as follows:

" 24 Major Conversion means in relation to chapter 4 of this Annex a conversion of a ship:MEPC 6 4/ 23 Annex 7, p age 3

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc .1 which substantially al ters the dimensions, carrying capacity or engine power of the ship; or

.2 which changes the type of the ship; or

.3 the intent of which in the opinion of the Administration is substantially to prolong the life of the ship; or

.4 which otherwise so alter s the ship that, if it were a new ship, it would become subject to relevant provisions of the present Convention not applicable to it as an existing ship; or

.5 which substantially alters the energy efficiency of the ship and includes any modifications th at could cause the ship to exceed the applicable required EEDI

, as se t out in regulation 21 of this

a nnex. "

Interpretation :

1 For regulation 2.24.1 of MARPOL Annex VI, any substantial change in hull

dimensions and/ or capacity (e.g. change of length betwe en perpendiculars ( L P P ) or change of assigned freeboard ) should be considered a major conversion. A ny substantial increase of total engine power for propulsion (e.g. 5 per cent or more) should be considered a major conversion. In any case, it is the Admi nistration ' s authority to evaluate and decide whether an alteration should be considered as major conversion , consistent with chapter 4 of

MARPOL Annex VI

.

2 Notwithstanding paragraph 1, for regulation 2.24.5 of MARPOL Annex VI, the effect

on attained EED I as a result of any change of ship ' s parameters, particularly any increase in total engine power for propulsion, should be investigated. In any case, it is the

Administration ' s authority to evaluate and decide whether an alteration should be considered

a s major conversion , consistent with chapter 4 of MARPOL Annex VI

.

3 A company may, at any time, voluntarily request re

- certification of EEDI with

IEE Certificate reissuance on the basis of any new improvements to the ship efficiency that

are not considere d to be major conversion.

4 In regulation 2.24.4 of MARPOL Annex VI, terms " new ship " and " existing ship "

should be understood as they are used in MARPOL Annex I regulation 1.9.1.4, rather than as the defined terms in regulations 2.22 and 2.23.

5 The term " a ship " referred to in regulation 5.4.2 of MARPOL Annex VI is interpreted

as " new ship "

.

Regulation 2. 30 reads as follows:

" 30 Refrigerated cargo carrier means a ship designed exclusively for the carriage of refrigerated cargoes in holds. "

Interpr etation :

Ships dedicated to the carriage of fruit juice in refrigerated cargo tanks should be categorized as refrigerated cargo carrier.MEPC 64/ 23

Annex 7, page 4

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc Regulation 5 Survey s

Regulation 5.4.4 read s as follows:

" .4 For existing ships, the verification of the requirement to have a SEEMP

on board according to regulation 22 shall take place at the first intermediate or renewal survey identified in paragraph 1 of this regulation, whichever is the first, on or after 1 January 2013. "

Regulation 6

Issue or endorsement of a Cer tificates

Regulation 6.4 reads as follows:

" 4 An International Energy efficiency Certificate for the ship shall be issued after a survey in accordance with the provisions of regulation 5.4 of this Annex to any ship of 400 gross tonnage and above before t hat ship may engage in voyages to ports or offshore terminals under the jurisdiction of

other Parties. "

Regulation 22

S hip Energy efficiency Management Plan (SEEMP)

Regulation 22.1 read s as follows:

" 1 Each ship shall keep on board a ship specific Ship Energy efficiency Management Plan (SEEMP). This may form part of the ship ' s Safety Management System (SMS). "

Interpretation :

1 The International Energy efficiency Certificate (IEEC) shall be issued for both new and existing ships to which chapter 4 of MA RPOL Annex VI applies.

2 The SEEMP required by regulation 22.1 of MARPOL Annex VI is not required to be placed on board an existing ship to which this regulation applies until such time as the verification survey specified in regulation 5.4.4 of MARPOL An nex VI is carried out

.

3 For existing ships, a Ship Energy efficiency Management Plan (SEEMP) required in accordance with regulation 22 shall be verified on board according to regulation 5.4.4, and an IEEC shall be issued, not later than the first interme diate or renewal MARPOL Annex VI chapter 2 survey, whichever is the sooner, on or after 1 January 2013, i.e. a survey connected to an intermediate/renewal survey of the IAPP Certificate.

4 The intermediate or renewal survey referenced in 2 relates solely to the timing for the verification of the SEEMP on board, i.e. these IAPPC survey windows will also become the IEEC initial survey date for existing ships. The SEEMP is however a survey item solely under the new MARPOL Annex VI, chapter 4, and is not a su rvey item relating to IAPPC

surveys.

5 In the event that the SEEMP is not found on board during the first intermediate/renewal survey of the IAPP Certificate on or after 1 January 2013, then the RO should seek the advice of the Administration concerning t he issuance of an IEEC and beMEPC 6 4/ 23 Annex 7, p age 5

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc guided accordingly. However, the validity of the IAPP Certificate is not impacted by the lack of a SEEMP as the SEEMP is a survey item solely under the new MARPOL Annex VI, chapter 4, and not under the IAPPC surveys.

6 W ith respect to ships required to keep on board a SEEMP, such ships exclude platforms (including FPSOs and FSUs) and drilling rigs, regardless of their propulsion.

7 SEEMP should be established in a working language or languages understood by ship ' s personnel

.

Regulation 8

Form of Certificates

Regulation 8.1 read s as follows:

" 1 The International Air Pollution Prevention Certificate shall be drawn up in a form corresponding to the model given in appendix I to this Annex and shall be at least in English, Fre nch or Spanish. If an official language of the issuing country is also used, this shall prevail in case of a dispute or discrepancy. "

Appendix 1 Form of International Air Pollution Prevention (IAPP) Certificate (Regulation 8)

Section 2.3 of supplement to International Air Pollution Prevention Certificate reads as follows:MEPC 64/ 23

Annex 7, page 6

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc Interpretation :

Section 2.3 of the s upplement ( " as documented by bunker delivery notes " ) allows for an " x "

to be entered in advance of the dates indicated in all of the relevant che ck boxes recognizing that the bunker delivery notes, required to be retained on board for a minimum period of three years, provide the subsequent means to check that a ship is actually operating in a manner consistent with the intent as given in section 2. 3.

Regulation 16.9 Shipboard incineration

Regulation 16.9 reads as follows:

" For incinerators installed in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 6.1 of this regulation the combustion chamber gas outlet temperature shall be monitored at

all times the unit is in operation. Where that incinerator is of the continuous

- feed type, waste shall not be fed into the unit when the combustion chamber gas outlet temperature is below 850°C. Where that incinerator is of the batch

- loaded type, the

unit shall b e designed so that the combustion chamber gas outlet temperature shall

reach 600°C within five minutes after start

- up and will thereafter stabilize at a temperature not less than 850°C. "

Interpretation :

For application of this regulation the term " waste shall not be fed into the unit " should be interpreted as follows:

The introduction of sludge oil, generated during normal operation of a ship, into

a continuous

- feed type incinerator during the warm

- up process at combustion chamber temperatures above 500 ° C * in order to achieve the normal operation combustion chamber temperature of 850° C is allowed. The combustion chamber flue gas outlet temperature

should reach 850° C within the period of time specified in the manufacturer ' s operations

manual but should no t be more than five minutes.

***

* For the introduction of sludge oil into the incinerator, two conditions need to be fulfilled to secure

smo keless and complete combustion:

.1 the combustion chamber flue gas outlet temperature has to be above 850  ̊ C as required by regulation 16.9 of MARPOL Annex VI to ensure smokeless combustion; and

.2 the combustion chamber temperature (material temperature of the fire brickwork) has to be

above 500  ̊ C to ensure a sufficient evaporation of the burnable components of the sludge oil.MEPC 64/23

Annex 8 , page 1

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc ANNEX 8

RESOLUTION MEPC. 224 (64)

Adopted on 5 October 2012

AMENDMENTS TO THE 2012 GUIDELINES ON THE METHOD OF CAL CULATION OF

THE ATTAINED ENERGY EFFICIENCY DESIGN INDEX (EEDI) FOR NEW SHIPS

THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT PROTE CTION COMMITTEE,

RECALLING article 38(a) of the Convention on the International Maritime Organization concerning the functions of the Marine Environment Protection Committee (the Committee) conferred upon it by international conventions for the prevention and control of marine pollution,

RECALLING ALSO that, at its sixty

- second session, the Committee adopted, by resolution MEPC.203(62), amendments to the annex of the Protocol of 1997 to amend the International

Convention for the Prevention of Pollution fr om Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol

of 1978 relating thereto (inclusion of regulations on energy efficiency for ships in MARPOL Annex VI),

NOTING the amendments to MARPOL Annex VI adopted at its sixty

- second session by inclusion of a new chap ter 4 for regulations on energy efficiency for ships, will enter into force on 1 January 2013,

NOTING ALSO that regulation 20 (Attained EEDI) of MARPOL Annex VI, as amended, requires that the Energy efficiency Design Index shall be calculated taking into accou nt the guidelines developed by the Organization,

NOTING FURTHER that the 2012 Guidelines on the method of cal culation of the attained Energy efficiency Design Index (EEDI) for new ships were adopted at its sixty

- third session,

RECOGNIZING that the amendm ents to MARPOL Annex VI requires the adoption of relevant guidelines for smooth and uniform implementation of the regulations and to provide sufficient lead time for industry to prepare,

HAVING CONSIDERED, at its sixty

- fo u rth session, amendments to the 20 12 Guidelines on the method of calculati on of the attained Energy efficiency Design Index (EEDI) for new ships

,

1. ADOPTS the amendments to the 2012 Guidelines on the method of calculation of

the attained Energy efficiency Design Index (EEDI) for new shi ps

, as set out at annex to the present resolution;

2. INVITES Administrations to take the annexed Guidelines into account when developing and enacting national laws which give force to and implement provisions set forth in regulation 20 of MARPOL Annex VI , as amended;

3. REQUESTS the Parties to MARPOL Annex VI and other Member Governments to bring the annexed Guidelines related to the Energy efficiency Design Index (EEDI) to the attention of shipowners, ship operators, shipbuilders, ship designers and an y other interested groups; and

4. AGREES to keep these Guidelines under review in light of the experience gained.MEPC 64/ 23

Annex 8, page 2

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc ANNEX

AMENDMENTS TO 2012 G UIDELINES ON THE METHOD OF CAL CULATION OF THE

ATTAINED ENERGY EFFICIENCY DESIGN INDEX (EEDI) FOR NEW SHIPS

1 Par agraphs 2.5.2 and 2.5.3 are replaced by the following :

" .2 Shaft Generator

In case where shaft generator(s) are installed, P PTO(i) is 75 per cent of the rated electrical output power of each shaft generator.

For calculation of the effect of shaft gene rators two options are available:

Option 1:

.1 The maximum allowable deduction for the calculation of  P ME(i) is

to be no more than P AE as defined in paragraph 2.5.6. For this

case,  P

ME(i) is calculated as:

o r

Option 2:

.2 Where an engine is installed with a higher rated power output than that which the propulsion system is limited to by verified technical
means, then the value of  P ME(i) is 75 per cent of that limited power for determining the reference speed, v ref and for EEDI

calculati on.

The following figure gives guidance for determination of  P ME(i) :MEPC 64/ 23 Annex 8, p age 3

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc .3 Shaft motor

In case where shaft motor(s) are installed, P PTI(i) is 75 per cent of the rated power consumption of each shaft motor divided by the weighted average

efficien cy of the generator(s), as follows:

Where:

is the rated power consumption of each shaft motor

is the weighted average efficiency of the generator(s)

The propulsion power at which v ref is measured, is:

Where:

is the efficiency of each shaft motor installed

Where the total propulsion power as defined above is higher

than 75 per cent of the power the propulsion system is limited to by verified technical means, then 75 per cent of the limited power is to be used as the total propul sion power for determining the reference speed, v ref and for

EEDI calculation.MEPC 64/ 23

Annex 8, page 4

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc In case of combined PTI/PTO, the normal operational mode at sea will

determine which of these to be used in the calculation.

N ote : The shaft motor ' s chain efficiency may be taken into consideration to account for the energy losses in the equipment from the switchboard to the shaft motor, if the chain efficiency of the shaft motor is given in a verified

document. "

2 Paragraph s 2.5.6.1 and 2.5.6.2 are replaced by the followi ng :

" .1 For ships with a total propulsion power (  MCR ME(i) ) of 10,000 kW

or above, P

AE is defined as:

.2 For ships with a total propulsion power (  MCR ME(i) ) below 10,000

kW, P

AE is defined as:

"

***MEPC 64/23 Annex 9, page 1

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc ANNEX 9

AMENDMEN TS TO FOOTNOTE 2 OF THE 2012 GUIDELINES ON SURVEY AND

CERTIFICATION OF THE ENERGY EFFICIENCY DESIGN INDEX (EEDI)

1 Footnote 2 in paragraph 4.3.8 of annex is amended as follows:

" 2 ITTC Recommended Procedure 7.5

- 04

- 01

- 01.2 is considered as preferable s tandard

. "

***MEPC 64/23 Annex 10, page 1

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc ANNEX 10

STATEMENT BY THE DELEGATION OF EGYPT ON MARKET

- BASED MEASURES

FOR INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING

Mr

. Chairman, Honourable Secretary

- General, d istinguished d elegates,

Please allow me, on behalf of the Egyptian Government, to express m y deep appreciation to the efforts exerted by the IMO for the prevention of air pollution and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from ships through the MARPOL Convention and London Protocol; such as the adoption of annex VI that regulates not only t he prevention of air pollution from ships and emission control but also mandatory technical and operational energy efficiency measures, in addition to ocean fertilization and carbon sequestration. The binding character of the procedures taken by IMO in th is regards is efficient to significantly reduce the GHG emissions noting that maritime transport is considered the cleanest transport mode. Although it carries more than 90 per cent of the world trade, the emissions generated from ships represent only 3 p er cent . In other words, the shipping sector is the least responsible for global warming.

Therefore, we see that the proposal to levy additional charge on ships ' bunkers to provide funds to mitigate climate change is not a sound one

.

In this context, Egypt has very serious concerns about the Market

- b ased Measures for the following reason:

. 1 t he imposition of a global levy would lead to the increase of the cost of

seaborne trade which will affect the end

- consumers. The developing

countries will be th e most affected by the imposition of such levy as it will be an economic burden on them and will also have its negative impacts on the international competitiveness of their exports. It will also cause an increase in the costs of their imports which will be reflected on the welfare of their people suffering already fr om a very low income per

- capita;

. 2 t he proposed measures will raise the prices of imports causing the change of the competition conditions between countries and between similar products, cre ating favourable trading conditions for certain countries and unfavourable trading conditions for others, which is contradicting to the free trade pr inciple that GATT is based upon;

. 3 t he economic burden imposed on the shipping industry may lead to modal

shift to less efficient transport modes; and

. 4 m ost of the MBM proposals lack of details and are not compatible with UNFCCC principles of common but differentiated responsibility.

In conclusion, Egypt is against putting any additional financial burden s on developing countries and any future regulatory regime must be so deigned that international shipping as such is not capped and thus causes severe disruption to global trade and development.

I hope that many of you will share the same opinion.

Final ly, we will be grateful if this statement is included in the report of this meeting.

***MEPC 64/23 Annex 11, page 1

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc ANNEX 11

STATEMENT BY A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE UNFCCC SECRETARIAT

ON UNFCCC MATTERS

Mr. Chairman, distinguished delegates, Ladies and Gentlemen,

Thank you for givi ng me the opportunity to address the 64th session of IMO ' s Marine

Environmental Protection Committee (MEPC) on behalf of the UNFCCC S ecretariat.

As you know, to effectively address climate change and to adapt to its adverse effects, a comprehensive global regime is needed that reflects the dynamic of the modern world and builds on international cooperation across all countries and all economic sectors.

One year ago, here at the sixty

- second session of the MEPC, Parties took an important decision and adopt ed a package of technical and operational measures to increase energy efficiency in international maritime transport. This decision is an important contribution of the international shipping sector to the emerging global climate change regime, and highligh ts
IMO ' s key role in leading GHG emission reduction from international shipping.

From the agenda of the MEPC for this week it becomes clear that further work will be done to operationalize and strengthen the adopted technical and operational measures, an d to support developing countries to implement them. Also, the MEPC will continue looking at the proposed M arket

- based M easures for international shipping. This is very encouraging, and can send a strong signal to the negotiating process under the UNFCCC t o reconfirm that the IMO is the international body with competencies to address GHG emissions from international shipping in an efficient way and in multilateral setting.

I would like to use this opportunity to inform your meeting on the recent developmen t under the UNFCCC: i) that is relevant for international maritime transport, and ii) recent development in climate finance.

Recent development under the UNFCCC in relation to the GHG emissions from international maritime and aviation transport

In the r ecent negotiations GHG emissions from international maritime and aviation transport have continued to be addressed under the agenda item on cooperative sectoral approaches of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long Term Cooperative Action (AWG

- LCA), as well as

un der the Work plan on enhancing mitigation ambition of the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Mitigation (ADP).

In Durban, the COP decided to launch a work plan on enhancing mitigation ambition to identify a range of actions that can close the ambition gap under the ADP (Decision 1/CP.17, paragraph 7). During the first meetings under the ADP in Bonn and last month in Bangkok, Parties highlighted, among others, the international aviation and maritime transport as sectors with significan t mitigation potential. They acknowledged the important role ICAO and IMO could play in the context of the new ADP process in advancing the considerations on

how to reduce the emissions from these sectors.

Under the AWG

- LCA agenda item on sectoral approac hes this year, Parties worked towards a decision in Doha. During the informal session last month in Bangkok, Parties put forward five options on how to address emissions from international aviation and maritime transport. 1

1 Informal note from the Bangkok session, capturing the five options on international aviation and maritime transport is available on the UNFCCC website.MEPC 64/ 23

Annex 11, page 2

I: \ MEPC \ 64 \ 23.doc These options show convergence in some elements and divergence in others. Throughout the year Parties continued to recognize the role of ICAO and IMO in addressing GHG emissions from international transport and stressed that these emissions should be best

addressed in a multilateral setti ng. Diverging views remained on the principles that should guide actions to reduce GHG emissions from international transport.

I am confident that with leadership and political will by Parties an agreement could be reached in Doha on sectoral approaches. The work of the MEPC this week could be very helpful in this context.

Recent development under the UNFCCC in relation to climate finance

I am aware that the issue of climate finance is of importance to the international shipping
sector, and I would like to invite you to contribute actively to the on

- going discussions on this

issue.

In Cancun and Durban, Parties set up and further developed an institutional infrastructure under the UNFCCC to assist developing country Parties in addressing their climate c hange related needs and to assist them in their contributions to global climate change mitigation

actions.

With regard to climate finance, Parties established the Standing Committee that is in the heart of the climate finance infrastructure, to assists th e COP in exercising its functions in relation to the financial mechanism of the Convention. They also established the Green

Climate Fund (GCF) as an operating entity of the financial mechanism, and launched the work programme on long

- term finance which is analysing options for the mobilization of

resources and work on climate

- related financing needs of developing countries. The GCF provides several opportunities for Parties and stakeholders to contribute to its on

- going

discussions.

The Standing Committee is mandated to organize a forum for the communication and continued exchange of information among bodies and entities dealing with climate change finance to promote linkages and coherence. During its first meeting of the Standing

Committee last month in Ba ngkok, its members supported the use of the forum to get in contact with a range of relevant stakeholders, to promote the exchange of information and

views on various climate finance related issues.

The work programme on long

- term finance builds on a tran sparent and inclusive approach. Recent workshops and social media activities have created widespread attention from a range of stakeholders and allowed a large audience to partici pate in the discussions. The

co

- chairs invite all interested stakeholders to continue getting in touch directly and contribute

to the on

- going discussions on long

- term finance. 2

Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gent lemen, on behalf of the UNFCCC S ecretariat, I am looking forward to working with you to jointly address one of the biggest c hallenges of our time

– global climate change.

Thank you.

(Annexes 12 to 29 are contained in document MEPC 64/23/Add.1)

___________

2 All materials and information are accessible on the UNFCCC website: http://unf ccc.int/cooperation_support/financial_mechanism.