I:\MEPC\64\23.doc

E

MARINE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION 

COMMITTEE

64th session 

Agenda item 23

MEPC 64/23

11 October 2012

Original: ENGLISH

REPORT OF THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION COMMITTEE

ON ITS SIXTY-FOURTH SESSION

Section Page No.

1 INTRODUCTION 5

2 HARMFUL AQUATIC ORGANISMS IN BALLAST WATER 5

3 RECYCLING OF SHIPS 14

4 AIR POLLUTION AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY 17

5 REDUCTION OF GHG EMISSIONS 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 IDENTIFICATION 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-FOULING 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

66
MEPC 64/23

Page 2

I:\MEPC\64\23.doc

Section Page No.

17 ROLE OF THE HUMAN ELEMENT 67

18 NOISE FROM COMMERCIAL SHIPPING AND ITS ADVERSE 

IMPACTS ON MARINE LIFE

68

19 WORK PROGRAMME OF THE COMMITTEE AND SUBSIDIARY 

BODIES

68

20 APPLICATION OF THE COMMITTEES' GUIDELINES 72

21 ELECTION OF THE CHAIRMAN AND VICE-CHAIRMAN FOR 2013 72

22 ANY OTHER BUSINESS 72

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 

CERTIFICATION 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 TECHNICAL 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 TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS TO IMPLEMENT 

TIER III NOx EMISSION STANDARDS

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 INDEX (EEDI)

ANNEX 10 STATEMENT BY THE DELEGATION OF EGYPT ON MARKET-BASED 

MEASURES FOR INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING
MEPC 64/23

Page 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 15 RESOLUTION MEPC.226(64) – DESIGNATION OF THE SABA BANK AS A 

PARTICULARLY SENSITIVE SEA AREA

ANNEX 16 DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO THE CONDITION ASSESSMENT SCHEME (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 GUIDELINES 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 RO CODE AND DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO 

MARPOL TO MAKE THE TWO CODES MANDATORY

ANNEX 22 RESOLUTION MEPC.227(64) – 2012 GUIDELINES 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 17
MEPC 64/23

Page 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 67
MEPC 64/23

Page 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), was 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 agreements 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 Liquids 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/MediaCentre/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 progress 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 proper 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 2005 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 merchant 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

Page 6

I:\MEPC\64\23.doc

CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS THAT MAKE USE OF 

ACTIVE SUBSTANCES

2.2 The Committee 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 Linders. 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 active substances, submitted by China, Denmark, the Netherlands, Japan, the Republic 

of Korea (four proposals) 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 KTM-Ballast Water Management System proposed by the Republic of 

Korea in document MEPC 63/2/8; 

.2 Hamworthy AquariusTM-EC BWMS proposed by the Netherlands in 

document MEPC 63/2/9;

.3 OceanDoctor Ballast Water Management System proposed by China in 

document 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-SaverTM Ballast Water Management System proposed by the 

Republic of Korea in document MEPC 64/2/4.

2.4 The Committee invited 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 meeting, 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 Basic 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 GESAMP-BWWG" (MEPC 64/2/6) as well as 
MEPC 64/23

Page 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 MARINETM 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 of 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) has been tentatively scheduled 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 for 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 conditions 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 Group 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 regarding 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 accepted, as such information 

should have been included in the original submission to the Committee; and
MEPC 64/23

Page 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 the 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 ensure full transparency 

and to minimize confidentiality in support of rapid ratification of the BWM Convention.

REVIEW OF THE AVAILABILITY OF BALLAST WATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES

2.12 The Committee noted the information regarding the latest type-approved ballast 

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 CyecoTM Ballast Water 

Management 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 

AquaStarTM Ballast Water Management System;

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

Ballast 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 Ballast 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 provided 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 the 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 Committee 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

Page 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 mentioned in paragraph 2.15

above, the Committee requested the Ballast Water Review Group to consider these 

documents in detail and advise the Committee accordingly.

2.17 In consideration 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 implementation 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 respect, 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 2013. 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. Some 

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 exchange 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 Convention 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 

advanced 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 Assembly 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 requested to provide draft terms of reference for a 

correspondence group to undertake the development of the Assembly resolution under the 

coordination of Japan1. It was also agreed that any amendments to the provisions of the 

Convention will have to be considered 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.jp
MEPC 64/23

Page 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 discussions in 

plenary, the Correspondence Group on the Assembly resolution 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 or

circumventing the proper amendment procedure under article 19 of the 

BWM Convention; and

.2 submit a written report which contains the draft IMO Assembly resolution 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 the present 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 Ballast 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 installations on ships 

managed by them, concluding that the results were similar to those reported in writing to this 

session. 

CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO BWM-RELATED GUIDELINES 

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 existing Guidelines (G8), 

the Committee requested the Review Group to consider this document in detail and advise 

the Committee accordingly.
MEPC 64/23

Page 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 exercising 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.

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE BWM CONVENTION

2.26 Having considered 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), the 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 article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law 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 options to address the perceived difficulties regarding the application of 

the BWM Convention to Offshore Support Vessels, the Committee noted the support 

expressed by several delegations for the development of a BWM Circular in this respect. 

Some other delegations 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 64/2/20 under 

agenda item 4 (please see document BLG 17/1).

CONSIDERATION OF OTHER ASPECTS RELATED TO BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL 

2.30 The Committee noted the information regarding the compatibility between ballast 

water management systems and ballast tank coatings provided in documents 

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

International and IPPIC for their contributions.

2.31 Having considered document MEPC 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 corrosion 
MEPC 64/23

Page 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.

ESTABLISHMENT OF THE BALLAST WATER REVIEW GROUP

2.33 The Committee agreed to establish the Ballast Water Review Group with the 

following terms of reference:

"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, MEPC 64/INF.20, 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 propose 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, 

taking 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."

CONSIDERATION OF THE REPORT OF THE BALLAST WATER REVIEW GROUP

2.34 Having considered the report of the Ballast Water Review Group (MEPC 64/WP.8), 

the Committee approved it in general and took action 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 disappointment 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 procedures for port State control should be 

no more stringent than what is required for Type Approval of ballast water management 

systems.
MEPC 64/23

Page 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 Group, 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

(paragraph 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 States 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 and invited 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 invited 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.40 (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-establish the Review Group at MEPC 65 in accordance with 

the provisions of regulation D-5 of the BWM Convention (paragraph 23).

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

their hard work.
MEPC 64/23

Page 14

I:\MEPC\64\23.doc

3 RECYCLING OF SHIPS

3.1 The Committee recalled that MEPC 63 had adopted the 2012 Guidelines for 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 The Committee had for its consideration, eight documents submitted under the 

agenda item, covering the following issues: 

.1 There were four submissions 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 

MEPC 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 value for asbestos to be 

set at 1 per cent. The other two submissions by ICS and industry cosponsors (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 understanding 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 determining 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 on 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 connection 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 there 
MEPC 64/23

Page 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 first 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 Committee 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 opportunity 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 the 

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 contribution 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, the Committee established the Working Group 

on Ship Recycling 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 Guidelines 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 Guidelines 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 established 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

Page 16

I:\MEPC\64\23.doc

Report of the Working Group on Ship Recycling

3.9 The Committee considered 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 draft 

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 survey and certification of ships 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 Guidelines for the inspection 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 inspection 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 accordance 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 explained 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 40); and

.6 agreed to the establishment of an intersessional correspondence group on 

ship recycling, under the coordination of the United States2and approved 

the terms of reference for the group as follows:

 

 The delegation of Spain raised two particular questions for the Committee to provide clearer guidance 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 inspections 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.gov
MEPC 64/23

Page 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 amend 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 Working Group for their hard and efficient work.

4 AIR POLLUTION AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY

4.1 The Committee 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 Committee 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 ships

.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 NOx 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

Page 18

I:\MEPC\64\23.doc

Energy efficiency for Ships

.10 Unified interpretations for chapter 4 of MARPOL Annex VI;

.11 Guidelines for determining minimum propulsion power and speed to enable 

safe manoeuvring in adverse weather conditions;

.12 Speed trial and model test;

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

.14 Guidelines for calculation of the EEDI;

.15 Matters relating to SEEMP;

.16 Guidance on treatment of innovative energy efficiency technologies;

.17 Guidelines for the calculation of the coefficient fw;

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

.19 Energy efficiency measures.

DRAFT MEPC RESOLUTION ON PROMOTION OF TECHNICAL CO-OPERATION AND TRANSFER OF 

TECHNOLOGY RELATING TO THE IMPROVEMENT OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY OF SHIPS

4.3 The Committee recalled that MEPC 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 included

regulation 23 of MARPOL Annex 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 recalled 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 MEPC 63, as document MEPC 63/5/4.

4.5 The Committee further recalled that MEPC 63 continued developing the draft MEPC 

resolution. However, due to time constraints and concerns raised by some delegations, it

was not possible to finalize the draft resolution. MEPC 63 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 (Australia, Canada, Germany, Japan, 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 made 

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 they be tackled in a 

precise, cooperative and constructive manner should bring convergence to the different 

views.
MEPC 64/23

Page 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 working group 

could provide, if no agreement was found, options of different formulation 

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

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

working group should focus on what is required rather than the exact 

process, which should be described in the third issue; and

.3 on the issue of funding, the Chairman explained that the working group 

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 working group, without general debate in Plenary, as a continuation of the working 

group established during the last session.

Establishment 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 

Promotion 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 submitted, 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 

working group had:
MEPC 64/23

Page 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 improvement 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 States 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 

Technical 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 document MEPC 64/WP.10 is 

the Committee's interim agreement on the draft Resolution on Promotion 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 finalization 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 Vice-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 with the same terms of reference.

4.16 As requested, a statement made by the delegation of Venezuela is set out in

annex 4.

AIR POLLUTION FROM SHIPS

Outcome of BLG 16

4.17 The Committee noted that BLG 16 considered matters concerning the use of 

continuous NOx monitoring to demonstrate compliance with the Tier III NOx emission limit, 

and further considered 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).

4.18 The Committee also noted that BLG 16 prepared a new priority list of necessary 

guidelines to support implementation and enforcement of MARPOL Annex VI and the NOx

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

of the remaining guidelines and guidance documents as a consequence of the amended 

MARPOL Annex VI and the NOx Technical Code 2008 (BLG 16/16, paragraphs 5.58 and 8.59).
MEPC 64/23

Page 21

I:\MEPC\64\23.doc

Sampling of fuel oil used on board ships

4.19 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 terms 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 of 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.

4.22 The Committee further 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.

4.23 The Committee agreed to instruct the Working Group on 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

4.24 The Committee noted that BLG 16 considered document 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.

4.25 The Committee approved the unified interpretation for continuous-feed type 

shipboard incinerators, and requested the Secretariat to disseminate it, together with the 

unified interpretations as specified in paragraph 4.112.5, by MEPC.1/Circ.795.

Supplement to the International Air Pollution Prevention (IAPP) Certificate

4.26 The Committee recalled that MEPC 63 considered document MEPC 63/7/8 (IACS) 

highlighting that section 2.3 of the supplement to IAPP 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).

4.27 The Committee considered document MEPC 64/7/3 (IACS) providing IACS unified 

interpretation MPC 101 regarding completion of the supplement to the International Air 

Pollution Prevention (IAPP) Certificate. IACS interpreted that "as documented by bunker 

delivery notes" in section 2.3 of the supplement allows for an "x" to be entered in advance of 
MEPC 64/23

Page 22

I:\MEPC\64\23.doc

the dates indicated in all of the relevant check boxes, recognizing 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 agreed to instruct the Working Group on air pollution and energy

efficiency to develop a draft unified interpretation based on IACS unified interpretation 

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 

(United 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 fuel, and MEPC 62/4/21 (ICS) providing comments 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 availability 

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 would 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 64/4/17 (ICS) proposing that, during 

the period 2012-2014, the fuel availability model proposed by the Correspondence Group on 

the assessment of availability of fuel oil under MARPOL Annex VI be used to carry out a 

preliminary study to provide fuel availability scenarios for the period 2015-2016. 

ICS considered 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 States 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 identifying 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 certainty 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 not 

support the preliminary study proposed by ICS.
MEPC 64/23

Page 23

I:\MEPC\64\23.doc

4.36 The Committee agreed that this matter should be reconsidered at a future session 

and invited interested delegations to submit proposals to MEPC 66.

Review of the status of the technological developments to implement the Tier III NOx

emissions standards

4.37 The Committee recalled that regulation 13.10 of MARPOL Annex VI calls for a 

review of the status of technological developments to implement the Tier III NOx emissions 

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

consideration and agreement of terms of reference, MEPC 62 established a correspondence 

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

4.38 The Committee considered documents MEPC 64/4/16 and MEPC 64/INF.8 (United 

States) providing an interim report on the work of the Correspondence Group on Assessment 

of Technological Developments to Implement the 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 NOx emission limits, 

especially with regard to selective catalytic reduction (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 adjustment is needed, reason given behind that adjustment.

4.39 The Committee considered document MEPC 64/4/35 (Japan) providing the results 

of technological development of SCR systems for compliance with the Tier III NOx emission 

standard, including data of shipboard testing of SCR systems. Japan emphasized that the 

results of the project indicated that the SCR systems could satisfactorily comply with the 

Tier III NOx emission limits as set out in regulation 13.5.1.1 of MARPOL Annex VI. Japan 

concluded that SCR are a possible technology that can be used by ships to comply with the 

Tier III NOx emission standards.

4.40 ICOMIA expressed the view that it had yet to be satisfied that all yacht designs 

would 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 requested, the statement is set out 

in annex 5.

4.41 The Committee agreed to consider this matter further at MEPC 65, when the final 

report of the correspondence group 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 and provide an update on the work of the Montreal 

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

4.43 The Committee considered document MEPC 64/4/4 (Secretariat) presenting

updated information on consideration by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol of the treatment 

of Ozone Depleting Substances used by international shipping.

4.44 The Committee noted documents MEPC 64/INF.10 (Secretariat) providing the report 

for a study on the treatment of Ozone-depleting Substances used to service ships

undertaken by Lloyd's Register, and MEPC 64/INF.28 (Secretariat) outlining the outcome of 

the 32nd Open-ended 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

Page 24

I:\MEPC\64\23.doc

4.45 The Committee agreed to request the Secretariat to continue liaising with the Ozone 

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

4.46 The Committee recalled that, in 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 subsequent session of the Committee every 

year (in this case, MEPC 64).

4.47 The Committee noted 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 supplied for use on board ships 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 recalled that MEPC 62 had adopted, by resolution MEPC.198(62), 

the 2011 Guidelines addressing additional aspects to the NOx 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) proposing to 

amend the formula for deriving the NOx reduction rates in paragraph 2.3.11 of 

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

conditions for pre-certification test, EUROMOT emphasized that cinlet,pre-certification should be 

used as denominator in the formula for the NOx reduction rates, instead of cinlet.

4.50 The Committee considered document MEPC 64/4/40 (United States) opposing the

amendment to the 2011 Guidelines proposed 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 acceptance of the amendment by EUROMOT would encourage calibration of 

the SCR to the ideal conditions of the test bed only (feed-forward control), which could result 

in higher NOx emissions under actual conditions, and that "feedback control" based reductant 

dosing should be considered as its commonly used in mobile land-based applications.

4.51 Some delegations 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 NOx 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 would 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 document 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

Page 25

I:\MEPC\64\23.doc

4.54 The Committee recalled also that MEPC 59 had noted the information provided by 

ISO (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 document 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 onshore power supply as MEPC.1/Circ.794.

ENERGY EFFICIENCY FOR SHIPS

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

MARPOL 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 will enter into force 

on 1 January 2013.

Unified interpretations for chapter 4 of MARPOL Annex VI

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

4.61 The Committee noted that MEPC 63 had considered documents MEPC 63/4/9 

(China) and MEPC 63/4/12 (IACS) seeking interpretation of the terms "new ships" for 

Phases 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 document 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 considered document MEPC 64/4/12 (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 

interpretations for the definition of new ships based on the definition of new ships for Phase 0.
MEPC 64/23

Page 26

I:\MEPC\64\23.doc

4.63 The Committee considered document MEPC 64/4/45 (United States) proposing an 

interpretation for major conversion in regulation 2.24.4 of MARPOL Annex VI that considers 

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 provided a list of seven questions to evaluate whether a ship is a 

major conversion.

4.64 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

4.65 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 (MEPC 63/23, paragraph 4.29).

4.66 The Committee considered document MEPC 64/4/31 (IACS) providing an IACS 

unified interpretation on the relationship between the International Energy efficiency (IEE) 

Certificate and International Air Pollution Prevention (IAPP) Certificate as requested at 

MEPC 63. IACS sought 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 sought clarification whether port State control (PSC) action 

relating to SEEMP would be taken before the ship is obliged to carry an IEE certificate.

4.67 The Committee considered document MEPC 64/7/1 (Marshall Islands) seeking

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 inspections.

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 Group 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 working group should consider comments by the 

Republic of Korea that the SEEMP should be developed in the working language used 

on board ships, 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

Page 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)

proposing 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 ships when referring 

to tables 1 and 2 of regulation 21 of MARPOL Annex VI. The co-sponsors also propose to

develop an MEPC circular providing unified interpretations on the appropriate ship type to be 

applied under the EEDI regulations for small specialized ship sectors in dedicated trades.

4.73 The Committee agreed to forward the document to the Working Group on Air 

Pollution and Energy efficiency for further consideration.

Guidelines for determining minimum propulsion power and speed to enable safe 

manoeuvring 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 permanent solution (MEPC 63/23, paragraph 4.17.5).

4.75 The Committee considered document MEPC 64/4/13 and MEPC 64/INF.7 (IACS, 

BIMCO, INTERCARGO, INTERTANKO and OCIMF) providing 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) emphasizing that 

draft guidelines proposed in document MEPC 64/4/13 do not fully address underpowering 

concerns for Phase 0 as the resulting required minimum installed power is substantially lower 

than actual current designs. Greece considers an interim minimum speed requirement for 

Phase 0 is safer and more appropriate.

4.77 The Committee considered document MEPC 64/4/42 (Japan and the Republic 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, noting 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 guidelines for Phase 0.

4.78 Some delegations supported the interim minimum speed requirements for Phase 0 

proposed by Greece. Many delegations expressed the view that interim minimum propulsion 

power is an appropriate way forward to maintain the manoeuvrability of ships and did not 

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 not comply with level one of the 

minimum power requirements despite the fact that these ships operate safely without 

manoeuvring problems.
MEPC 64/23

Page 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 further 

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 Sub-Committee.

Speed trial and model test

4.82 The Committee recalled that the second Intersessional Meeting of the Working 

Group on Energy efficiency Measures for Ships 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 assessment 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 64/4/15 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 speed/power sea trial measurements; and 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) highlighting 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 direct power method) can be used. The co-sponsors 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 noted information by ISO on the recent activity to ISO 15016,

guidelines for the assessment of speed and power performance by analysis of speed trial 

data. ISO established a new working group, WG 17, in TC 8/SC 6 (navigation of ship 

operations), to improve the Wind and Wave correction accuracy from the sea trial condition 

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 

will help the relevant parties 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 working group for further consideration.
MEPC 64/23

Page 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 operation 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 question 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) reporting progress on the development of the draft IMO Model Course on 

energy-efficient operation of ships, and suggesting that the Committee 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 Intersessional Meeting of the Working 

Group on Energy efficiency Measures for Ships 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 documents MEPC 64/4/32 and MEPC 64/INF.22 (BIMCO, 

CESA, IACS, ICS, INTERCARGO, INTERTANKO, ITTC, OCIMF and WSC) providing the 

first version of industry guidelines to provide 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 provided

supplementary 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 the industry 

guidance, and invited 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) proposing

amendments to the 2012 Guidelines 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 proposed amendments to calculation 

methods for shaft generators and for auxiliary engine power PAE for ships equipped with 

more than one main engine.

4.94 The Committee agreed to forward document MEPC 64/4/29 to the working group for 

further consideration.
MEPC 64/23

Page 30

I:\MEPC\64\23.doc

Matters relating to SEEMP

4.95 The Committee considered document MEPC 64/4/33 (CSC and WWF) proposing 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-sponsors also proposed development of appropriate standardized 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 it is therefore too early or premature to amend requirements for 

SEEMP by introducing 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 considered at this point in time, noting that the document on 

the matter may be resubmitted for consideration at a future session. China expressed the 

view that experience was required of SEEMP before any amendments should be considered.

Guidance 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 would 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 expressed 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 

performance, 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 calculation Guidelines 

(resolution MEPC.212(63)) and the EEDI Survey and Certification 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 conditions.

4.101 The Committee agreed that documents 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 fw

4.102 The Committee recalled that the second Intersessional Meeting of the Working 

Group on Energy efficiency Measures for Ships had agreed that, for the purpose of 

calculation of the attained EEDI for regulation 20 and 21 of MARPOL Annex VI, fw should 

be 1.00. If calculated fw is used, the attained EEDI using calculated fw should be presented 

as "attained EEDIweather" 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 that MEPC 63 had noted that Japan would further 

develop draft guidelines for the calculation of fw.
MEPC 64/23

Page 31

I:\MEPC\64\23.doc

4.104 The Committee agreed that documents MEPC 64/4/7 (Japan), MEPC 64/4/28 

(China) and MEPC 64/4/38 (Greece) be forwarded to the working group for consideration.

Work in accordance with the work plan for energy efficiency measures

4.105 The Committee recalled that MEPC 63 had endorsed the work plan and schedule 

for further development of technical and operational measures for ships (annex 12 to 

document MEPC 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 documents 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 64/4/9 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 and 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 EEDI 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

4.107 The Committee noted document MEPC 64/INF.23 (Clean Shipping Coalition)

elaborating 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 provided an updated estimate of the potential 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

4.108 The Committee established the Working Group on Air Pollution and Energy 

efficiency, under the Chairmanship of Mr. Koichi Yoshida (Japan), with the following terms 

and reference:
MEPC 64/23

Page 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 Pollution 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 "major 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 Sub-Committee on manoeuvrability of ships in adverse 

conditions;

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

calculation of the coefficient fw, using the annex to document 

MEPC 64/4/7 as a basis;

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

innovative 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 MEPC 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 endorsed 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 on 

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

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

Page 33

I:\MEPC\64\23.doc

Outcome of the Working Group on Air Pollution and Energy efficiency

4.109 The Committee received the report of the Working Group on Air Pollution and 

Energy efficiency (MEPC 64/WP.11). In his introduction of the report, the Chairman of the 

working group, Mr. Koichi Yoshida (Japan), emphasized that the working group 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 fruit juice carriers; and a unified interpretation for section 2.3 

of supplement to IAPP certificate;

.2 finalized the draft MSC-MEPC circular for the interim guidelines for 

determining minimum propulsion power to maintain the manoeuvrability of 

ships in adverse conditions, for further consideration of the associated 

tables at MSC 91;

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

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 Committee 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 by 

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 amendments."; 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 Working Group on Air Pollution and Energy efficiency (MEPC 64/WP.11), as set out in 

annex 6.
MEPC 64/23

Page 34

I:\MEPC\64\23.doc

Action taken on the report of the Working Group on Air Pollution and Energy 

efficiency

4.112 In concluding its consideration of the report of the working group, the Committee 

approved it in general and, in particular (paragraph numbers are those of document

MEPC 64/WP.11):

.1 approved the draft unified interpretation for the definition of "new ships" for 

Phases 1, 2 and 3 of the EEDI framework under regulation 2.23 of 

MARPOL Annex VI (paragraph 3.6);

.2 approved the draft unified interpretation of the phrase "major conversion"

under regulation 2.24 of MARPOL Annex VI (paragraph 4.5);

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

have 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 approved the draft unified 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 approved, subject 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 

(paragraph 6.5), as set out in annex 2 to document MEPC 64/WP.11;

.7 invited MSC 91 to note that the entry-into-force date of chapter 4 of 

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

MEPC-MSC circular 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 fw

for decrease of ship speed in representative sea condition for trial use 

(paragraph 7.3), as set out in annex 3 to document MEPC 64/WP.11, and 

requested the Secretariat to disseminate as MEPC.1/Circ.796;

.9 noted the view of the Working Group 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 sampling 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

Page 35

I:\MEPC\64\23.doc

.11 approved the amendments to footnote 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 establish an intersessional Correspondence Group on Energy 

efficiency Measures for Ships under, the coordination of Japan3, with the 

following terms of reference:

.1 develop the draft guidelines for determining minimum propulsion 

power to enable safe manoeuvring 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 64/4/13, 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 and taking into account document

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

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

decrease of ship speed in representative sea condition for trial use 

taking into account documents MEPC 64/4/28 and MEPC 64/4/38 

and comments 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-based Measures:

.1 Consideration and possible consolidation 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.jp
MEPC 64/23

Page 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 distribution.

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 an 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 transport, 

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 international 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 consumption 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 important. 

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 consider 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

Page 37

I:\MEPC\64\23.doc

Market-based Measures

Consideration and possible consolidation of MBM proposals

5.7 The Committee 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 would 

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 of 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 proposal 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 countries 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 must fully take into account potential impacts of those measures on 

developing countries.

5.13 The Committee considered document MEPC 64/5/11 (ICS) highlighting concern with 

proposals intending to incentivize increases in energy efficiency by means of reductions 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 The Committee considered document MEPC 64/5/8 (CSC) arguing that in 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

Page 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 country'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 session.

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 GHG-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

Page 39

I:\MEPC\64\23.doc

UNFCCC matters

5.25 The Committee noted document MEPC 64/5/1 (Secretariat) on the outcome 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 2012 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, the 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 the 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). Additionally, 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 

Conventions, 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 

(MEPC 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 associated comments directly to the 

drafting group for review and finalization.

Establishment of the Drafting Group

6.4 The Committee agreed to establish a Drafting Group on Amendments 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 Amendments to the 

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

Mr. David MacRae (United Kingdom), the Committee approved the report in general and, 

by consensus, consequently:
MEPC 64/23

Page 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 undertake 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

GENERAL 

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. 

MATTERS CONCERNING MARPOL ANNEX I

Discharge of settled-out water during oil spill recovery operations

7.2 In introducing document MEPC 64/7, the observer from the International 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 guidelines, 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 agreed 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 recovery 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 Guidelines 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 record 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 received 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 of 
MEPC 64/23

Page 41

I:\MEPC\64\23.doc

MARPOL Annex I, not as an amendment introducing new and substantive provisions, 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 to delete recording incinerator's capacity.

APPLICATION OF MARPOL ANNEX IV AND THE BWM CONVENTION TO SEWAGE OR GREY WATER 

STORED IN BALLAST TANKS

7.8 The Committee recalled that MEPC 63, having considered document 

MEPC 63/2/18 (Norway) seeking clarification 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 amendments 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 regulating 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 MEPC 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 Annex 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 Convention 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 instruments;

.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 and 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; and
MEPC 64/23

Page 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.

FORM OF THE INTERNATIONAL SEWAGE POLLUTION PREVENTION CERTIFICATE

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 divergent 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) 

containing 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 for 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. 

PROPOSAL FOR EXEMPTION OF SURVEY AND CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE 

MARPOL CONVENTION FOR UNMANNED AND NON-SELF-PROPELLED BARGES

7.17 In introducing 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 requirements 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 technical 

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 refer 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 certification requirements could be 
MEPC 64/23

Page 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 suitable experts on the subject. 

IMPLEMENTATION OF REVISED MARPOL ANNEX 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 interim 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 MEPC 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 reception 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 shipping 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 classification 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 Guidelines 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 in 
MEPC 64/23

Page 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 Mining 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 supported, 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 The 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 International 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". 

ESTABLISHMENT OF THE DRAFTING GROUP 

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 Supplements 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.

REPORT OF THE DRAFTING GROUP 

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 cargoes 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 regulations 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 be 
MEPC 64/23

Page 45

I:\MEPC\64\23.doc

classified and declared by the shipper as to whether or not they are harmful 

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 January 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 and 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 other 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 

feedstock 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 

decisions 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 Certificate under MARPOL Annex I, set out in annex 13, for 

circulation, with a view to adoption at MEPC 65.

8 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE OPRC CONVENTION AND THE OPRC-HNS 

PROTOCOL AND RELEVANT CONFERENCE RESOLUTIONS

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/MEMAC):

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

Page 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 Committee 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 the 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 symbols MEPC 64/8 and MEPC 64/WP.2, respectively, and, in particular:

.1 noted 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 Dispersant 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 included in the summary of incidents and to submit relevant 

information to further expand the inventory of information resources on 

OPRC/HNS-related matters;

.4 instructed the FSI Sub-Committee not to eliminate the information on 

pollution incidents, as set out 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 Triennial 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 welcomed 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 Technical Group for the year 2013; and
MEPC 64/23

Page 47

I:\MEPC\64\23.doc

.8 approved the draft planned output and provisional agenda of the fifteenth 

meeting of the OPRC-HNS Technical Group and the scheduling of the Group's 

fifteenth 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 document 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 proportionate 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 shipping 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 Circular 

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) Contingency Plans

8.9 The Committee, in considering document 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 11 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 Organization's Integrated Technical 

Co-operation Programme.
MEPC 64/23

Page 48

I:\MEPC\64\23.doc

Emergency 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 information 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 information 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 information.

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, suggesting negligence of the crew, paragraph 15 

suggesting the P&I Clubs 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 and 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 Guidelines 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 ROPME/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 that MEMAC and its Member 

States were monitoring 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 the 
MEPC 64/23

Page 49

I:\MEPC\64\23.doc

area of the incident was too great. It also stated that the salvage 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 could 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 PROTECTION OF SPECIAL AREAS 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 had been proposed by the Netherlands 

(MEPC 62/9), and invited the Netherlands to submit detailed proposals for associated 

protective measures (APMs) to NAV 58 for consideration. 

9.2 In considering document MEPC 64/9 (Secretariat), which reported on the outcome 

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 informal technical group on PSSAs, 

under the Chairmanship of Mr. Paul 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 efficient work they had carried out.
MEPC 64/23

Page 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, but 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 Committee 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 Action Plan approved 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 port 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 subsequently 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 Committee 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, and 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

Page 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 64/11. 

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 Committee 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 hazards, 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 requirements 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 

accordingly. 

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 

context 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

Page 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. 

OUTCOME OF DE 56

11.10 The Committee noted that the Sub-Committee 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.

Development 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 Sub-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 

the 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 amendments 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) (resolution 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 its 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 ships 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 decided 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) suggesting 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; and 
MEPC 64/23

Page 53

I:\MEPC\64\23.doc

.2 document MEPC 64/11/4 (Finland and United Kingdom) providing further 

information on the application of dilution compensation factor Qi/Qe under 

the draft 2012 Guidelines and proposing additional text to expand the 

guidance in this respect. 

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 standards. 

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 available 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 

aspirational 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 sewage 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 Chairman 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 Consequently, 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 the 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

Page 54

I:\MEPC\64\23.doc

OUTCOME 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 reported 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 integrated 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 the 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 intention 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 requirements 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 bodies do not 

need to be taken into account to the same extent. The Committee noted the concern 

expressed and invited MSC 91 to consider this issue. 

OUTCOME 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 report 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 compliance 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 the language in which information should be 

provided.
MEPC 64/23

Page 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, while 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 GlobalReg (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 the 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 delegations 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 extend 

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 

countries, 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 for 

non-convention ships would be beneficial in this respect.
MEPC 64/23

Page 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 track 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 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, 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 make

accessible related domestic documents due to concerns 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 Implementation 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 

mandatory 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 

adoption, 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 referencing 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 instrument 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 Committees should be pursued, 

i.e. introducing amendments to IMO instruments 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 possible 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

Page 57

I:\MEPC\64\23.doc

11.46 The Committee approved the draft amendments to MARPOL Annexes I, II, III, IV, V 

and VI to make the III Code and auditing mandatory, set out in annex 20, with a view to 

adoption at MEPC 66 (after the envisaged adoption of the III Code at A 28). 

11.47 The delegation of Cyprus made a statement after the approval 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, Lithuania, 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 should 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 adoption. 

Draft Code for recognized organizations (RO Code)

11.50 The Committee recalled that the 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 Guidelines 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 Administration, 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 Committee 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 

Annexes 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 footnote.

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

Page 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 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). 

11.56 The delegation of Cyprus made a statement in connection with the approval of the 

draft RO Code and the draft amendments to MARPOL 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, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden and the United 

Kingdom associated themselves with the above-mentioned statement.

ADDITIONAL TERMS OF REFERENCE TO BE ADDED TO THE DRAFTING GROUP ESTABLISHED UNDER 

AGENDA ITEM 7

11.57 Having considered all the documents 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 effluent 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 recognized 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).

REPORT OF THE DRAFTING 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 its 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

Page 59

I:\MEPC\64\23.doc

.1 the geometric mean of the total nitrogen and phosphorus content of the 

samples of effluent taken during the test period should not exceed:

.1 total nitrogen4: 20 Qi/Qe mg/l or at least 70% reduction5;

.2 total phosphorus: 1.0 Qi/Qe mg/l or at least 80% reduction6.

.2 the requirements of the above-mentioned removal 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, or 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 Committee, 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.227(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 organizations (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 approved 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

Page 60

I:\MEPC\64\23.doc

12 WORK OF OTHER BODIES

OUTCOME 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 work 

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 Committee noted 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 receiving 

document in hard copies for information on status of conventions; the role of the human 

element; the biennial agenda for BLG and FSI Sub-Committees; and application of the 

Committee's guidelines; had been addressed under agenda items 6, 9, 13, 17, 19 and 20, 

respectively. 

12.4 The Committee further noted 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 under agenda item 11. 

12.5 The Committee also noted 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 concerning 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 Standard, 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

Page 61

I:\MEPC\64\23.doc

OUTCOME OF LEG 99

12.6 The 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 document 

MEPC 64/12/2.

12.7 The Committee noted, 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 offshore 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 convention on the subject.

OUTCOME 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-operation activities for the protection of the marine environment.

OUTCOME 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 

IMO 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 noted, in general, the outcome of C 108 on matters of 

relevance to it concerning strategy, planning and reform, resource management, Voluntary 

IMO Member State Audit Scheme, and World Maritime Day, and, in particular: 
MEPC 64/23

Page 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 measure to cross-reference certain 

meeting decisions in order to reduce translation and printing costs.

All committees 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 Secretary-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 the 

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 (MEPC 64/12), on the issue 

of confidentiality and the reporting format, particularly on whether its role, with respect to the 

International Convention for the Prevention 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 fifth 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 general 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 mandatory 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 time 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 

sovereignty of Member States and any differences in national practices should be respected. 
MEPC 64/23

Page 63

I:\MEPC\64\23.doc

12.17 The Committee also noted that, in addressing the questions posed to it on the 

release of the executive summary report and a Member State's comments on the progress of 

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 supporting 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.

OUTCOMES OF THE JOINT SESSION OF THE SCIENTIFIC GROUPS UNDER THE LONDON 

CONVENTION AND PROTOCOL

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 cargoes had 

been prepared for consideration of LC 34-LP 7, the outcome of which would be reported to a 

future session of the MEPC. 

OUTCOME OF THE UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 

12.22 The Committee noted the information contained in 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 anniversary 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 was 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 implementation of the 

outcomes of the major summits on sustainable development, and addressing new and 

emerging challenges.

12.23 The Committee noted that in 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 the 
MEPC 64/23

Page 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 Development", 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 Chief 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 

becoming 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 of 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 "pillars" 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 training;

.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 speech 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 Organization 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 Secretary-General further stated that efforts should not be spared to generate a 

good concept for our sustainable development 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-operation Committee, as well as the Maritime Safety Committee will have their 

roles to play to move towards our sustainable development goals.
MEPC 64/23

Page 65

I:\MEPC\64\23.doc

12.28 The delegation of Brazil, in expressing their appreciation to the Secretary-General's 

remarks and the preparation 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 development of the shipping industry, and that any 

measure taken should be practicable and feasible, as well as alleviating 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 status 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 on 18 June 2012:

.1 with 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 with 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

Page 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 delegations 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. Therefore, the item on "status 

of conventions" should be deleted from the agenda of the Committee for its future sessions. 

14 HARMFUL ANTI-FOULING SYSTEMS FOR SHIPS

14.1 The Committee noted that the International Convention on the Control of Harmful 

Anti-Fouling 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 were 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 sessions 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 is 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 PROTECTION OF 

THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT

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 Programme (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

Page 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 

Highway 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-KOICA-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 Committee 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 summarized 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 expressed appreciation for all the financial and 

in-kind contributions to the ITCP and major projects and invited Member States and 

international organizations 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 that 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 years 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 relevant 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

Page 68

I:\MEPC\64\23.doc

18 NOISE FROM COMMERCIAL SHIPPING AND ITS ADVERSE IMPACTS ON 

MARINE LIFE

18.1 The Committee 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 life, 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 DE 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 areas 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 States, 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 the 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 Committee 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-Committees, 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 issues, 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

Page 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 provisional 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 2012-2013 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 MEPC 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 accordingly. 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 accordance 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 priorities for the 2012-2013 biennium should be prepared and annexed to 

the report of each session of the sub-committees and committees, and to the biennial report 

of the Council to the Assembly. Such report should separately identify unplanned outputs 

accepted 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 outputs 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 

status of planned outputs for MEPC for the 2012-2013 biennium as contained in 

resolution A.1038(27), which was updated based on the outcome of MEPC 63 and MSC 90, 
MEPC 64/23

Page 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, priorities 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 Marine 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 preparing 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 sub-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 restructuring 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 regard 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 identified 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 their 

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, including 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 

constraints, 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

Page 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-committee 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 some 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 approved, 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/drafting 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 postponed 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 sessions. 
MEPC 64/23

Page 72

I:\MEPC\64\23.doc

.2 Working Group on Air Pollution and Energy efficiency;

.3 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; and

.4 Drafting Group on Amendments to Mandatory Instruments.

Correspondence groups

19.24 The Committee agreed to establish 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 Developments to 

Implement the Tier III NOx Emission Standard under MARPOL Annex V; 

and

.4 Correspondence 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' GUIDELINES

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 

administrative 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 disseminated 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, unanimously 

re-elected Mr. Andreas Chrysostomou (Cyprus) as Chairman and Mr. Arsenio Dominguez 

(Panama) as Vice-Chairman, both for 2013.
MEPC 64/23

Page 73

I:\MEPC\64\23.doc

22 ANY OTHER BUSINESS

Marine Environmental Awareness Raising Posters: Sargasso Sea

22.1 The Committee noted that document 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 posters because of concerns about the 

impacts of ships on the fauna and flora of this unique region. The posters can be displayed 

in messrooms on board ships, as well as in shore-based academies and elsewhere and can 

be purchased at: http://www.maritimetraining.com/Search/sargasso.

The Protection and Management of the Sargasso Sea: Summary Science Case and 

Supporting Evidence Case

22.2 The Committee also noted that document MEPC 64/INF.25 (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 supporting 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 secure

international recognition of the importance of the Sargasso Sea and of establishing 

appropriate management 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-protection.

The Expo 2012 Yeosu Korea and the launch of the Oceans Compact

22.3 The Committee further noted that document MEPC 64/INF.32 (Secretariat) provided

information about the 2012 International Exposition, held in Yeosu, Republic of Korea, 

from 12 May 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 the Oceans Compact, a new 

initiative on ocean matters by the United Nations Secretary-General, which was launched 

during the Yeosu Expo. The Oceans Compact sets out a strategic vision for the United 

Nations system to deliver more coherently and effectively on its ocean-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 United Nations system 

organizations, high-level policy-makers, scientists, leading ocean experts, private sector 

representatives, representatives of non-governmental organizations 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 the observer from ISCO to environmental 

NGOs to provide input on its work related to the development of Knowledge-based 

Response Planning for Marine Incidents involving oil and HNS and its intention to formalize 

this invitation by letter in the coming weeks.
MEPC 64/23

Page 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 linking IACS 

UIs to MARPOL, MEPC circulars and other IMO instruments. Details can be found at:

www.iacs.org.uk/publications.aspx?pageid=4§ionid=4.

Actions requested of other IMO bodies

22.7 The actions requested of other IMO bodies are summarized as follows (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, subject 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 entry into force date of 

chapter 4 of MARPOL Annex VI will be 1 January 2013 

(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 resolution 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 structure 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 approved the revised MEPC-MSC circular on the 

Guidelines for the operational implementation of the ISM Code by 

companies, subject 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 

relation 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 adoption 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

Page 75

I:\MEPC\64\23.doc

.10 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); 

.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 Conventions 

(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 MEPC 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 

relevant 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 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 2.38.4);
MEPC 64/23

Page 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 more 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 MEPC 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 proposals on the matter 

(paragraph 4.112.9);

.9 note that MEPC 64 adopted, by resolution MEPC.225(64), the 2012 

amendments to the IBC Code (paragraph 6.5 and annex 12);

.10 note that MEPC 64 approved, in general, the report of BLG 16 

(paragraph 11.2);

.11 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 the revised agenda of the BLG 

Sub-Committee and the provisional agenda for BLG 17 (paragraph 19.6 

and annex 26).
MEPC 64/23

Page 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 MARPOL 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 used 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 decision 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 interested 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 language 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 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 

(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 necessary, 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 planned 
MEPC 64/23

Page 78

I:\MEPC\64\23.doc

output (5.2.1.18 of HLAP for 2012 and 2013) and the GlobalReg 

(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 circulation 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 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); 

.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 64 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 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 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 interested 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

Page 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 Polar 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 draft 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 

type-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 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).

22.12 The Sub-Committee on Dangerous Goods, Solid Cargoes and Containers (DSC), at 

its eighteenth 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 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).

22.13 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 (paragraph 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 approved the revised MEPC-MSC circular on 

Guidelines for the operational implementation of the ISM Code by 

companies, subject to concurrent decision of MSC 91(paragraph 11.25);
MEPC 64/23

Page 80

I:\MEPC\64\23.doc

.4 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 

(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 Bank 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 exceptions, 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 real 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 water 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 actions 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 perform 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 would 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 of 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 documentation. 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 ship 
MEPC 64/23

Annex 1, page 2

I:\MEPC\64\23.doc

cannot be supported. Guidance on guidance to voluntary 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 suggested 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 63/23

Annex 2, page 1

I:\MEPC\64\23.doc

ANNEX 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 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 Safe and Environmentally Sound Recycling of Ships, 2009

(the Hong Kong Convention) 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 Kong 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 developed by the 

Organization,

NOTING FURTHER that regulations 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 survey and certification of ships under the 

Hong Kong Convention, as set out in the annex to this resolution;

2. INVITES Governments to apply the 2012 Guidelines for the survey and certification

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

2012 GUIDELINES FOR THE SURVEY AND CERTIFICATION 

OF SHIPS UNDER THE HONG KONG CONVENTION

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Objective of the guidelines

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 that 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 

survey 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 guidelines will assist Administrations and 

recognized 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 certificates.

1.2 Approach of the guidelines

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 Hazardous Materials and issuing 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 guidelines 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 

Inventory 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 part 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, page 3

I:\MEPC\64\23.doc

3.1.1 Initial survey for new ships1

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 initial 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 

Materials, 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 date 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 approximate 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 documents used to develop the Inventory of 

Hazardous Materials.

3.1.1.4 The survey should verify that part 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 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 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 should 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 amended (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 identifiable 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 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.

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 identifies 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 of 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 and 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 

identifies 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 Material 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, through 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; in such cases, only an International Ready for Recycling 

Certificate should 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 shipowner 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, page 5

I:\MEPC\64\23.doc

3.2.3 The request for a renewal survey should be supplemented by the latest version of 

part 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, arrangements and material since the last survey.

3.2.4 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 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 consistent with the arrangements, structure and equipment of the 

ship, through on-board visual inspection. The survey should further verify that any decision 

by the shipowner 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 Hazardous 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, which 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 required 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 part 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, 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 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 consistent with the arrangements, structure and equipment of the 

ship, through on-board visual 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 clear 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 organization 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 recycling 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 for 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 or 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 Hazardous 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 planned 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 Facility, taking account of information including the Inventory of 

Hazardous Materials provided by the shipowner; as required by 

regulation 9 of the annex to the Convention, the Ship Recycling Plan should

be either explicitly or tacitly approved by the Competent Authority 

authorizing the Ship Recycling Facility.
MEPC 64/23

Annex 2, page 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 

Convention, including that part 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 parts 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 Ship 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, maintenance and monitoring of 

Safe-for-entry and Safe-for-hot-work conditions; in 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 regulation 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 shipowner 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 Hazardous 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 formerly entitled to

fly is obliged to forward as soon as possible to the new Administration a copy 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 inspection 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 surveys 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 should 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 Recycling 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 

compliance 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 requirements 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 regulation 5.2 of the annex 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 Development of the Inventory of 

Hazardous Materials and has been verified through the process of issuing the statement of 

compliance.

5 MARKET SURVEILLANCE

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 detected 

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 guidelines, 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 international 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 

Safe and Environmentally Sound Recycling of Ships, 2009 (the Hong Kong Convention) 

together with six Conference resolutions,

NOTING that article 8 of the Hong Kong Convention prescribes that a ship to which the Hong 

Kong Convention applies may, in any port or offshore 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,

HAVING 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 

Convention, as set out in the annex 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 Guidelines 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 their 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 Ready 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 subject 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.1052(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 having 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)1or the International Ready for 

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 the Convention, except for those ships for which both an 

initial survey and a final survey are conducted at the same time.
MEPC 64/23

Annex 3, page 3

I:\MEPC\64\23.doc

2.1.2 The validity of the International Certificate on Inventory of Hazardous Materials or 

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 

with 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 the 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 part I of the Inventory of 

Hazardous Materials;

.4 the absence of an entry in part I of the Inventory of Hazardous Materials for 

structure or equipment that the PSCO believes to contain Hazardous 

Materials listed in appendices 1 and 2 to the Convention2; and

.5 no evidence of implementation of a procedure on board the ship for 

maintaining part I of the Inventory of Hazardous Materials.

2.2 More detailed inspections

The PSCO should verify that controls of Hazardous Materials listed in appendix 1 to the 

Convention are effectively implemented, referring to relevant certificates3or documents that 

may specify structure or equipment presumed to contain these Hazardous Materials. 

The PSCO should note that detailed inspections are limited 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 inconsistencies 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 indicative list that identifies any equipment, system 

and/or area on board that is presumed to contain Hazardous Materials, as noted in section 2.2 of 

appendix 5 of the 2011 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 principles 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 

appendix 1 to the Convention.

3 INSPECTIONS OF NON-PARTY SHIPS

3.1 Ships of non-Parties to the Convention are not entitled to be issued with an 

International Certificate on Inventory of Hazardous Materials or an International Ready for 

Recycling Certificate. 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 to 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

Thank 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 maintaining 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 causes 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 fruits 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 should 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 participants 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 Market-based Measures 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 report. 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 NOX EMISSION STANDARDS

Thank you Mr. Chairman. 

We wish to express our thanks and admiration to Mr. Samulski for his excellent work in 

leading the Correspondence Group in the Tier III review.

ICOMIA fully supports IMO's commitment to emissions reductions. In addition 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 Correspondence 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 treatment and 

remain commercially viable. Until then, we hope the Committee 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 assessed in every possible detail and 

we shall continue to contribute to the CG in the next phase of its work.

Finally Mr. Chairman, we 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 DELEGATIONS 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 fw (paragraph 7)

Statement by the delegation of China

As demonstrated in China's submission MEPC 64/4/28, the theoretical model of the 

calculation of fw 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, 

which is not 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 oblique 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 the 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 requested 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 guidelines, means that fw and EEDIweather value may not be 

calculated. Greece is of the view that the disentangling of fw from the regulation EEDI value, 

allowed the early completion of the regulations under Chapter 4 of MARPOL Annex VI, and 

in the opinion of Greece, this was done with the understanding that when guidelines for the 

regulation of fw were ready, the value of fw and the resulting EEDIweather value of the vessel 

would be prominently reported in the ship's EEDI Technical File. Greece emphasized that 

while the regulation 20 "attained EEDI" value is a theoretical sea trial value, the EEDIweather 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 fw and 

EEDIweather will be discussed in depth at next session, after the current trial period of the draft 

interim guidelines of the coefficient fw.

Ro-ro cargo ships and ro-ro passenger ships (paragraph 12)

Statement by the delegation of Denmark

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 no incentive to reduce the 

power and thus the CO2 burden of the ships. In several cases the EEDI will be lowered 

when the power is increased – this will not reduce CO2 emissions from this segment of ships. 

***

MEPC 63/23

Annex 7, page 1

I:\MEPC\64\23.doc

ANNEX 7

UNIFIED INTERPRETATIONS TO MARPOL ANNEX VI

Regulation 2

Definitions

Regulation 2.23 reads 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 table 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 Annex 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 after 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; or
MEPC 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 building 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 construction 

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 and 

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 stage 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 64/23

Annex 7, page 3

I:\MEPC\64\23.doc

.1 which substantially alters 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 alters 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 that could cause the ship to exceed the 

applicable required EEDI, as set out in regulation 21 of this 

annex."

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 between perpendiculars (LPP) or change of 

assigned freeboard) should be considered a major conversion. Any 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 Administration'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 EEDI 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 

as 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 considered 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."

Interpretation:

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

Surveys

Regulation 5.4.4 reads 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 Certificates

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 that ship may 

engage in voyages to ports or offshore terminals under the jurisdiction of 

other Parties."

Regulation 22

Ship Energy efficiency Management Plan (SEEMP)

Regulation 22.1 reads 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 MARPOL 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 Annex 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 intermediate 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 survey 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 the issuance of an IEEC and be 
MEPC 64/23

Annex 7, page 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 With 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 reads 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, French 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 supplement ("as documented by bunker delivery notes") allows for an "x"

to be entered in advance of the dates indicated in all of the relevant check 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 be 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 not be more than five minutes.

***

 

*

For the introduction of sludge oil into the incinerator, two conditions need to be fulfilled to secure 

smokeless 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 CALCULATION OF 

THE ATTAINED ENERGY EFFICIENCY DESIGN INDEX (EEDI) FOR NEW SHIPS

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 (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 from 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 chapter 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 account the 

guidelines developed by the Organization,

NOTING FURTHER that the 2012 Guidelines on the method of calculation of the attained 

Energy efficiency Design Index (EEDI) for new ships were adopted at its sixty-third session,

RECOGNIZING that the amendments 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-fourth session, amendments to the 2012 Guidelines on 

the method of calculation 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 ships, 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 any 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 GUIDELINES ON THE METHOD OF CALCULATION OF THE 

ATTAINED ENERGY EFFICIENCY DESIGN INDEX (EEDI) FOR NEW SHIPS

1 Paragraphs 2.5.2 and 2.5.3 are replaced by the following:

".2 Shaft Generator

In case where shaft generator(s) are installed, PPTO(i) is 75 per cent of the 

rated electrical output power of each shaft generator.

For calculation of the effect of shaft generators two options are available:

Option 1:

.1 The maximum allowable deduction for the calculation of  PME(i) is 

to be no more than PAE as defined in paragraph 2.5.6. For this 

case,  PME(i) is calculated as:

          



ME i PTO i PTO i AE

nME

i

PME i 0.75 MCR ( ) P ( ) with 0.75 P P

1

( )

or

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  PME(i) is 75 per cent of that limited 

power for determining the reference speed, vref and for EEDI 

calculation. 

The following figure gives guidance for determination of  PME(i):
MEPC 64/23

Annex 8, page 3

I:\MEPC\64\23.doc

Main Engine Power [kW]

speed [kn]

verified limited Power or ( MCRME(i) –  PPTO(i) )

without shaft generator(s)

with shaft generator(s)

 MCRME(i)

 PME(i)

vref

Main Engine Power [kW]

speed [kn]

verified limited Power or ( MCRME(i) –  PPTO(i) )

without shaft generator(s)

with shaft generator(s)

 MCRME(i)

 PME(i)

vref

.3 Shaft motor

In case where shaft motor(s) are installed, PPTI(i) is 75 per cent of the rated 

power consumption of each shaft motor divided by the weighted average 

efficiency of the generator(s), as follows:

  

 



Gen

SM i

PTI i

P

P



,max( )

( )

0.75

Where:

PSM,max(i)

is the rated power consumption of each shaft motor

Gen 

is the weighted average efficiency of the generator(s) 

The propulsion power at which vref is measured, is:

PME(i) PPTI (i),Shaft

Where:

     ( ), 75

,max( ) ( ) 0. PPTI i Shaft PSM i  PTI i

 PTI (i)

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 propulsion power for determining the reference speed, vref 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.

Note: 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 Paragraphs 2.5.6.1 and 2.5.6.2 are replaced by the following:

".1 For ships with a total propulsion power ( MCRME(i) ) of 10,000 kW 

or above, PAE is defined as:

 

  250

0.75

0.025 1

( )

( )

1

( )

1 0,000



























  









 

nPTI

i

PTI i

ME i

nME

i

AE

P

P MCR MCRME i

kW

.2 For ships with a total propulsion power ( MCRME(i) ) below 10,000 

kW, PAE is defined as:

 

 

























  









 

0.75

0.05 1

( )

( )

1

( )

1 0,000

nPTI

i

PTI i

ME i

nME

i

AE

P

P MCR MCRME i

kW

"

***
MEPC 64/23

Annex 9, page 1

I:\MEPC\64\23.doc

ANNEX 9

AMENDMENTS 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 standard."

***

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, distinguished delegates, 

Please allow me, on behalf of the Egyptian Government, to express my 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 the 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 this 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 per 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-based Measures for the 

following reason:

.1 the 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 the 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 from a very low income per-capita;

.2 the proposed measures will raise the prices of imports causing the change 

of the competition conditions between countries and between similar 

products, creating favourable trading conditions for certain countries and 

unfavourable trading conditions for others, which is contradicting to the free 

trade principle that GATT is based upon;

.3 the economic burden imposed on the shipping industry may lead to modal

shift to less efficient transport modes; and

.4 most 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 burdens 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. 

Finally, 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 giving me the opportunity to address the 64th session of IMO's Marine 

Environmental Protection Committee (MEPC) on behalf of the UNFCCC Secretariat.

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 adopted 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 highlights 

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, and to 

support developing countries to implement them. Also, the MEPC will continue looking at the 

proposed Market-based Measures for international shipping. This is very encouraging, and 

can send a strong signal to the negotiating process under the UNFCCC to 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 development 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 recent 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 

under 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 significant 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 approaches 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 setting. 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 change 

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 the 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 Bangkok, 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 transparent and inclusive approach. 

Recent workshops and social media activities have created widespread attention from a 

range of stakeholders and allowed a large audience to participate 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 Gentlemen, on behalf of the UNFCCC Secretariat, I am looking 

forward to working with you to jointly address one of the biggest challenges 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://unfccc.int/cooperation_support/financial_mechanism.