MSC 70/11/11
At its sixty-second session in
June 1993 the Committee noted information provided by Turkey
(MSC 62/INF.10) on the state of maritime traffic,
navigational risks and hazards in the Straits and the
measures which are planned to be introduced to improve the
efficiency of traffic flow and safety of navigation in the
Strait of Istanbul, the Strait of Canakkale and the Marmara
Sea as well as the recommendation for the use of pilotage
service. Turkey also announced that a certain new scheme and
routing measures were under consideration and that the above
document provided only the basic data and charts relating to
the new scheme.
At the thirty-ninth session of
the NAV Sub-Committee in September 1993 Turkey submitted
document NAV 39/3/9 referring to the routeing measures which
were mentioned in document MSC 62/INF.10. The document
proposed establishing separation lines in both Straits under
rule 9 of the COLREGs and the TSS in the Marmara Sea. Those
proposals got broad support by delegations, including the
Russian delegation, in the Sub-Committee.
Thus, the Oil Companies
International Marine Forum (OCIMF) in its submission (NAV
39/3/10) drew the Sub-Committee's attention to the results of
a study on the safety of navigation in the Straits. Paragraph
21 of the document ascertains that "due to the
restrictive navigable width of the Bosphorus Straits and the
Dardanelles, TSSs, under rule 10 of the Collision
Regulations, cannot be adopted, however the Routeing Scheme
introduced for the Bosphorus in 1982, in accordance with rule
9 of the Collision Regulations, is considered to be of
benefit to safety of navigation in the area. A similar
Routeing Scheme for the Dardanelles, under Rule 9, is being
drawn up by the Turkish Authorities (referred to in Turkish
paper MSC 62/INF.10) and is also considered to be of benefit
to safety of navigation in the area. The Sea of Marmara,
because of Its increased navigable area, permits the
introduction of a Traffic Separation Scheme".
In the opinion of the
competent authorities of the Russian Federation, those
conclusions reflect exactly and objectively the essence of
the problem.
However, during the discussion
of the matter at the same session, the Turkish delegation
changed its position and circulated an unofficial paper which
contained a different proposal, namely on establishing TSSs
in both Straits not under rule 9, but under rule 10 of the
Collision Regulations, and stated that the length of a vessel
that can transit some difficult bends in safety and without
violating traffic separation lines, is 150 metres.
Furthermore, Turkey informed the Sub-Committee of the
procedures to be followed in cases, when two-way traffic has
to be suspended and one-way traffic has to be established for
a limited period to accommodate the ships restricted in their
ability to manoeuvre in their respective lanes.
The Sub-Committee was of the
opinion that adoption of the proposed TSSs in the Strait of
Istanbul and the Strait of Canakkale by the MSC should be
subject to the approval by the MSC of rules of navigation for
these Straits.
5 Subject to the above condition,
the Sub-Committee approved the new TSSs for adoption by the
sixty-third session of the Committee, for confirmation at a
later stage by the nineteenth session of the Assembly.
The Russian delegation
reserved its position on the approval of the TSSs in the
Strait of lstanbul and the Straits of Canakkale, considering
that due to the restrictive navigable width of both Straits,
TSSs under rule 10 of the Collision Regulations cannot be
adopted (NAV 39/31, paragraph 3.10).
I:/MSC/70/11-11.WPD
