ANNEX
IHO MEMBER STATES COMMENTS ON ITALIAN PROPOSAL (MSC 69/5/3)
The International Hydrographic Organisation was unanimously requested by the States attending the 3rd Conference of the Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico Hydrographic Commission, namely Canada, Colombia, Cuba, France, Grenade, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, Netherlands, Saint Lucia, Trinidad and Tobago, United Kingdom and the United States to advise the sixty-ninth session of the IMO Maritime Safety Committee that the Commission were unanimously opposed to the above proposal. The Conference then passed the following resolution:
Considering the note submitted by Italy to the sixty-ninth session of the IMO Maritime Safety Committee on the definition of official nautical charts,
Noting IMO resolution A.817 (19) on the performance standards for ECDIS, which provides for prior consultation of IHO on any proposed amendments,
Expresses its opposition to the content of the Italian note,
Invites the IHB to request the IMO that the matter be referred by Italy, to the IHO,
Invites Hydrographic Offices in the Region to advise their national maritime administrations of the Commission Member's Decision.
MSC 69 decided (MSC 69/22 paragraph 5.73) that the IHO consider the Italian Note and submit comments to NAV 45. The International Hydrographic Bureau circulated the Italian note to all IHO Member States. In addition to the Resolution of the 3rd Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico Hydrographic Commission, the IHB received the comments from the following Member States: Australia, Bahrain, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Cyprus, Ecuador, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Monaco, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Portugal, the Russia Federation, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom, and the United States.
With the exception of Italy, there were no responses in favour of the proposal.
Some abbreviated comments of Member States are listed as follows;
Australia
The main difference would be that "official" products would be based on source data whereas "approved" products would be based on digitising paper charts only. If the Government or another authority approved a chart, would it have to accept responsibility and possibly liability for it? How would the "approved" charts be maintained? This would mean that ECDIS would be fuelled by ECS data rather than products based on official HO data.
Only coastal States should issue data. It is unclear, which Administration is to have the power to authorise commercially produced charts.
