The difference between aeronautical and nautical charting is clearly that the terrain and possible dangers are usually visible to the aviator, he is subject to air traffic control, the aircraft is fitted with danger proximity sensors, and the routes are clearly marked by radio beacons. With the possible exception of sensors, none of this applies to the mariner. In addition, most about accidents occur on landing or take-off with loss of life, which usually has limited indemnity. The maritime casualty could involve the loss of life as well as the loss of expensive cargo and catastrophic damage to the environment. It appears also that the ICAO has initiated studies into stricter management measures regarding the reproduction and dissemination of air navigational information.
The European Union has adopted measures to protect databases and to allow States to defend their fundamental interest, against "parasite" practices. An Administration may use the private sector provided it accepts responsibility and Rules V/2, V/20 and V/25 do not "undermine the Administraion's capability of fulfilling its responsibility" nor does it "create a series of implementation problems in the legal point of view". The alternative to define the concept of "approved" chart in the proposed new para 5 of draft Rule 2 is dangerous and could create confusion. As it supposes that "official" chart, already exist the economic benefit of an alternative is very doubtful except as "official" chart pirating.
The reference to resolution A.817 (19) in para 5.2 of Draft Rule 2, as amended by Italy, seems to indicate that the alternative proposed in this paragraph would only apply to electronic charts. On this assumption, the amendment proposed by Italy does not conform to IHO recommendations regarding chart content of ECDIS explicitly stated in the Annex to resolution A.817 (19).
France is strongly opposed to the substitution of "official" by "approved" in Draft Rules 20 and 25.
Germany
Introducing the concept of 'approved charts' does not offer any gains in efficiency of chart service to mariners but, in the contrary, bears the risk of unacceptable losses in quality. As the Italian note, moreover, is lacking a clear substantiation of the legal concerns of Italy with view to EC legislation and the GATT Treaty, Germany rejects the Italian Proposal.
Greece
Examinations for approving charts would place a heavy burden on the HOs.
An "approved" chart duplicates the "official" chart and does not contribute to safety of navigation. HOs may in any event sub-contract at present. If a national or relevant authority "approves" a chart it automatically assumes responsibility for it.
Greece does not support the proposal.
Iceland
Iceland does not support the Italian Proposal.
