.1 The complex and fragile ecosystems of the Torres Strait region are characterized by fast moving, shallow waters with 150 islands, islets, coral reefs and cays that support a complexity of marine life. Eighteen island communities are home to approximately 10,000 indigenous Australian inhabitants and perhaps another 20,000 Papua New Guinea nationals. All these people depend on the Straits unique marine environment for subsistence fishing and gathering.

.2 The following two associated protective measures are proposed to prevent damage from international shipping activities:

.2.1 implementation of a recommended two way shipping route through Torres Strait. This measure was proposed to take into account the increasing size and draught of vessels using the Strait. As part of this initiative, four new aids to navigation are currently being installed by the Australian Maritime Safety Authority; and

.2.2 extension of the present compulsory pilotage into Torres Strait. This measure would have the same application as the existing IMO-recommended pilotage regime implemented under IMO Assembly resolution A.710(17) adopted in November 1991. This resolution applies to vessels of 70 metres in length and over and all loaded oil tankers, chemical tankers or liquefied gas carriers, irrespective of size.

.3 Compliance with the existing recommended pilotage regime has declined and resolution A.710(17) no longer provides an acceptable level of protection for Torres Strait.

.1 the area comprises of complex, diverse, productive and interdependent ecosystems and all along the coastline are locations identified for protection for ecological or geographical reasons;

.2 the proposed PSSA area is vulnerable and includes the location of the most significant concentration of major oil spills in the world;

.3 the area is important form a socio-economic point of view;

.4 the proposed PSSA area includes some of the most significant shipping routes in the world;

.5 the following associated protective measures are proposed:

.5.1 prohibiting the carriage of heavy grades of oil through the PSSA in vessels of more than 600 dwt, except in double-hull tankers, which will be obliged to comply with a reporting obligation with a 48-hour notice period; heavy grades of oil are defined as follows:

●heavy crude oil, meaning crude oils having a density at 15°C higher than 900 kg/m³ (which means an API grade lower than 25.7);

●heavy fuel oils, meaning fuel oils having a density at 15°C higher than 900 kg/m³ or a kinematic viscosity at 50°C higher than 180 mm²/s; and

●bitumen and tar and their emulsions.

.5.2 for all single hull tankers between 600 and 5000 dwt, it is proposed that the provision shall apply as from 2008; and

.6 the proposals contained in MEPC 49/8/1 and in MEPC 49/16/1 are distinct proposals. The PSSA proposal is intended for early implementation for a specific geographical area and is intended to address problems already experienced within that area. The proposal in MEPC 49/16/1 are for global solutions on an extended timescale.

.1 they support the proposal for designating the Western European Waters as a PSSA and believe that additional adjacent areas of sea, namely the Irish Sea, East coast of Scotland and England to East Anglia, also meet the PSSA criteria and should be included within the PSSA proposal; and

.2 in addition to the prohibition of the use of single-hull tankers for the transport of heavy fuel in the PSSA, a number of additional associated protective measures are appropriate.

.1 a number of delegations expressed concerns regarding the large size of the proposed area and the precedence that this may set for other similarly large areas seeking PSSA identification. In response to this concern the proposing States stated precedence had already been set with the Great Barrier Reef PSSA being a similar in size to the proposed area;

.2 a large number of delegations stated that the proposal sets a precedence which could be dangerous for the innocent passage and freedom of navigation and in this context it was pointed out that the prohibition of passage of single hulls through international straits is against international law;

.3 a number of delegations expressed concern over the adverse effects that the proposed APM would have on the safety of navigation as single hulled tankers would be forced to navigate further out in more hazardous waters. In this context the Norwegian delegate pointed out that the APM would have the effect of bringing single hull tankers transporting heavy grade oils from Baltic region closer to the Norwegian coasts. In view of the concerns expressed the Committee agreed that the consequences of this proposal to other States should be carefully considered;

.4 concern was expressed as to whether there is a legal basis for the proposed APMs. Some delegations recommended sending the proposal to the Legal Committee for their consideration. In this context the Committee, whilst recognizing that the legal basis for the proposed APMs needs to be investigated further, requested the Russian Federation together with any interested delegations to come up with questions that could be put forward to the Legal Committee should the MEPC decide to send it to the Legal Committee;

.5 some delegations pointed out that it is not clear from the proposal how the measures would be implemented. In answer to this, the proposing States
mentioned that information had been made available;

.6 concern was expressed over the effect of the proposed APM on port of refuge. In this context, the proposing States confirmed that the proposed APM would not prevent ships coming to a port of refuge;

.7 the Chairman pointed out that the definition of double hull needs to be considered; and

.8 some delegations mentioned that consideration of proposal should be deferred until the Committee has considered document MEPC 49/16/1.

.1 investigate if the proposed extension of the existing Great Barrier Reef PSSA to include the Torres Strait Region meets the criteria in resolution A.927(22), using the review form for PSSAs developed during MEPC 48;

.2 investigate if the proposed Western European Waters PSSA meets the criteria in resolution A.927(22), using the above-mentioned review form for PSSAs; and

.3 provide a written report to plenary on their conclusions on Thursday, 17 July 2003.

.1 the Group recognized that both Norway and Denmark as coastal states, and that the Russian Federation, as the major transporter of oil in that area, may be affected by the proposal. The Group noted the concerns expressed by Norway that the area was too large, particularly east of the Shetland Isles, and that it would push single-hull tankers carrying heavy fuel towards Norway increasing the risk for the Norwegian coast. The proposers suggested a reduction in the size of the area east of the Shetland Isles to bring that easterly line to 0° longitude. Another comment with respect to size was associated with the number of sensitive areas within the proposed area and that consideration should have been given to proposing a number of smaller PSSAs rather than a very large one;

.2 the Group recognized that the area is unique in terms of its deep cold-water corals. The Group, however, noted that the proposed PSSA and APMs do not protect this unique feature in its entirety as the corals extend beyond the proposed PSSA;

.3 the Group agreed that, although the representativeness criteria, the spawning and breeding criteria, the naruralness criteria were not met for the entire proposed PSSA, these criteria were met for certain parts of the proposed PSSA;

.4 it was recognized that the proposed PSSA encompasses a number of overlapping biological units as well as a significant number of separate biogeographical areas;

.5 having been provided with additional information, the Group agreed that the proposed PSSA is important in terms of research and has an adequate baseline of biological information which can be used to measure change;

.6 questions were posed on the extent of the number of single hull tankers carrying heavy fuel oil and whether there was still a significant risk from other vessels carrying bunkers as fuel. It was clarified that the protective measure proposed for the ban on single hull tankers, is for the ban for the carriage of heavy oil in bulk by single hull tankers and that this proposed APM does not apply to vessels in ballast;

.7 some participants were of the opinion that no amendments to IMO instruments were required to implement the ban on the carriage of heavy fuel oil in single hull tankers through the proposed PSSA. Those who held this view did not rely on MARPOL 73/78, SOLAS or UNCLOS article 211(6), and relied on Assembly resolution A.927(22) instead. A number of participants stated that they did not consider that resolution A.927 provided a legal basis to implement the proposed measure; and

.8 it was agreed that the issue of safety and efficiency had been addressed. However, it was considered that the issue of increased costs associated with the carriage of heavy oils around the proposed PSSA had not been adequately addressed. In addition, there was an issue of increasing the risk to ships having to transit outside the proposed PSSA and that spills in the area immediately adjacent might still impact the proposed PSSA. It was noted that vessels transiting outside the area might be at the limit of the rescue capability. The proposing countries did not agree with that concern and felt they could still provide an appropriate SAR response.

.1 "On behalf of the six States proposing the PSSA, France is convinced that following the work of the Informal Technical Group there are very good reasons to agree to the designation in principle of this PSSA at this session of MEPC, and to send the associated reporting measure to the NAV Sub-Committee.

.2 Regarding the associated protective measure on the transport of heavy oils, the six States have heard the observations and objections that have been made, and are ready to consider them on their just merits. We have also attended the Working Group on regulations 13G and 13H, the results of which we consider provide a good basis for future discussion and agreement. We strongly hope that these discussions will be finalized this December in the adoption of an international regulation concerning the carriage of heavy oils.

.3 On the basis of this, we are ready to withdraw this measure and to come back to this Committee with an holistic approach regarding associated protective measures for this PSSA".

.1 having been informed of the withdrawal of the APM concerning the ban on single-hull tankers, 30 delegations who spoke supported the designation, in principle, of the Western European Waters as a PSSA and supported to refer the 48-hour reporting APM for consideration by NAV 50. The delegate from Cyprus agreed to the designation in principle, provided that the proposing countries would guarantee adequate SAR and that the area would be reduced to bring the easterly line off the Shetland Isles to 0° longitude;

.2 15 delegations who spoke did not support the designation of the area as a PSSA, or held different views on how to take the issue forward;

.3 in expressing his lack of support for the proposal, the delegate from the Russian Federation raised the question as to whether there was a legal basis for designating such a wide geographically sea region as PSSA. In this context, he expressed that the issue of size was a very important element which is not adequately reflected in the Guidelines for the Identification and Designation of Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas, and should be addressed therein. He stated that the United Nations Convention on Biodiversity is an important international instrument which provides States with a legal framework for designating networks of specially protected areas in areas of high concentrations of vulnerable biological resources. In this context he informed that article 8 of the afore-mentioned Convention explicitly provides for designation of individual protected areas and not for a wide sea regions. Should such a large PSSA be established, this would lead to discussion on special limitations or even prohibitive acts including shipping operations which in their turn may result in revision of the UNCLOS;

.4 a number of delegations supported the concerns expressed by the Russian Federation regarding the legal issues raised and the large size of the area. With respect to the latter, a few delegations recognized that proposing a number of smaller PSSAs within the area might have been more appropriate;

.5 the observer of ICS reminded the Committee that the adoption of a PSSA places certain obligations, at least of a moral nature, on the coastal States concerned. For example, following designation of the PSSA, certain types of activities may appear inappropriate in an area where the ecosystem has been assessed to be particularly sensitive;

.6 the United Kingdom informed that this exercise had raised the issue that a range of protective measures were needed in order to best protect a range of areas, and that this matter should be investigated further;

.7 the Committee, in noting that as the Great Barrier Reef PSSA was of a similar size as the area under question, also noted that the Great Barrier Reef differs in that it is a single biological functional ecosystem; and

.8 the delegation of the United Kingdom stated that it intended to submit further IMO protective measures for the area to NAV 50 for consideration.

.1 approve, in principle, the extension of the existing Great Barrier Reef PSSA to include the Torres Strait Region and to request NAV 50 to consider the extension of the compulsory pilotage measures. In approving, in principle, this area as a PSSA, the Committee noted that, consistent with article 236 of UNCLOS, the APM would not apply to sovereign immune vessels;

.2 in view of the majority support, the Committee approved, in principle, the designation of the Western European Waters as a PSSA, with the provision that the area is reduced to bring the easterly line off the Shetlands Isles to 0° longitude; and

.3 referred the 48-hour mandatory reporting measure to NAV 50 for consideration.