.1 diverging views had been expressed in the Legal Committee (MEPC 51/11/1) as to the validity of the Western European Waters PSSA, some delegations agreeing that it exceeded the restrictive framework regulated by article 211(6) of UNCLOS, while others reaffirmed the validity of its designation. Diverging views had also been expressed with regard to the APM, while several delegations noted the need for further study of the legal implications of the designation of the Western European Waters PSSA area, in particular, in the light of the comments made by UN-DOALOS; and

　

.2 at the Assembly, some delegations had expressed concerns on the outcome of the discussions at MEPC 49 with regard to this issue (MEPC 51/11/4) and comments were made regarding the need for a review of resolution A.927(22) on the Guidelines for the identification and designation of PSSAs and issues relating to the principles of innocent passage and freedom of navigation on the high seas under the provisions of UNCLOS.

　

.1 the PSSA concept is only relevant if applied in geographically limited sea areas with unique eco-systems and not the wide geographical regions envisaged in the proposed Western European Waters PSSA;

　

.2 the existing PSSA Guidelines are worded in a very general way rather than the specific language and guidance needed to properly evaluate such a diverse area as the proposed Western European Waters PSSA; and

　

.3 such an approach could lead to notable political and legal consequences and, therefore, was not acceptable for the purpose of an international instrument intended for global and universal application.

　

.1 start without any delay with a review of the PSSA Guidelines under Annex 2 of Assembly resolution A.927(22) in order that:

　

.1 prior to any decision on designation of a new PSSA, a careful analysis of scope and adequacy of already existing measures be carried out. Such analysis must be accompanied by an IMO assessment of the implementation of all the existing measures by all parties concerned;

　

.2 the decision on designation be made only if the inadequacy of existing implemented measures had been proven;

　

.3 at the end of the process of identification and designation of the PSSA, a clear and complete picture of the area concerned could be drawn and, at the same time, an appropriate solution provided;

　

.4 when a PSSA was designated, all the associated protective measures were identified. Therefore, the two-step approach implying "PSSA designation in principle" as the first step, and the development of APMs as the second step, should no longer be permitted; and

　

.2 stop the consideration of any current or new proposals submitted under the existing PSSA Guidelines until a revision of the Guidelines had been completed.

　

.1 the PSSA Guidelines should indicate that APMs were expected to address the environmental vulnerability in a proportionate manner and that in turn they should reflect the gravity implied by the request to establish a PSSA;

　

.2 States applying for a PSSA designation should provide an analysis of the adequacy of the existing IMO measures and information on measures taken to limit pollution from land-based industry, agriculture, as well as pollution from all water-based industry; and

　

.3 a proliferation of PSSA applications was apparent from the deliberation on the Western European Waters PSSA at MEPC 49 and from further submissions to this session. This was a concern to the shipping industry because it appeared to suggest that alternative measures for the regulation of shipping and for the protection of the marine environment were, in some way, deficient. However, this was not apparent from the APMs so far proposed. It was increasingly evident that, if allowed to proliferate unchecked, the PSSA designation would lose its special significance and thereby become devalued.

　

.1 there should be no doubt as to the value of PSSAs as a tool to provide extra protection where warranted, but PSSAs should only be considered if the existing measures under IMO instruments were proven to be insufficient;

　

.2 decisions about APMs should be taken together with PSSA-designation, instead of the two-step approach under the current Guidelines;

　

.3 the current Guidelines should be made more operational;

　

.4 one delegation indicated that the current PSSA Guidelines should be strengthened and was prepared to submit a proposal to MEPC 52 addressing inter alia technical and procedural aspects of the Guidelines, as well as legal issues associated with PSSAs. Several delegations supported this view.

　

.5 the PSSA concept was a dynamic one and a review should therefore be standard to its further development, so long as the balance was maintained between protection of the marine environment and the shipping interests, as well as a proportionality between the additional measures proposed and the identified risks to sensitive sea areas from maritime activities; and

　

.6 resolution A.927(22), operational paragraph 3, requested both MEPC and MSC to keep the new Guidelines under review. Such a review could therefore be conducted at any time that the Committee deemed appropriate.

　

.1 although the intent of the proponents of a review was clear from their submissions, no specific case had been made for a detailed review of the PSSA Guidelines;

　

.2 the current Guidelines had only been adopted in 2001, and were still up-to-date, well balanced and addressing all relevant aspects. A review so soon would undermine the credibility of IMO and give the wrong message to the public at large; and

　

.3 instead of a full review of the Guidelines their current application should be discussed in light of the proposals received so far, in particular, the proposal to designate the Western European Waters as a PSSA. It should be avoided that PSSAs become an issue of contention.

　

.1 only the Assembly could declare a moratorium on a resolution adopted by it;

　

.2 Article 211(6) of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea granted Coastal States the right to propose special mandatory measures for the prevention of pollution from vessels for clearly-defined areas of their EEZ when international rules and standards were inadequate, and such proposals should be considered by the Organization within twelve months;

　

.3 there was no precedence within IMO of a moratorium on any of its instruments when being revised or amended; and

　

.4 a moratorium would discourage new proposals and all efforts by IMO and its Member States to promote the PSSA concept when the PSSA mechanism is considered as the proper response to an identified problem.

　

.1 establishment of five "Areas to be avoided" for in-transit shipping. These areas may be used only for small-scale inshore fishing, inter-island navigation, and for journeys from and to ports situated inside these areas, subject to authorization by the maritime authorities;

　

.2 establishment of two "recommended routes" for ships in-transit through the PSSA, whose port of origin or destination was not in the Canary Islands; and

　

.3 adoption of a "mandatory ship reporting system" for all vessels in transit through the PSSA, those leaving or heading for ports in the Canary Islands, and engaged in inter-island traffic of over 600 tons deadweight carrying heavy grade of oils. For all tankers between 600 and 5,000 tons deadweight this measure should apply from 2008.

　

.1 the Baltic Sea area is a globally unique, sensitive, cold, northern, brackish-water eco-system, which is vulnerable to the impact of international shipping and other human activities;

　

.2 an extensive regime of protective measures consisting of both international and national regulations was in place inside and adjacent to this semi-enclosed sea, including compulsory reporting and traffic surveillance, routeing systems, compulsory pilotage and the designation of the area as a Special Area under Annexes I, II and V and as a SOx Emission Control Area under Annex VI of MARPOL 73/78;

　

.3 no new APMs were proposed at this stage. However, the submitting countries might come back within the prescribed timeframe to propose new APMs concerning e.g., (1) compulsory reporting and traffic surveillance, (2) routeing systems, (3) escort and escorting tugs, (4) pilotage and (5) areas to be avoided. The Committee was requested to review this application, to approve the designation of this PSSA in principle at this session and to take appropriate actions, such as informing the NAV Sub-Committee of this decision and subsequently approve the final PSSA designation.

　

.1 it believed that application of the PSSA concept, and any associated protective measures, would only be justifiable for limited geographical areas;

　

.2 the legal basis for PSSAs was questioned;

　

.3 the Baltic Sea area was already designated as a Special Area under Annexes I, II and V and as a SOx Emission Control Area under Annex VI of MARPOL 73/78 providing added protection. As no new APMs had been proposed in the current application, there would be no added value of a PSSA designation;

　

.4 HELCOM had already taken measures to give additional protection to the Baltic Sea area which the Russian Federation had endorsed. HELCOM had also analysed the merits of a PSSA for the Baltic Sea area and concluded that such a designation would not offer specific advantages;

　

.5 90% of the contaminant load of the Baltic Sea area originated from land-based sources of marine pollution, which the PSSA concept did not cover; and

　

.6 the attention should be focused on measures to protect the Baltic Sea under the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity.