日本財団 図書館


Proposal for the designation of the Galapagos Archipelago as a PSSA
 
8.31 The Committee considered the proposal submitted by Ecuador to designate the waters of the Galapagos Archipelago as a PSSA in accordance with Annex 2 of Assembly resolution A.927(22) (MEPC 51/8/2 and MEPC 51/8/2/Corr.1)). The delegation of Ecuador made the following points:
 
.1 the ecological importance of the Archipelago has been widely recognized by the international scientific community since the nineteenth century, when Charles Darwin based his theory on the evolution of species on the observations he made during his famous voyage there. In 1934, the Government of Ecuador pioneered protective legislation designed to enhance the natural assets of the Galapagos Islands and preserve the Archipelago forever. In 1979, UNESCO declared the Galapagos Islands a World Heritage Site, and in 2001 that classification was extended to include the Galapagos Marine Reserve. The submission contained detailed information about the special and unique characteristics of the Galapagos Islands, as well as the extensive regime of protective measures consisting of both international and national regulations in place.
 
.2 The following APMs were proposed to prevent damage from international shipping activities:
 
.1 a ban on any discharge into the sea of oils or oily mixtures from tankers, including those from the cargo-pump rooms of oil tankers and engine-room bilges mixed with cargo residues, and of other noxious liquids, fuel, garbage, or harmful substances emanating from ships of any category or size;
 
.2 a ban on all discharge into the sea of the following types of waste from ships of any category or size: 1) plastics, synthetic fishing lines or nets, plastic garbage bags; 2) loose stowage materials, coverings and packaging material; 3) paper, rags, glasses, bottles, metal, ceramics and similar materials;
 
.3 ships must avoid discharging ballast water or performing filling and emptying of ballast tanks when sailing through Galapagos territorial waters, in accordance with the IMO guidelines for the control and management of ships' ballast water to minimize the transfer of harmful aquatic organisms and pathogens (resolution A.868(20));
 
.4 establishment of an "Area to be avoided" for all ships of more than 500 gross tonnage and carrying oil and hazardous cargoes. All Ecuadorian navy vessels should be granted exemption to enter and leave the PSSA and the area to be avoided. The proposed area to be avoided is a zone extending beyond the proposed PSSA as shown in the annex to MEPC 51/8/2/Corr.1; and
 
.5 the Ecuador Maritime Authority would deploy in two years' time, as an additional measure, an international routeing chart for the Galapagos PSSA, in order to facilitate national and foreign maritime traffic and prevent any adverse impact on navigational security and efficiency.
 
 Finally, the delegation informed the Committee that many delegations of Member States and NGOs had indicated their support for the Galapagos Archipelago becoming a PSSA.
 
8.32 Many delegations expressed their support for the designation of waters of the Galapagos Islands as a PSSA.
 
8.33 The Chairman informed the Committee that, on 12 March 2004, he had received a letter from Mr. Francesco Bandarin, Director, UNESCO World Heritage Centre, expressing the full support of his Organization for the proposed Galapagos Islands PSSA: "I see the designation of the Galapagos Marine Reserve as a PSSA, as an important step to further ensure the level of protection required to conserve the marine values, for which the site was inscribed as World Heritage". The Chairman responded that he would bring this letter to the attention of the Committee.
 
8.34 The Committee, having considered the proposal by Ecuador, decided to refer the proposal to the Informal Technical Group to investigate if the proposed PSSA meets the criteria in resolution A.927(22).
 
General observations on the three PSSA proposals
 
8.35 The delegation of the United States proposed that the detailed review of all three proposals in the Informal Technical Group in accordance with the PSSA Guidelines should focus on the following key questions:
 
.1 what was the legal basis for the proposed APMs; and
 
.2 how would the proposed APMs address the identified risks to the marine environment in the proposed PSSAs.
 
8.36 The delegation of Greece expressed the view that the right of innocent passage for ships under UNCLOS should not be affected by the proposed PSSAs.
 
8.37 The delegation of Mexico was of the view that for each proposal a balance should be found between the need for clean seas and the freedom of navigation. The effect of the proposed PSSAs on international shipping routes should also be addressed.
 
8.38 Several delegations expressed their support for the views by Greece, Mexico and the United States.
 
Instructions to the Informal Technical Group
 
8.39 The Informal Technical Group was instructed to:
 
.1 review, taking into account the results of the discussion in plenary, in particular the comments made by Greece, Mexico and the United States, the proposals for the designation of the waters of the Canary Islands, the Baltic Sea area and the Galapagos Archipelago as Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas (MEPC 51/8, MEPC 51/8/1, MEPC 51/8/2 and MEPC 51/8/2/Corr.1), to determine whether they meet the provisions of the Guidelines for the Identification and Designation of Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas (Annex 2 of resolution A.927(22)); and
 
.2 provide a written report to plenary on their conclusions and recommendations on Thursday, 1 April 2004.
 
8.40 The Chairman also instructed the Informal Technical Group that any discussion on the "place of refuge for ships in need of assistance" should be recorded for the benefit of the Sub-Committee for the Safety of Navigation.
 
8.41 The delegation of Panama requested that future consideration of proposals to designate PSSAs should be conducted in a formal working group of the Committee, in view of the importance of this issue.
 
Report of the Informal Technical Group
 
8.42 The Chairman of the Informal Technical Group, Mr. Paul Nelson (Australia), in introducing the report of the Group (MEPC 51/WP.9) informed that the Group agreed that:
 
.1 the PSSA application for the waters of the Canary Islands and additional information submitted by Spain met the requirements of resolution A.927(22), and recommended approval in principle, noting that Spain stated that it would submit detailed proposals for the APMs to NAV in 2005;
 
.2 the PSSA application for the Galapagos Archipelago and additional information submitted by Ecuador met the requirements of resolution A.927(22) and recommended approval in principle, noting that Ecuador stated that it would submit detailed proposals for the APM to NAV in 2005; and
 
.3 the PSSA application for the Baltic Sea area and additional information submitted by Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Sweden met the requirements of resolution A.927(22) and recommended approval in principle, noting that the countries concerned stated that they would submit detailed proposals for APM(s) to NAV in 2005.
 
8.43 The Chairman of the Group also informed that the States proposing a PSSA for the Baltic Sea area had not yet determined which APM(s) they would submit to the NAV Sub-Committee.
 
8.44 The Committee noted that the Group, in undertaking the review of the proposed PSSA for the waters of the Canary Islands, had commented as follows:
 
.1 the Group found that the application, as well as further information provided, met several of the ecological criteria in the PSSA Guidelines as shown in annex 1 to the Group's report;
 
.2 Spain clarified that the boundary of the proposed PSSA is 12 nautical miles and that this is consistent with Spanish territorial waters. This boundary was shown in a map distributed to the Group and described in MEPC 51/8/Corr.1, paragraph 2.8;
 
.3 in relation to natural factors, Spain provided a short oceanographic description of the area and announced that the results of detailed studies on the oceanographic conditions in the area would be published in the coming months. Such information would be important to assess the risk of spills and the impact of measures to avoid such spills;
 
.4 Spain provided additional data regarding port traffic and pollution incidents in the Canary Islands and indicated that the sources of many of these incidents were unknown. In relation to the identified vulnerability of the area from international shipping activities, the Group noted that the area was vulnerable to transport of oil and hazardous noxious substances and the volume of traffic in the area also increased the risk;
 
.5 the Group noted that a legal basis is required for the APM to address the identified vulnerability. Spain indicated that it would be submitting proposals to NAV in 2005 for areas to be avoided, certain traffic routeing measures, and a ship reporting system, consistent with SOLAS, chapter V, regulations 10 and 11;
 
.6 with regard to the APMs, the Group noted that the measures described in the application would apply to ships of 600 tons deadweight and above carrying heavy oils2 as cargo. The areas to be avoided would be established outside the normal traffic routes and, as such, would have no appreciable impact on these ships. Spain advised the Group that the area to be avoided was needed to ensure that ships did not enter the area and to provide time for responding to any safety or pollution incidents. It was noted that vessels entitled to sovereign immunity are addressed in the SOLAS Convention, chapter V, regulation 1.1; and
 
.7 Spain confirmed its intention to enforce the proposed APMs in accordance with international law, as reflected in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.
 
8.45 The Committee noted that the Group, in undertaking the review of the proposed PSSA for the Galapagos Archipelago, had commented as follows:
 
.1 the Group found that the application, as well as further information provided, met all of the ecological criteria in the PSSA Guidelines as shown in annex 2 to the Group's report;
 
.2 in relation to the description of the area, the Group noted that Ecuador would round off the decimal points of the co-ordinates to make these more user friendly;
 
.3 in relation to the hydrographical conditions, the Group noted the additional information that Ecuador provided;
 
.4 Ecuador explained that the identified vulnerability of the area was from ships carrying oil or hazardous noxious substances as cargo and that the risk of even one spill was too great for this area;
 
.5 the Group noted that a legal basis is required for the APM to address the identified vulnerability. In addressing the identified vulnerability, the Group noted Ecuador's intention to propose an area to be avoided as APM which is outside and contiguous to the proposed PSSA;
 
.6 the Group noted Ecuador's intention to submit this APM to NAV in 2005, consistent with SOLAS, chapter V, regulation 10, and that it would apply to ships of 500 gross tonnage and above carrying oil and hazardous substances as cargoes. It was noted that vessels entitled to sovereign immunity are addressed in the SOLAS Convention, chapter V, regulation 1.1;
 
.7 the Group raised two issues for Ecuador to consider when submitting its APM proposal. First, whether the area to be avoided should cover the entire area, including the PSSA, and second, whether the ships to which the area to be avoided applies should include those carrying large quantities of bunker oils; and
 
.8 Ecuador confirmed its intention to enforce the proposed APMs in accordance with international law, as reflected in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.
 

2 In this respect Spain would use the new definition of "heavy grade oil" contained in the amendments to MARPOL 73/78, Annex I, Part D, Regulation 35, paragraph 2.


前ページ 目次へ 次ページ





日本財団図書館は、日本財団が運営しています。

  • 日本財団 THE NIPPON FOUNDATION