|
ANNEX 8
STATEMENTS BY THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION CONCERNING THE DESIGNATION OF THE BALTIC SEA AS A PSSA
Having listened to the proposal made by the Baltic States concerning the designation of the entire Baltic Sea as a PSSA, the Russian Federation wishes to state that it is unable to support the proposal, for the following reasons.
Firstly, we believe that the idea of designating a PSSA and adopting associated protective measures in accordance with Annex 2 of resolution A.927(22) is justified only in respect of special maritime areas which are restricted to their natural geographical limits.
The application that has been submitted departs radically from what was approved in the past, and calls for a new approach.
It should be recalled that the Baltic Sea has already been accorded "special area" status in the framework of Annexes I, II and V and has also been designated a SOx emission control area in the context of MARPOL 73/78. The Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area (Helsinki Convention) applies to this region. Also valid in this context is the Helsinki Commission special mechanism concerned with providing permanent monitoring of Baltic Sea environmental conditions and regulating the environmental measures in force. The Helsinki Commission approves and initiates ecologically and economically sound maritime safety measures, in whose design and implementation the Russian Federation plays an active role. Nothing has hindered the implementation of these measures, nor must anything be allowed to do so.
Our argument is supported by the fact that the authors of the application do not propose any additional protective measures, i.e. no further involvement of IMO procedures is required.
I should like to inform the Committee that in 2002 the Helsinki Commission Secretariat examined the benefits of possible designation of the entire Baltic Sea as a PSSA, and concluded there were insufficient grounds for doing so.
On the basis of the foregoing, the Russian Federation fails to understand what practical purpose is served by according PSSA status to the Baltic Sea.
We believe that the real threat lies in a sphere other than navigation.
The Baltic Sea, as a partially enclosed area, is under considerable threat from land-based activities. The pollution these contribute far exceeds that from shipping. Almost 90 per cent of the pollution of the Baltic marine and coastal environment, particularly by petroleum products, derives from land-based activities. These major sources of pollution in the Baltic are simply not mentioned in document MEPC 51/8/1.
In our opinion, what needs to be employed urgently in this case is not the PSSA mechanism, but the resources available under the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity. We believe that an approach of this kind, aimed at establishing protective measures for the Baltic Sea region that would be all-embracing and multilateral, and not simply politically inspired, is completely reasonable.
In conclusion, I urge the Committee to approach its deliberations and decisions on this matter with great care.
If we now take the decision to oblige populist and other interests, we shall experience a boomerang effect in the future: the decision would come back to us, but this time in the guise of a requirement to revise international shipping arrangements all over the world.
Statement by the Russian Federation after the Committee approved in principle the designation of the Baltic Sea as a PSSA
The Russian Federation considers that the MEPC's decision to grant PSSA status to the entire Baltic Sea violates not only the provisions of paragraphs 1.4 and 3.1, Annex 2 of the Guidelines for the Designation of Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas (resolution A.927(22)), but also the basic principles of decision-making in the International Maritime Organization: openness, transparency and, above all, consensus.
Moreover, this decision contradicts the understanding reached previously by ministers from all the Baltic States, including Russia, in the framework of the Helsinki Convention, concerning the possibility of discussing the granting of PSSA status to separate areas of the Baltic region but not to the Baltic Sea as a whole, since that could have a negative impact on the balance of the region's existing international shipping systems.
The MEPC has just acknowledged that this decision affects the interests of the Russian Federation, but has refused to take those interests into account, in so doing simply ignoring our position.
The Russian Federation does not agree with this decision to grant PSSA status to the whole Baltic Sea, does not associate itself with this decision and, should the Organization approve any other recommendations, regulations or action for adoption on the basis of the Baltic Sea's designation as a PSSA, reserves its right not to give effect to any such decision.
***
ANNEX 9
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO MARPOL ANNEX I
(New regulation 13I and amended regulation 26)
1 The following new regulation 13I is added after the existing regulation 13H:
"Regulation 13I - Pump-room bottom protection
(1) This regulation applies to oil tankers of 5,000 tons deadweight and above constructed on or after 1 January 2007.
(2) The pump-room shall be provided with a double bottom such that at any cross-section the depth of each double bottom tank or space shall be such that the distance h between the bottom of the pump-room and the ship's base line measured at right angles to the ship's base line is not less than specified below:
h = B/15(m) or
h = 2 m, whichever is the lesser.
The minimum value of h = 1 m.
(3) In case of pump rooms whose bottom plate is located above the base line by at least the minimum height required in paragraph (2) above (e.g. gondola stern designs), there will be no need for a double bottom construction in way of the pump-room.
(4) Ballast pumps shall be provided with suitable arrangements to ensure efficient suction from double bottom tanks.
(5) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraphs (2) and (3) above, where the flooding of the pump-room would not render the ballast or cargo pumping system inoperative, a double bottom need not be fitted."
2 The following new paragraph (4) is added at the end of the existing regulation 26:
Regulation 26 - Shipboard oil pollution emergency plan
(4) "All oil tankers of 5,000 tons deadweight or more shall have prompt access to computerised, shore-based damage stability and residual structural strength calculation programs."
***
ANNEX 10
TEXT OF THE REVISED IBC CODE
(See MEPC 51/22/Add.1)
ANNEX 11
TEXT OF THE REVISED MARPOL ANNEX I
(See MEPC 51/22/Add.2)
UNIFIED INTERPRETATIONS TO MARPOL ANNEX I AND CAS
Unified Interpretation to regulation 19.6.2 of the revised MARPOL Annex I:
33 Definition of double side wing tanks
Regulation 19.6.2 33.1 Wing tanks required for the protection of the entire cargo tank length by regulation 19.6.2, for the purpose of compliance with regulation 35.4.2, can be used as cargo tanks for the carriage of oil other than heavy grade oils when the ship is provided with cargo tanks so arranged that the capacity of each cargo tank does not exceed 700 m3.
Unified Interpretation to paragraph 5.3.2 of the CAS:
"The first CAS survey shall be carried out concurrent with the first intermediate or renewal survey:
- after 5 April 2005, or
- after the date when the ship reaches 15 years of age,
whichever occurs later."
***
|
