ICS, BIMCO, INTERGARGO and INTERTANKO would like to take this opportunity to once again record their concern with the fragility of the Torres Strait environment, its ecosystem and their awareness of the navigational difficulties associated with the passage of, in particular large ships. We support the need for appropriate protective measures.

　

 The industry sponsors can also support that the application of a compulsory pilotage regime for ships flying the Australian flag and for ships flying other flags bound directly for Australian ports is not only appropriate, but well founded in international law.

　

 The application of a regime of compulsory pilotage for ships enjoying the right of transit passage in an international strait and of the requirement of UNCLOS Article 42(2) that such transit passage should not be denied, hampered or impaired have been the subject of considerable debate at several meetings of this Organization. It is not our wish to re-visit these arguments although our original intent in submitting this paper had been to seek clarification from the Government of Australia on how the measures described in Marine Notice 8/2006 would be applied to international shipping which was neither flying the Australian flag nor calling at an Australian port.

　

 However we now feel that the matter can more simply be resolved by recalling the decision of MEPC 53 and resolution MEPC 133(53) which extended the Great Barrier Reef PSSA to include the Torres Strait. This, inter alia, made the APMs associated with the Great Barrier Reef applicable to the Torres Strait. The record of MEPC 53 includes a statement made by the delegation of the United States which appeared to reflect the consensus of the meeting after its deliberation and with your permission, I should like to quote from the record of that meeting.

　

 "The delegation of the United States stated that this draft resolution recognised not only the environmental sensitivity of the Torres Strait, but also the important and fundamental navigational rights provided by international law; supported raising the international awareness of the environmental sensitivity of the Torres Strait and the facilitation of safe and efficient shipping within this Strait; and was clear in its language and effect and represented a serious commitment by IMO and member States regarding the protection of the Torres Strait. The delegation also stated that it must be recognised that this resolution was recommendatory and provided no international legal basis for mandatory pilotage for ships in transit in this or any other strait used for international navigation."

　

 It is our view that the statement of the United States summed up the consensus view of the Committee, including those States that spoke in support of the statement joined with the United States in undertaking to urge that ships in their flag should use the pilotage service. The sponsors of this paper likewise urge their members to use the service.

　

 In conclusion, we firstly ask member States to state if their understanding of the outcome of MEPC 53 is as encapsulated in the recorded statement of the United States; and, if so, secondly ask that the report of the meeting on this issue reflect the Committee's view that its decision at MEPC 53 was that pilotage in the Torres Strait for ships on transit passage should be recommendatory.

　

 This delegation would like to thank the Chairman for the concise summation of the Committee's consensus on resolution MEPC.133(53) that it is recommendatory in nature and does not provide an international legal basis for compulsory pilotage in the Torres Strait or any other Strait used for international navigation.

　

 This delegation fully agrees with and supports this summation of the Committee's consensus.

　

 The Singapore delegation would strongly urge Australia to review its position and bring it in line with the understanding agreed by the Committee on resolution MEPC.133(53).

　

 Thank you.

　

　

 If there are no other delegations wishing to speak, Singapore would like to have the opportunity to speak again. In the interest of time, we do not intend to reopen debates on UNCLOS but we would like to take this opportunity to state our position on the Australian Marine Notices 8/2006 and 16/2006.

　

 We note that the Australian delegation has clearly accepted the understanding of the MEPC resolution as re-stated by the Committee, in particular its recommendatory nature.

　

 With regard to Marine Notice 16/2006, we note that Australia had introduced a measure under which ships may be prosecuted on their next entry into an Australian port for not taking pilotage services on voyages transiting the Torres Strait en route to other destinations.

　

 This has the same practical effect of imposing compulsory pilotage for ships on transit in the Torres Strait.

　

 By threatening criminal action against parties who fail to take on pilotage whilst transiting the Torres Strait when the ship next calls at an Australian port, this effectively continues to treat pilotage for transit vessels as compulsory.

　

 If a right of transit passage exists, action by a State Party to criminalize the proper exercise of that right by a vessel is wholly inconsistent with giving effect to that right, even if it cannot immediately enforce such legislation. It has the effect of denying or impairing that right because any vessel which chooses to act inconsistently with the Marine Notice faces the threat of domestic prosecution.

　

 Such a measure would in fact go against the Committee's understanding of resolution MEPC.133(53) which states that pilotage is only recommendatory for ships on transit in the Torres Strait.

　

 Finally, this delegation like to re-assure the Committee, in particular Australia and Papua New Guinea, that Singapore recognizes and fully appreciates the environmental concerns relating to the Torres Strait but we cannot accept the current measures stated in the Australian Marine Notices 8/2006 and 16/2006 due to the reasons as stated.

　

 Thank you.

　

 Thank you Mr. Chairman, Australia had prepared a detailed intervention in response to this paper. However noting the time constraints that we are now faced with and the likelihood of a protracted debate covering issues we are all familiar with, Australia can accept your proposal and we are in your hands, Mr. Chairman.

　

 Thank you Mr. Chairman,

　

 This delegation had been prepared to make a detailed response to the paper MEPC 55/8/3, but given your introductory remarks, I will try to keep our response brief.

　

 Delegates will be aware that the system of pilotage in the Torres Strait has been fully discussed in this Organization since the proposal was first introduced by Australia and Papua New Guinea in 2003, including at MEPC 49, 52 and 53, NAV 50, MSC 79 and LEG 89. The terms of resolution MEPC.133(53) were developed and agreed at MSC 79 and adopted at MEPC 53. The words of the resolution and the nature of Australia's system of pilotage for the Torres Strait, as an extension of the existing pilotage arrangements in the Great Barrier Reef, were well understood by both Committee and accurately recorded in the reports.

　

 Mr. Chairman, nothing has changed. In accordance with the requirements of Australia's legal system and our long established practice of giving effect to the decisions of IMO, we have simply developed domestic legislation that gives effect to resolution MEPC.133(53). This means that navigating without a pilot in the waters of the Torres Strait that are prescribed under Australian legislation may be an offence under that Act from 6 October 2006. Exactly the same approach to domestic legislation was followed by Australia in giving effect to the 1991 resolution MEPC.45(30) relating to pilotage in the Great Barrier Reef, and has been operating successfully for more than 15 years.

　

 Mr. Chairman, in the interests of time and given the mandate of this committee we do not propose again to cover matters related to UNCLOS, as these issues were fully addressed in Australia's submission to the eighty-ninth session of the Legal Committee (document LEG 89/15).

　

 In response to document MEPC 55/8/3 Australia has promulgated additional information in the form of a marine notice which is now available on the internet as Marine Notice 16 of 2006.

　

 This notice sets out clearly and unambiguously that under no circumstances will Australia deny, hamper or impair transit passage. Should circumstances arise in which a pilot is not available, no enforcement action would subsequently be taken on arrival in an Australian port. Similarly, the new marine notice explains that legal action would not be taken if a pilot could not be carried because of stress of weather, saving life at sea or other unavoidable cause.

　

 Mr. Chairman, document MEPC 55/8/3 refers to the record of MEPC 53 and that Australia did not object to the United States' statement that the resolution provided no international legal basis for mandatory pilotage for ships in transit in this or any other strait used for international navigation. The fact that Australia did not intervene following the United States' statement and remained silent is simply recognition by Australia of the United States' right, as a member of this Organization, to state its position. It does not mean that we accepted that position. Nor does the inclusion of the United States statement in the record of MEPC 53 mean that adoption of the operative paragraph of the MEPC resolution was conditional on acceptance by MEPC of the United States view. The alternative view as supported by Australia and several other States is clearly noted in the records of LEG 89.

　

 Mr. Chairman, I would reiterate that the Torres Strait PSSA proposal and the associated protective measures were considered and endorsed by IMO in full compliance with the Guidelines for the Identification and Designation of Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas applicable at that time. Subsequent actions to give effect to the measures in Australian domestic legislation are fully consistent with the wording of resolution MEPC.133(53).

　

 In conclusion, the issue that has been raised in document MEPC 55/8/3 is purely a legal issue and beyond the mandate of this Committee. The view of this delegation is that there is nothing to be gained in discussing the matter further in this Committee.

　

 In the interests of time and given the constraints that this Committee is now operating under, this delegation does however make the commitment to take note of the comments made by Singapore and the Russian Federation and will undertake to ccurately report these views back to our capital.

　

 Mr. Chairman, I can provide a copy of this statement to the Secretariat and request that it be included in the report.

　

 Thank you.

　

 Denmark has supported Australia's efforts to establish the PSSA for the Great Barrier Reef and also the Torres Strait. We understand and sympathize with the Australian efforts to do what is necessary to protect these waters.

　

 In the past, different Committees and Sub-Committees of IMO have had lengthy debates about the possibilities of introducing mandatory pilotage schemes in these sensitive sea areas. However, so far, it has not been possible to adopt any such measures.

　

 We find this regrettable. We believe that we must shift focus in order to adapt to the international opinion and current international priorities.

　

 The main focus has been on freedom of the oceans and the safety of international transports. Today these issues remain important, but today we also must take protection of the environment and coastal State's interests into account.

　

 This development has been recognized by this Organization with the adoption of the PSSA initiative. We believe we have to look closely at the principles that guide us, when we decide what requirements should apply to international shipping. This also entails restrictions in navigation ? however every measure must be seen in the light of the specific circumstances of a situation.

　

 In conclusion, Denmark understands and shares the concerns which lie behind the Australian initiative. We believe that there is a way to attain mandatory pilotage in an international strait and we will continue to support any future efforts to get mandatory pilotage in the Torres Strait and similar exposed areas, at the IMO, or at any other competent level.

　

 In the List of Substances referred to in paragraph 2 (a) of Article 1 of the Protocol relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Pollution by Substances other than Oil, 1973, set out in the Annex to resolution MEPC.100(48), paragraph 2 is replaced by the following: