______ / INTERGOVERNMENTAL OCEANOGRAPHIC
COMMISSION (OF UNESCO)
______
JOINT WMO/IOC TECHNICAL COMMISSION FOR
OCEANOGRAPHY AND MARINE METEOROLOGY (JCOMM)
EXPERT TEAM ON MARITIME SAFETY SERVICES
SECOND SESSION
ANGRA DOS REIS, BRAZIL, 24 TO 27 JANUARY 2007 / ETMSS-II/Doc. 3.1, 3.2
(13.XII.2006)
______
ITEM 3.1, 3.2
Original: ENGLISH
REPORT OF THE JOINT IMO/IHO/WMO CORRESPONDENCE GROUP
ON ARTIC MSI SERVICE
(Submitted by Mr Peter Doherty, chairperson of the Joint IMO/IHO/WMO Correspondence Group on Arctic MSI Services)
Summary and Purpose of Document
This document contains the report of the chairperson of the Joint IMO/IHO/WMO Correspondence Group on Arctic MSI Services, covering the activities undertaken by the Group and elements for discussion.ACTION PROPOSED
The Expert Team on Maritime Safety Services (ETMSS) is invited to note and comment on the information provided, as appropriate, and propose future METAREAs’ responsibilities, especially identifying and/or confirming potential Issuing Services.
______
Appendix:Proposed establishment of Arctic NAVAREAs
ETMSS-II/Doc. 3.1, 3.2, p. 1
DISCUSSION
1.General
1.1At the tenth session, 6-10 March 2006, the IMO COMSAR Sub-Committee, recognizing the increased use of the Arctic region by all elements of the maritime community (commercial, military and scientific), and the need for the Arctic Ocean to be respected as the other temperate oceans and navigated with similar concern for the presence of hazards to navigation, approved the establishment of a Joint IMO/IHO/WMO Correspondence Group on Arctic MSI Services, to address the expansion of the World-Wide Navigational Warning Service (WWNWS) into the Arctic waters. The Correspondence Group was chaired by Mr. Peter Doherty of the IHO. The following Administrations participated in the work of the Correspondence Group (CG).
2.Terms of Reference
COMSAR 10 agreed to the following Terms of Reference for the Correspondence Group
1.2Taking into account resolution A.706 (17), as amended by MSC/Circ.685 and MSC/Circ.750 including the relevant decisions of COMSAR 10, the joint IMO/IHO/WMO Correspondence Group on Arctic MSI Services should give consideration and provide comments on the following:
.1recommend a way forward to deal with the expansion of MSI services, taking account of documents MSC 80/13/2 and COMSAR 10/3 (Russian Federation), COMSAR 10/3/1 (IHO) and observations from other countries in the Arctic regions;
.2in progressing the matter also consider the following additional salient issues:
.1Should there be a northern limit to any new areas?
.2Can a seasonal service only be provided?
.3Who will act as NAVAREA co-ordinator and METAREA issuing service (do not have to be same country)?
.4Would some of the proposed new NAVAREAs be better established as sub-areas of existing NAVAREAs?
.5How will warnings be transmitted, and can they be monitored as required? Do systems other than Inmarsat (such as HF NBDP, NAVTEX or other satellite service providers) need to be considered?
.6Who will undertake provision of SAR information?
.7How will Inmarsat system definition manual and existing SafetyNET terminals be updated to allow receipt of the new NAVAREAs? Ideally this update needs to be co-ordinated with plans to include new areas in other parts of the world.
.8Will assistance be required from IHO/CPRNW to support new NAVAREA co-ordinators or from JCOMM/ETMSS for METAREA issuing services?
.9How will WWNWS guidance and other relevant documents be updated?
3.Work of the Correspondence Group
3.1Taking account of the discussions that had already taken place at COMSAR 10 and the 2005 IHO CPRNW Annual Conference, the correspondence group focused on answering the salient issues identified in the Terms of Reference.
4.Co-ordination with IHO CPRNW
4.1Procedurally, all recommendations for change to the World-Wide Navigational Warning Service (WWNWS) are reviewed by the IHO Commission for the Promulgation of Radio Navigational Warnings (CPRNW). The CPRNW is the representative body for the IHO on matters concerning the WWNWS and its membership includes the IMO, WMO and IMSO. The CPRNW endorsement was sought for all questions raised in the CG Terms of Reference.
4.2The IHB has established a web based bulletin board service to address the work of the CG and all information related to this CG has been and will be posted at this website
5.Progress to date against each of the Items Identified in the Terms of Reference
Should there be a northern limit to any new areas?
5.1No. The CG achieved a broad agreement amongst all members that all new Arctic NAVAREA’s should provide coverage up to 90 degrees North. Understanding limitations with Inmarsat-C coverage, which has been identified as is 76 North latitude with a potential of 82 North, the CG agreed to investigate further the best way forward for providing full MSI services, including the use of other potential satellite service providers. The IHO CPRNW concurs with this recommendation.
Can a seasonal service only be provided?
5.2No. The CG input received to date from all participating countries has identified the need for full 24/7 operations, understanding that certain areas will not be navigable during certain times. The IHO CPRNW concurs with this recommendation.
Who will act as NAVAREA Coordinator and METAREA issuing service (do not have to be same country)?
5.3The CG took into consideration existing NAVAREA boundaries that border the new areas as well as the Inmarsat satellite footprints for establishing the new Arctic NAVAREAs boundary limits. This was done in order to prevent the establishment of NAVAREAs that would have to promulgate messages under multiple satellite transmissions. Proposed establishment of Arctic NAVAREAs is presented in the Appendix. The CG notes that Canada has agreed to assume NAVAREA Coordinator responsibilities for the new NAVAREA’s XVII and XVIII, Norway has agreed to assume NAVAREA Coordinator responsibilities for the new NAVAREA XIX, and the Russian Federation has agreed to assume NAVAREA Coordinator responsibilities for the new NAVAREAs XX and XXI. Boundary limits for all new respective NAVAREAs still remain under discussion. Norway states that discussions continue with the Russian Federation in this regard and they are encouraged that a viable solution will be forthcoming. The CG reminded all prospective NAVAREA coordinators that the delimitation of these new Arctic NAVAREAs is not related to and shall not prejudice the delimitation of any boundaries between States. It is also noted that each prospective NAVAREA Coordinator understands the need for full MSI coverage to the poles and full 24/7 operations. The CG notes that METAREA Issuing Services still need to be addressed. The CG WMO representative took an action to clarify who are the points of contact for METAREA Issuing services in those countries, and will assist in identifying appropriate METAREA authorities. The CG agreed to work with the WMO to identify METAREA Issuing Services authorities.
5.4The IHO CPRNW endorsed the selection of Canada, Norway and the Russian Federation as the new Arctic NAVAREA Coordinators. CPRNW also agreed to assist in the new Arctic NAVAREA Boundary limit discussion, as requested. Further, the CPRNW also agreed to assist the CG and WMO in identifying METAREA Issuing Services authorities.
5.5Official IMO approval is still pending. The graphic of the boundary limits of the proposed new Arctic NAVAREAs has not been endorsed by the IMO, IHO and WMO. Discussions are still taking place between the countries involved concerning their respective limits.
Would some of the proposed new NAVAREAs be better established as sub-areas of existing NAVAREAs?
5.6No. General consensus of the CG is that a Sub-Area would be remote from the existing NAVAREA and the information promulgated would be irrelevant for the vast majority of vessels within the area. This would only generate an overload of irrelevant information to vessels within the NAVAREA. Thus, it would not be beneficial to extend current NAVAREAs and make these areas as Sub-Areas. Norway did entertain discussions about the potential of becoming a Sub-Area Coordinator under NAVAREA I, but then decided they would prefer to be a NAVAREA Coordinator. Thus, the CG agreed that the Arctic should be covered by new NAVAREAs and not Sub-Areas. The IHO CPRNW concurs with this recommendation.
How will warnings be transmitted, and can they be monitored as required? Do systems other than Inmarsat (such as HF NBDP, NAVTEX or other satellite service providers) need to be considered?
5.7The CG noted the current monitoring requirements for all maritime safety information broadcasts under GMDSS. Recognizing the limited coverage of Inmarsat-C within the Arctic waters, and in order to identify other potential satellite service provider capabilities, a questionnaire was generated by the CG and sent directly to: Iridium, Orbcomm, Globalstar and Inmarsat. To date, of the four companies, Inmarsat and Iridium have been the only ones to respond. The CG members were concerned with the cost and resource impacts involved to NAVAREA Coordinators if multiple service providers are to be utilized under the GMDSS. The CG also noted that national distribution services for maritime safety information promulgation under GMDSS are not acceptable. It was agreed that further discussions concerning this matter would need to take place and be considered.
5.8The IHO CPRNW endorsed the CG questionnaire, with the need to further investigates other potential satellite service provider’s capabilities and the potential cost and resource impacts. The CPRNW also noted and agreed that national distribution services for maritime safety information under GMDSS are not acceptable. The CPRNW further agrees to assist in these future discussions.
Who will undertake provision of SAR information?
5.9The CG was unable to consider and discuss the provision of SAR information, so this has not been addressed to date.
How will the Inmarsat system definition manual, and existing SafetyNET terminals be updated to allow receipt of the new NAVAREAs? Ideally this update needs to be coordinated with plans to include new areas in other parts of the world.
5.10The CG notes that discussions with Inmarsat have been held, and agreed that changes can be made to the Inmarsat system definition manual to accommodate expansion of the WWNWS into the Arctic waters. Inmarsat requested, and the CG concurred, that all agreed upon changes to coverage areas under the WWNWS to include the Arctic expansion and other existing coverage gaps be implemented at the same time. This will lessen the impact on the customer and the equipment manufacturers. It was agreed that further discussions concerning this matter would need to take place and be considered.
5.11The IHO CPRNW endorses the proposal that, “changes to coverage areas under the WWNWS to include the Arctic expansion and other existing coverage gaps be implemented at the same time”. The CPRNW agrees to assist in future discussions in this matter.
Will assistance be required from IHO/CPRNW to support new NAVAREA Co-ordinators or from JCOMM/ETMSS for METAREA issuing services?
5.12The CG notes that assistance from the CPRNW will be required in the terms of providing training and technical support. The CG, via the CPRNW, asked NAVAREA Coordinators for their cooperation in this effort and to provide support, if requested. The WMO representative also offered the assistance of training and technical support for METAREA issuing services. The IHO CPRNW agrees to assist and support the new NAVAREA Coordinators.
How will WWNWS guidance and other relevant documents be updated?
5.13The CG notes the establishment of an IHO WWNWS guidance document CG and their work to date. Considerations for the new Arctic NAVAREAs, to include potential technical changes and modifications to graphics, will be part of the CG document update process. Members from the IMO, IHO, WMO and IMSO are all part of the WWNWS guidance document CG. It was agreed that further discussions concerning this matter would need to take place and be considered.
______
Appendix: 1
ETMSS-II/Doc. 3.1, 3.2, p. 1