CL 45-46-47/2019

IHO File No. S3/8151 & S3/6004 CIRCULAR LETTER 46/2019 25 September 2019 ADOPTION OF REVISION OF IHO RESOLUTION 2/2007, AS AMENDED References: A. Publication M-3, 2nd Edition 2010 - Updated to August 2018 - Resolutions of the IHO. B. IHO CL 32/2019 dated 27 June - Call for the approval of the revision of IHO Resolution 2/2007, as amended. Dear Hydrographer, 1. The approval of Member States on the revision of IHO Resolution 2/2007, as amended (see Reference A), was requested by Reference B. 2. The Secretariat would like to thank the following 46 Member States that replied to Reference B: Argentina, Australia, Bangladesh, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Cyprus, Ecuador, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Iceland, India, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Ireland, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Malaysia, Malta, Mauritius, Monaco, Mexico, Netherlands, Norway, Oman, Peru, Poland, Romania, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States (USA) and Venezuela. 3. All 46 Member States approved the proposed revision to IHO Resolution 2/2007, as amended. Five Member States offered comments in addition to their vote. These comments and the outcome of their review by the Chairs of the HSSC, IRCC and the Secretariat are provided in Annex B to this Circular Letter. 4. When Reference B was issued, there were 90 Member States of the IHO with three States suspended. In accordance with the provisions of the Convention on the IHO, the minimum number of affirmative votes required is 30. As a result, the revision to the IHO Resolution 2/2007, as amended, has been adopted. 5. The final text of the revised IHO Resolution 2/2007 is provided in Annex A and will be incorporated into a new Edition of the IHO Publication M-3 Resolutions of the IHO to be completed by the Secretariat in due course. On behalf of the Secretary-General Yours sincerely, Abri KAMPFER Director Annex A: Revised IHO Resolution 2/2007 as amended – Principles and Procedures for developing IHO standards and conducting changes (clean version only). Annex B: Member State’s responses to IHO CL 32/2019 and comments from the Chairs of the HSSC, IRCC and the Secretariat  Annex A Revised IHO Resolution 2/2007 as amended – IHO Programme 2 “Hydrographic Services and Standards” 2.1 – General PRINCIPLES AND PROCEDURES FOR IHO CL DEVELOPING IHO STANDARDS AND 2/2007 as amended A1.21 46/2019 CONDUCTING CHANGES -- 1. Scope 1.1 These principles and procedures are intended to be applied to all proposals for development of and changes to IHO technical standards and for new technical standardization work items that will require significant resources to resolve or will potentially impact on those who need to apply these standards. The principles and procedures set in place by means of this resolution for IHO technical standards are not intended be applied for IHO GIS services, publications, catalogues or supporting documentation of general or non-technical nature which form a separate group. 1.2 Any reference to “standards” in these principles and procedures follows the ISO/IEC definitions for standard and guide and may therefore also include some IHO “specifications” and “guidelines” as appropriate 1. IHO Product Specifications, including test data sets for validation checks, are considered to be standards. The list of IHO standards that must follow the principles and procedures described in this resolution is provided in the Appendixes. a. The list of those IHO standards that must be developed and maintained with the provision of an impact study, endorsement of the relevant Committee and endorsement by the Council if deemed appropriate by the Committee2, and the approval of Member States, is provided in Appendix 1. b. The list of those IHO standards that must be developed and maintained with endorsement of the relevant Committee and the approval of Member States, without the compulsory requirement for conduction of an impact study and not subject to the Council’s endorsement, is provided in Appendix 2. 2. Principles 2.1 Improvements to standards can only occur by change. However, significant change can lead to problems such as implementation issues by hydrographic offices, incompatibility between systems, high updating costs, market monopoly, dissatisfied users, or increased risks to safety of navigation. The following guiding principles have been developed to avoid these effects. 2.1.1 Before formal approval is granted when required, normally through Member States vote, any proposed changes to existing standards should be assessed from a technical, commercial and institutional perspective by the widest range of stakeholders, not limited to Member States, also taking into account any other relevant factors. 1 ISO/IEC Directives, Part 2 - Rules for the Structure and Drafting of International Standards defines a standard as … a document, established by consensus and approved by a recognized body, that provides for common and repeated use, rules, guidelines or characteristics for activities or their results, aimed at the achievement of the optimum degree of order in a given context. The ISO defines a guide as … a document giving orientation, advice or recommendations on non-normative matters relating to international standardization. 2 See HSSC and IRCC Terms of Reference and Rules of Procedure. 2.1.2 Where possible, assessment of the proposed changes should involve all stakeholders, not only IHO Member States, but all relevant parties such as international organisations, maritime administrations, equipment manufacturers, data distributors, industry, users and other professional organisations. 2.1.3 As far as practicable, any change to standards or systems should be “backwards compatible”, or the previous edition must enjoy continued support for a specified transition time. 2.1.4 If standard changes are required for functional improvement rather than initiated by a compelling and urgent need to maintain safety of navigation, then the previously approved edition must be allowed to continue to be used for a transition phase, taking the limited accessibility of seaborne equipment into account where applicable. 2.1.5 If not already specified by an external or higher IHO authority, the transition timeline should be defined as part of the standard change approval process by the proposer. 2.1.6 In exceptional cases (for example, those affecting safety of navigation), it may be necessary to make recommendations for immediate change to standards and systems to the relevant authorities. This may be achieved through shortening the normal time frames for submission and consideration of proposals for changes, including endorsement and approval. However, such a procedure should be understood as the last resort in urgent cases. 2.1.7 The principles of a recognized project management system for all procedural steps of a conducted standard change should be agreed between interested parties beforehand. 2.1.8 All interested parties should be encouraged to continuously improve IHO standards. Constructive feedback should therefore be provided for all proposals – even in cases of rejection. 3. Procedures - General 3.1 Standardised procedures help to ensure that any proposed changes to IHO standards are properly developed, assessed, endorsed, approved and implemented. These procedures should remain simple to encourage their use. 3.1.1 Changes to IHO standards are classified at one of three different categories: new edition, revision, or clarification (see paragraph. 4.1). The development, assessment, approval and implementation process differs for each category, ranging from a very comprehensive regime for new editions, to approval at the level of a subordinate body for clarifications. New editions and revisions are considered to be “significant changes” for the purposes of assessment, approval and implementation. 3.1.2 The relevant IHO Committee or delegated Working Group should consider all proposals to develop new editions and revisions to standards before work commences. - For those standards listed in Appendix 1, the Committee should always consider the impact on relevant stakeholders when assessing a proposal and planning any subsequent work on standard changes; likewise, the Committee should assess the impact on other IHO standards or guidance, especially for interoperability, data/product quality and portrayal. Appendix 3 of this Resolution provides details on the impact study conduction. This assessment should systematically include a risk and feasibility analysis, and an estimate of the resources required for the development and the implementation of a new or revised standard, including but not limited to Member States Hydrographic Services. - If a proposed standard change is rejected by the Committee, detailed feedback should be provided to the proposal originator giving the reasons for rejection. 3.1.3 After the Committee has endorsed a proposal for standard change and established a work priority, the IHO Secretariat will incorporate the respective task into the relevant work programmes. 3.1.4 Relevant stakeholders should be notified by the appropriate IHO committees, working groups and project teams and/or the IHO Secretariat of the timetable for new standardization work items and be invited to comment and participate as appropriate. The notification should include a summary forecast of: - the rational of the standard change, - the potential scope of changes of the standards, - the standard documentation affected, - the anticipated effects and the likely resulting actions for relevant stakeholders, - the planned timetable for implementation, and - the proposed effective date of the new or revised standard. 3.1.5 The IHO Secretariat should maintain an online register of IHO stakeholders. The register should be used to inform and seek input from stakeholders concerning any proposed changes to IHO standards. 3.1.6 The relevant subordinate bodies should provide the Committee with progress reports on a regular basis in accordance with their management plan and after each milestone during the development and testing phases. These should be made available to stakeholders by the IHO Secretariat (and/or relevant working groups and project teams if agreed). The Committees have the authority to approve the Edition 1.0.0 of all new standards requiring a subsequent development phase before implementation (see paragraph 4.1) and to endorse the following Editions before they are submitted for the approval of Member States. 3.1.7 After endorsement by the Committee or the Council, if applicable, the new or changed standard should be submitted to Member States by the IHO Secretariat for approval of the content, and confirmation of the “effective date”. This is not applicable for new standards in the development (implementation and testing) phase (see paragraph 4.1). 3.1.8 At the “effective date”, the new or changed standard becomes the effective standard. A “superseded” standard should normally remain available concurrently with the revised standard for a suitable transition period. 3.1.9 Subject to endorsement by the Committee, and the Council if applicable 2, followed by the approval of the Member States, a superseded standard must be withdrawn from the list of standards in force after the transition period. 3.1.10 Subordinate bodies may assess and request the IHO Secretariat to publish clarifications to standards and associated references, subject to seeking input from relevant stakeholders if appropriate. These clarifications are reported to the relevant committees at their annual meeting. 4. Procedures - Specific 4.1 First Editions, New Editions, Revisions and Clarifications First Edition (WG/PT Development Phase) A Working Group must make a submission to the Committee if the standard was developed by a subordinate Project Team – if the Project Team (PT) was established directly under the Committee then the PT would submit directly to the Committee – for approval of Edition 1.0.0 to be released and published for initial implementation, testing and evaluation and further stakeholder review. Such Edition 1.0.0 is not designed for regular use in approved arrangements or for provision of operational services by purpose. The first Edition aiming to be released and published for the implementation phase of operational services is Edition 2.0.0 (See paragraph 4.3). For the maturation process from Edition 1.0.0 to Edition 2.0.0 the Working Group (WG) has the authority to issue iterative Edition(s) 1.n.n3 – for clarifications and revisions that may have arisen during the initial implementation, testing and evaluation phase. The changes should be traceable either via a formal comment procedure or through an official proposal mechanism. When the WG/PT has completed an impact assessment and obtained stakeholder feedback and considers that the standard is mature to become an Edition 2.0.0, it must submit the standard to the Committee for endorsement. The Committee may submit the standard to the Council for endorsement, if applicable2, before the New Edition is submitted to Member States by the IHO Secretariat for approval of the content, and confirmation of the “effective date” of implementation. New Edition New Editions of standards introduce significant changes. New Editions enable new concepts, such as the ability to support new functions or applications, or the introduction of new constructs or data types, to be introduced. New Editions are likely to have a significant impact on either existing users or future users of the revised standard. It follows that a full consultative process that provides an opportunity for input from as many stakeholders as possible is required for standards listed in Appendix 1, optional for those listed in Appendix 2. Proposed changes to a standard should be evaluated and tested wherever practicable. The approval of Member States is required before any New Edition of a standard can enter into force. All cumulative clarifications and revisions must be included with the release of an approved New Edition of a standard. Revision Revisions are defined as substantive changes to a standard. Typically, revisions change existing specifications to correct factual errors; introduce necessary changes that have become evident as a result of practical experience or changing circumstances; or add new specifications within an existing section. Revisions could have an impact on either existing users or future users of a revised standard. It follows that a full consultative process that provides an opportunity for input from as many stakeholders as possible is required for standards listed in Appendix 1, optional for those listed in Appendix 2. Proposed changes to a standard should be evaluated and tested wherever practicable. The approval of Member States is required before any revisions to a standard can enter into force. All cumulative clarifications must be included with the release of approved corrections revisions. However, there may be instances where more urgent action is required, especially where there are serious implications to safety of navigation. In such cases, a “fast-track” approval by correspondence and rapid implementation process may be needed. This should only occur in exceptional circumstances, but any such fast- tracked revisions will still require the approval of Member States before they can enter into force. A revision shall not be classified as a clarification in order to bypass the appropriate consultation processes. Clarification Clarifications are non-substantive changes to a standard. Typically, clarifications: remove ambiguity; correct grammatical and spelling errors; amend or update cross references; insert improved graphics in spelling, punctuation and grammar. A clarification must not cause any substantive semantic change to a standard. Clarifications are the responsibility of the relevant subordinate body and may be delegated to the responsible editor. 4.2 The associated version control numbering to identify changes (n) to all IHO standards should be as follows: New Editions denoted as n.0.0 Revisions denoted as n.n.0 Clarifications denoted as n.n.n 3 “n » is not limited to 9. 4.3 The following diagrams illustrate the development, consultation and approval processes for IHO standards: The typical life cycle of an IHO standard incorporating a Development Phase: Diagram –Changes to IHO Standards – General Case Change proposal for an IHO Relevant Subordinate Body Standard (SB) or Committee (as appropriate) Will change be a clarification, revision or New Edition? Clarification Revision New Edition External stakeholders invited to comment as appropriate External stakeholders invited to comment as appropriate (required for standards in Appendix 1) Relevant SB review Decide if clarification is required Relevant SB review Expert contributors review and Decide if a revision comment or new edition is required SB develop changes Committee approve work item (with advice from other SBs as needed) SB develop and test/evaluate changes Expert contributors review and comment External stakeholders SB review, confirm change is a review & comment (required for clarification, and approve standards in Appendix 1) clarification External stakeholders review & comment SB complete changes and Revision or recommend to Committee New Edition Clarification, Revision or Committee and if applicable Council New Edition ? consider impact of proposal and recommend to MS Re MS adopt change Clarification MS adopt change The IHO Secretariat publish Clarifications in an updated version (Edition n.n.n) The IHO Secretariat publish and publicize a New Edition (also incorporating and superseding any extant clarifications and The IHO Secretariat publish and publicize a revisions) (Edition n.0.0) revised Edition (also incorporating and superseding any extant clarifications) (Edition n.n.0)  APPENDIX 1 IHO standards that are subject to the approval process as described in paragraph 1.2.a. Relevant Number Name maintenance body B-12 Guidance on Crowdsourced Bathymetry CSBWG Standards of Competence for Category "A" Hydrographic S-5A IBSC Surveyors Standards of Competence for Category "B" Hydrographic S-5B IBSC Surveyors Standards of Competence for Category "A" Nautical S-8A IBSC Cartographers Standards of Competence for Category "B" Nautical S-8B IBSC Cartographers Informal Consultation S-23 Limits of Oceans and Seas when/if required S-44 IHO Standards for Hydrographic Surveys WG/PT when/if required Specifications for Chart Content and Display Aspects of S-52 ENCWG ECDIS S-52 Annex A IHO ECDIS Presentation Library ENCWG S-52 Appendix 1 Guidance on Updating the ENC WG/PT when/if required S-57 IHO Transfer Standard for Digital Hydrographic Data ENCWG S-57 Appendix B.1 ENC Product Specification ENCWG ENCWG S-57 Appendix B.1 Use of the Object Catalogue for ENC Annex A S-57 ENCWG Supplementary Information for the encoding of S-57 Edition Supplementary 3.1 ENC Data Information N°3 S-58 Recommended ENC Validation Checks ENCWG S-61 Product Specifications for Raster Navigational Charts (RNC) ENCWG S-63 IHO Data Protection Scheme ENCWG/S-100WG S-98 Interoperability Specification for Navigation Systems S-100WG Operational Procedures for the Organization and Management S-99 S-100WG of the S-100 IHO Geospatial Information Registry S-1nn S-100 based IHO Product Specifications Ad hoc WGs and PTs (when adopted)  APPENDIX 2 IHO standards that are subject to the approval process as described in paragraph 1.2.b. Relevant Number Name maintenance body Standardization of Undersea Feature Names (Guidelines B-6 SCUFN Proposal Form Terminology ) B-12 Guidance on Crowdsourced Bathymetry CSBWG S-4 Regulations for INT Charts and IHO Chart Specifications NCWG Guidance for the Preparation and Maintenance of INT Chart S-11 Part A NCWG and ENC schemes S-12 Standardization of List of Lights and Fog Signals NIPWG S-32 ⁎⁎ Hydrographic Dictionary HDWG S-32 Appendix 1 Glossary of ECDIS-Related Terms HDWG S-44 IHO Standards for Hydrographic Surveys WG/PT when/if required S-49 Standardization of Mariners' Routeing Guides NIPWG Users Handbook on Datum Transformations involving WGS S-60 WG when/if required 84 S-61 Product Specifications for Raster Navigational Charts (RNC) ENCWG S-62 ** List of Data Producer Codes ENCWG S-66 Facts about Electronic Charting and Carriage Requirements ENCWG Mariners’ Guide to Accuracy of Depth Information in S-67 DQWG Electronic Navigational Charts (ENC) S-97 Product Specification Guide Book S-100WG S-100 IHO Universal Hydrographic Data Model S-100 Spatial Data Infrastructures: “The Marine Dimension” - C-17 MSDIWG Guidance For Hydrographic Offices A Manual on Technical Aspects of The United Nations C-51 ABLOS Convention on the Law of The Sea - 1982 ⁎⁎ Follows IHO GI Registry for updating  APPENDIX 3 Guidance on Conduction of an Impact Study Description of the purpose of the study (testable hypotheses) An impact study plan should include the general description of the impact assessment and a plan to conduct the study. The general description should specify a set of hypotheses about the outcomes and impacts of the study. The impact should consider all the outcomes, also the updating process of existing data. There are three distinct levels of potential impact that a change to the standard might have:  Does the new version of a standard impact on the market and business procedures?  Does the new version of a standard impact on producing offices/agencies/institutions?  Does the new version of a standard impact on the stakeholders? Specification of the result assessment methods The intended assessment method should be proposed by the WG for HSSC/IRCC endorsement before the survey is initiated. This ensures that the assessed results are transparent and that misinterpretations will be prevented. Identification of a minimum of measurable indicators Measurable indicators should be defined that can be used to determine potential impacts to the community. The results of the survey questionnaire will populate the indicators. The impact study shall take into consideration the following minimum set of subject items:  Impact on software development;  Impact on equipment development;  Impact on data distributors;  Cost/effectiveness of the implementation;  Readiness of implementation. Suitability of impact study questions The success of a survey depends on the questions asked. Thus, the set of the survey questions has to be checked to determine whether they are useful for this purpose. This check should be conducted by professional survey experts. Identification of potential stakeholders An impact study should be done in two parts. The first part should be the feasibility study and conducted before the development starts. This study should address the feasibility of the intended Product Specification. The second part is an impact study should be initiated before the release and should address the potential users. The audience of both studies can be different. The first study should approach the interested parties, whereas the latter should approach software developers, OEMs and Member States. A list of potential stakeholders is being maintained by the IHO Secretariat and should be available. The initiator of the impact study should select those stakeholders on which the intended new Standard has significant impact. It is recommended to approach the following stakeholders:  IHO Member States,   International organizations,  Software developers,  Equipment manufacturers,  RENCs,  Product/data distributers,  End users (hydrographic community),  End users (marine community) Identification of appropriate survey tools and methods Professional online tools should be used for the survey. Stakeholders should be approached by e-mail. The survey should be conducted under the supervision of the initiating Organisation or IHO Working Group. To assist stakeholders who are uncertain about specific survey questions, the initiating Organisation should provide point of contact information for the survey duration. Specification of the survey duration The survey time should be limited to 3 months as the maximum duration. Specification of requested actions and dissemination of the findings The findings of the impact study should be summarized and the findings should be made public on the IHO website. The in-depth analyses should be conducted by the initiating Organisation and be supervised by the IHO Secretariat. This ensures that the analytic capacity is available and that the results will be compiled correctly. The raw data should be stored for backward research and for transparency in a repository hosted by the IHO Secretariat. The cleaned data should be provided in tables, diagrams or other appropriate formats. The final report and the outcome of the study should be forwarded to the IHO Secretariat and should be publicly available on the IHO website at an appropriate place. This will ensure the further use of the study results.  Annex B MEMBER STATES’ RESPONSES TO IHO CL 32/2019 AND COMMENTS FROM THE CHAIRS OF THE HSSC, IRCC AND THE IHO SECRETARIAT ADOPTION OF REVISION OF IHO RESOLUTION 2/2007, AS AMENDED Canada (Vote = YES) CA approves the proposed revised version of IHO Resolution 2/2007 with one comment. It is noted that in the clean version sent with the CL, that S-61 appears in the lists in both Appendix 1 and 2. From the discussion at HSSC11 it was understood by CA that this duplication would be removed. Please clarify. Comments from HSSC/IRCC Chairs and Secretariat: Agree. See comment made in response to Chile. Chile (Vote = YES) – Original comment in Spanish 1. The paragraphs 2 and 4 [of the IHO CL 32/2019] are non consistent. In fact, paragraph 2 reads: “the versions currently in force are now duly recognized and have been approved at the level of HSSC / IRCC and of the Council ". While paragraph 4 says:" ... taking into account the approval of the changes in principle by the Council.” Therefore, it is not clear whether the Council approved or not the Resolution. This must be specified. Comments from HSSC/IRCC Chairs and Secretariat: The approval of the revised Resolution is the priviledge of Member States, not of the Council. As indicated in the References of the IHO CL 32/2019, the Council at its 2nd meeting endorsed the reasons, the rationale of the changes to be made to the Resolution and the general principles and tasked the HSSC/IRCC to implement them in the most efficient way. These changes, in line with the endorsement of the Council, were discussed, prepared and consolidated in the appropriate working groups and finally endorsed at the 11th meetings of HSSC and IRCC. For efficiency purposes, it was then followed by IHO CL 32/2019. 2. B-12 Guidance on crowd-sourced bathymetry must be moved from Appendix 1 to Appendix 2. The content and purpose of this publication does not require an impact study when it will be amended. This publication is only a "Guidance". Comments from HSSC/IRCC Chairs and Secretariat: Agreed. 3. S-44 IHO Standards for Hydrographic Surveys must be moved from Appendix 2 to Appendix 1. It is necessary to conduct an impact study when this publication, which constitutes a "Standard" will be amended. Comments from HSSC/IRCC Chairs and Secretariat: Agreed.  4. S-61 Product Specifications for Raster Navigational Charts (RNC) must appear either in Appendix 1 or in Appendix as it currently appears in both. It is suggested to leave it in 2 since the existence of raster charts should be decreasing to the extent that the ENCs covering the same area are available. Comments from HSSC/IRCC Chairs and Secretariat: Agreed for the reasons given by Chile. Same issue raised by Canada, Colombia and Russian Federation. Colombia (Vote = YES) – Original comment in Spanish Colombia supports the revised version. However, there are the following concerns: Why the S-61 is in both Appendixes? And under which Appendix the amendments to the publications S-53, S-62, S-64 and S-65 will be made? Comments from HSSC/IRCC Chairs and Secretariat: Agreed for S-61 See comment made in response to Chile. For S-53, Decisions 13 and 14 from IRCC-7 are reported below for ease convenience. - IRCC7/13: the IRCC endorsed the proposed procedure for the maintenance of the IHO Publication S-53 which is to place the relevant annex to MSC.1/Circ.1310/Rev.1 under the cover of IHO S-53 and its Preface - IRCC7/14: the IRCC endorsed the proposal described in doc IRCC7-08B2, to submit proposed revised texts to MSI documents directly to IMO by the IHB due to the tight timeline for submission to the IMO. In other words, S-53 is “owned” by the IMO and the maintenace process is under its remit. For S-62: Agreed. It has been added with a footnote identical to the one used for S-32 as this publication will soon being incorporated, managed and maintained through the IHO GI Registry. S-64 and S-65 were removed from the lists during the review process of the Resolution following the proposals made by the ENCWG, considering that they can be maintained, principally for clarifications, directly under their responsibility. As it is the case for other non- listed Standards and Publications, new Editions will be submitted to the approval of Member States after endorsement by the relevant Committees. Republic of Korea (Vote = YES) We propose to add "after the transition period" at the end of paragraph 3.1.9. This is because previous versions of S-100 of which other product specifications are based on could remain effective at the same time until they go through transition to the updated version of S-100. The proposed addition intends to clarify the withdrawal of superseded standards after the transition is completed. Comments from HSSC/IRCC Chairs and Secretariat: Agreed as it provides a useful clarification and remains consistent with paragraph 3.1.8. Russian Federation (Vote = YES) Please take notice that the IHO Publication S-61 - Product Specifications for RNC- is included both in Appendices 1 and 2 to the proposed revised version of the IHO Resolution 2/2007. We propose the deletion of the S-61 from Appendix 2 Comments from HSSC/IRCC Chairs and Secretariat: Noted. See comment made for S-61 in response to Chile. CIRCULAR LETTER 47/2019 25 September 2019 IHO File No. S3/3055 ACCEPTANCE OF CROWDSOURCED BATHYMETRY ACTIVITIES IN NATIONAL WATERS OF JURISDICTION References: A. CL 11/2019 dated 25 January – Call for approval of Edition 2.0.0 of IHO Publication B-12 B. CL 28/2019 dated 13 June – Adoption of Edition 2.0.0 of IHO Publication B-12; Dear Hydrographer, 1. The call for approval of the Edition 2.0.0 of IHO Publication B-12 – IHO Guidance on Crowdsourced Bathymetry (Reference A) included a template form seeking Member States acceptance of crowdsourced bathymetry activities in their respective national waters of jurisdiction including any caveats they wish to apply. (Annex B of Reference A). 2. Reference B announced the adoption of Edition 2.0.0 of IHO Publication B-12 – IHO Guidance on Crowdsourced Bathymetry. This Circular Letter provides details of the analysis of the comments received from Member States whether they support the activity within their waters of national jurisdiction. This input forms the basis for the subject of this Circular Letter. 3. The Secretariat of the IHO thanks the 34 Member States that replied to Annex B of Reference A. Most of the Member States confirmed that systematic bathymetric survey for the exploration of the marine environment are regulated by their national laws in accordance with United Convention on Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). However, this should not be confused with the occasional recordings made by carriage-required depth sounding equipment by ships en route to maintain their safety of navigation. Member States’ responses indicated a general understanding that these recorded datasets have a value and are worth to notify to the affected Hydrographic Office - in particular if there is any significant variance from the published charted information. Altogether 14 Member States indicated their positive support of Crowdsourced Bathymetry (CSB) activities in their waters of national jurisdiction with the caveats shown in the table in Annex A. The Secretariat will publish and maintain the content of this table as the Positive List on the IHO website in relation to the presentation of the Crowdsourced Bathymetry theme. 4. As indicated in Reference B, expressions of support and subsequent adoption to the Positive List can be submitted to the Secretary-General at any time in the future. In this respect, it is planned that the Secretary-General will call for updates of the position of Member States regarding CSB activities in national waters of jurisdiction at intervals via Circular Letter. 5. Yours sincerely, Dr Mathias JONAS Secretary-General Annex A: Summary analysis of positive responses to Annex-B of IHO CL 11/2019 for publication on the IHO website. Copy: Chair, Crowd Sourced Bathymetry Working Group  Annex A to IHO CL 47/2019 Summary analysis of positive responses 1. Based on the comments received to the questionnaire in Annex B to IHO CL 11/2019, the following table will be published as the Positive List to guide potential data gathering activities undertaken by the wider maritime community in waters of national jurisdiction: Member Area Specific actions required State Argentina EEZ only Provide copy of dataset to Hydrographic Office Brazil EEZ only Provide copy of dataset to Hydrographic Office Cyprus All waters Provide copy of dataset to Hydrographic Office Denmark All waters Inform Hydrographic Office of any variance with published chart Georgia All waters Provide copy of dataset to Hydrographic Office Germany All waters Inform Hydrographic Office of new dataset Monaco All waters Provide copy of dataset to Hydrographic Office Netherlands All waters Inform Hydrographic Office of new dataset New Zealand All waters Inform Hydrographic Office of new dataset Norway All waters – no multibeam Inform Hydrographic Office of new activity without prior dataset permission Philippines Shipping routes and transit None passages only South Africa EEZ only Provide copy of dataset to Hydrographic Office Sweden EEZ only Inform Hydrographic Office of new dataset USA All waters None 2. Under normal circumstances, whether there is a requirement to inform the relevant Hydrographic Office of new data or to provide a copy of the dataset, this will be undertaken by the Trusted Node to which the dataset has been submitted. The IHO Data Centre for Digital Bathymetry (DCDB) will store the dataset until such time as the appropriate authorizations have been received for placing it into the public domain. 3. Under all circumstances, and in line with current practices, any variations, errors or additions to the information published on official charts or in the associated nautical publications should be brought to the attention of the relevant Hydrographic Office by the quickest means available. The continued use of the known A-1 Hydrographic Notes procedure as the method of forwarding information is encouraged. 4. Mariners are requested to provide comments and feedback, for consideration for inclusion in the next edition, on their operational experiences of using IHO publication B-12 – IHO Guidance on Crowdsourced Bathymetry – to the IHO Secretariat ([email protected]). A-2 IHO Files No. S3/0104 CIRCULAR LETTER 45/2019 25 September 2019 OUTCOME OF THE 11TH MEETING OF THE INTER-REGIONAL COORDINATION COMMITTEE (IRCC11) Reference: IHO CL 10/2019 dated 25 January – 17th Meeting of the Capacity Building Sub‐ Committee (CBSC17) Genoa, Italy, 29-31 May 2019 and 11th Meeting of the Inter‐ Regional Coordination Committee (IRCC11), Genoa, Italy 3-5 June 2019. Dear Hydrographer, 1. In accordance with the Reference, the 11th meeting of the IHO Inter-Regional Coordination Committee (IRCC11) took place in Genoa, Italy from 3 to 5 June 2019, hosted by the Italian Hydrographic Institute. The meeting was chaired by Dr Parry Oei (Singapore) and attended by the Chairs or representatives of 14 of the 15 Regional Hydrographic Commissions (RHCs), subordinate bodies of the IRCC and 21 observers. A total of 47 participants from 24 countries were present. 2. The minutes of IRCC11, together with the list of decisions, actions and recommendations to RHCs arising from the meeting and their current status, and the IRCC work programme for 2019- 2020 are now available from the IRCC section of the IHO website (www.iho.int/IRCC > IRCC11). Next meeting 3. The 12th meeting of IRCC (IRCC12) will be held from 8 to 10 June 2020 in Gdansk, Poland. Representatives of Member States who may require a visa are advised to submit their applications well in advance. IRCC12 will be preceded by the 18th meeting of the Capacity Building Sub- Committee (CBSC18) from 3 to 5 June 2019 which will also be held in Gdansk. On behalf of the Secretary-General Yours sincerely, Mustafa IPTES Director Saatja: CL-LC <[email protected]> Saadetud: 26.09.2019 17:20 Adressaat: INFO <[email protected]> Teema: CL 45-46-47/2019 Manused: mkdoekkphpjnkjkh.png; CL45_2019_EN_v1.pdf; CL46_2019_EN_v1.pdf; CL47_2019_EN_v1.pdf Dear Hydrographer, Please find attached herewith : - CL 45/2019 : OUTCOME OF THE 11TH MEETING OF THE INTER-REGIONAL COORDINATION COMMITTEE (IRCC11). - CL 46/2019: ADOPTION OF REVISION OF IHO RESOLUTION 2/2007, AS AMENDED. - CL 47/2019: ACCEPTANCE OF CROWDSOURCED BATHYMETRY ACTIVITIES IN NATIONAL WATERS OF JURISDICTION. Kind regards