IHO
Publication C-55
Third Edition (
2004)
Latest Update 27 September 2011
STATUS OF HYDROGRAPHIC
SURVEYING AND NAUTICAL CHARTING WORLDWIDE
The aim of this third edition of IHO Publication No. 55 (C-55) is to present a clear picture of the worldwide coverage of surveys and nautical charts and of the extent of effective organisations for the timely promulgation of navigational safety information. The content of the reports is now held in a live database on the IHO web site from which up to date reports can be extracted at any time. The data base covers the waters of 90% of the coastal states of the world.
Comparing the data in the first and second editions with that presented here, it is clear that significant progress has been made in some areas of great importance to international shipping and to the protection of coastal environments. This has resulted in the main from the firm requirements laid down by the IMO before ships’ routeing systems can be approved. There is also encouraging evidence of regional co-operation to provide modern coverage of maritime shipping routes.
However, in significant areas of the Caribbean Sea, the coastal waters of Africa, the Indian Ocean and adjacent seas, and the Western Pacific Ocean and adjacent seas, there has been little change, and it is here that capacity building efforts must be concentrated.
The IMO and IHO have identified the following key areas of concern arising from the information presented in the C-55 data base:
Major Skill Deficiencies:
Many governments have still to put in place an effective organisation for the promulgation of information of importance to safe navigation and the protection of the environment, either as navigational warnings or as inputs to those hydrographic offices with responsibility for charting.
Action is needed to implement the GMDSS in a number of areas, notably in Central America and the Caribbean, most of Africa, and the oceanic areas.
Many coastal states lack the capacity to plan and implement a prioritised survey programme, including top priority routine re-survey of unstable areas along shipping routes and in the approaches to ports.
Failure to apply IHO S-44 criteria in Marine Scientific Research and offshore industrial surveys leads to lost opportunity data for SOLAS charting purposes.
Major Regional Deficiencies:
Significant shortfalls in survey data which
were high-lighted in the first edition of C-55 continue to feature in the
analysis which follows. There are still large gaps athwart major
international shipping routes in the Indian Ocean, S China Sea, W Pacific
and adjacent waters. In the Caribbean, some coastal waters of Africa,
Australasia, Oceania and the Antarctic, modern surveys, metrication and
datum shift to WGS 84 are all urgent requirements in locations which are
now frequented by cruise liners.
The purpose of IHO Publication No.
55 (C-55) is to provide base data for governments and supporting
international organisations as they consider the best means by which to
implement responsibilities set out in Chapter V, Regulation 9, of the
Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) Convention. It also informs IHO input to the
United Nations’ Global Maritime Assessment.
Background
In 1970 the United Nations (UN)
began a process of evaluating the current status and progress of
hydrographic surveys and bathymetric charting worldwide. From the outset
regional cooperation was encouraged. The IHO was tasked to undertake
detailed study. This was informed by a series of questionnaires issued to
coastal states during the 1980s. Despite a disappointing response on each
occasion, an analysis was conducted and reports were published. The
sequence culminated in the production of the first edition of C-55
(S-55) (1991), which was also promulgated by the UN in Volume XXII of
World Cartography (ST/TCD/19 New York 1993). This was based on data for
46% of maritime nations and areas.
A second edition of C-55
(S-55) was issued by the IHO in 1998, based on information collected
in 1995-96. Again there were very significant gaps in the supporting
database. Information was available for only 47% of maritime nations and
areas.
Database for this Edition
The preparation of this 3rd Edition
has been overseen by the IHO Capacity Building Committee (IHOCBC), and the
Regional Hydrographic Commissions
(RHCs) have been involved throughout the process. The response level has
been greatly improved, and data is now available for 90% of the listed
nations and areas. The most significant gaps, where information is not
available for analysis, are in the regions of Central America, the
Mediterranean and Black Seas, some parts of the Indian Ocean and adjacent
seas, and the S China Sea and adjacent straits and seas.
The top
priority of the IHO is to identify, and to assist to prioritise,
requirements for cooperation and assistance which will improve
navigational safety and the protection of the marine environment by
progressing modern surveys and chart production. Therefore, the process of
information gathering for this edition has had a tauter focus on
identifying gaps in hydrographic data and its promulgation, rather than
seeking to quantify and compare the capacity of coastal states.
Nonetheless, the questionnaire which was circulated to coastal states
required confirmation of the information in the IHO Year-book on the
status of their national hydrographic organisation, and also invited
identification of requirements for assistance to develop their capability.
The C-55 data-base is a foundational tool for the ongoing work of the
IHOCBC.
Hydrography and Maritime Activities
The significance of hydrographic
effort to safe use of the sea, national economic prosperity, and
protection of the marine environment is elaborated in IHO Publication
M-2. That
publication identifies three core capabilities, the status of which is
assessed in the three sections of the C-55 data-base:
A.
Hydrographic Surveying.
B. Nautical Charting.
C.
Provision of Maritime Safety Information (MSI).
In this
edition, results are organised by International Charting Regions, as
defined in IHO publication S-4 Part A. The relevant diagram is reproduced
here. It shows how these limits are also used to delineate the RHCs.
Details of membership of RHCs are on
the IHO web-site. Some countries have sea areas in more than one
RHC. Initially their data was shown in this publication within the first
table embracing their national area. They have now been requested to
produce separate entries for each RHC area.
|
Related Regional Hydrographic Commissions |
Region |
Commissions hydrographiques régionales concernées |
|
(US/CHC)US/Canada Hydrographic Commission |
A |
(CHUSC) Commission hydrographique USA/Canada |
|
(MACHC) Meso American and Caribbean Hydrographic Commission |
B |
(CHMAC) Commission hydrographique meso américaine et des Caraïbes |
|
None |
C1 |
Aucune |
|
(SEPHC) South-East Pacific Hydrographic Commission |
C2 |
(CHPSE) Commission hydrographique du Pacifique sud-est |
|
(NHC) Nordic Hydrographic Commission(NSHC) North Sea Hydrographic Commission |
D |
(CHN) Commission hydrographique nordique (CHMN) Commission hydrographique de la mer du Nord |
|
(BSHC) Baltic Sea Hydrographic Commission |
E |
(CHMB) Commission hydrographique de la mer Baltique |
|
(MBSHC) Mediterranean and Black Seas Hydrographic Commission |
F |
(CHMMN) Commission hydrographique de la Méditerranée et de la mer Noire |
|
(EAtHC) Eastern Atlantic Hydrographic Commission |
G |
(CHAtO) Commission hydrographique de l’Atlantique oriental (CHAtO) |
|
(SAIHC) Southern African and Islands Hydrographic Commission |
H |
(CHAIA) Commission hydrographique de l’Afrique et des îles australes |
|
(RSAHC) ROPME Sea Area Hydrographic Commission |
I |
(CHZMR) Commission hydrographique de la zone maritime ROPME |
|
(NIOHC) North Indian Ocean Hydrographic Commission |
J |
(CHOIS) Commission hydrographique de l’Océan Indien septentrional |
|
(EAHC) East Asia Hydrographic Commission |
K |
(CHAO) Commission hydrographique de l’Asie orientale |
|
(SWPHC) South-West Pacific Hydrographic Commission |
L |
(CHPSO) Commission hydrographique du Pacifique sud-ouest |
|
(HCA) Hydrographic Commission on Antarctica |
M |
(CHA) Commission hydrographique sur l’Antarctique |
To assist states to undertake a systematic review of their hydrographic programmes and to identify clearly the major deficiencies in survey coverage, maritime activities are considered within three groupings:
| Maritime
Shipping Routes (MSRs). A number of RHCs have already taken
steps to focus co-operation in hydrographic survey and nautical
charting on improvement of coverage of MSRs that pass through their
waters. These MSRs are subdivided into 3
categories: a. international, i.e. routes between hub ports; b. regional, i.e. routes between hub ports and feeder ports; c. internal (including inland maritime areas) i.e. routes from feeder ports to other national ports. Ports and Approaches. There is increasing pressure for enhanced hydrographic data to permit adequate risk assessment for port usage, especially by deeper draught vessels. Marine Industry (Fisheries, Offshore Resources). Effort in this sector tends to be compartmentalised and valuable data is not shared with the wider maritime community. Scarce assets for charting surveys will tend to be focused in shallower sea areas, and there is a particular need to optimise collection and exploitation of passage soundings and of data from survey activity by other government research or commercial vessels in deeper waters. |
Analysis of the Status of Surveys
The categorisation in the reports is
underpinned by detailed national assessment using
S-44
criteria, the zones of confidence
(CATZOC) defined in
S-57, or some
other systematic classification of source data.
The entire extent
of navigable waters in each national area, out to the limits of the EEZ,
has been assessed. Whereas the First Edition of this publication published
a simple percentage of the entire EEZ, the Second Edition adopted 3 bands
(< 50m, < 200m and > 200m). This was too complex for most
countries to handle. For this edition, analysis was requested within and
outside the 200m contour.
There are some areas of significant
progress since the publication of the second edition of C-55. In a number
of regions a systematic approach has been taken to the identification and
prioritisation of hydrographic effort e.g. the Helsinki Communiqué
(HELCOM) fairway agreement in the Baltic Sea. Members of the organisation
for the protection of the environment of the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden
(PERSGA) have provided another example of concerted action to address a
major regional deficiency, and a new Traffic Separation Scheme (TSS) and
other recommended routeing measures are now in place in the N approaches
to the Strait of Bab el Mandeb. Planning is in hand, through the Marine
Electronic Highway project to address shortcomings in the Strait of
Malacca and S China Sea. The highway concept is also being applied in the
development of projects in other areas.
Major deficiencies:
Of the area deficiencies identified in the first edition, the following remain extant:
| On the W coast of
Africa: Some coastal waters of Western Sahara and Mauritania. Coastal waters off the Niger River delta. Coastal waters off Cabinda. The River Congo up to Matadi. On the E coast of
Africa: The inland lakes of Africa. Areas of the S China Sea and Java Sea. The Gulf of Papua. |
Mariners continue to report concern over the large areas of unsurveyed waters which are delineated on charts of the Persian Gulf.
The IMO has high-lighted concerns reported from the following areas:
| The S side of the Sicilian channel.
The Mozambique Channel. The straits and the partial system of archipelagic sea lanes in Indonesian archipelagic waters. The channels around Cuba and the Dominican Republic. |
The advent of deeper draught shipping has increased the urgency of national programmes to review and upgrade coverage which predates the deployment of sidescan sonar and multi-beam echo sounder (MBES). The increasing tendency of cruise liners to seek new routes, anchorages, and port calls, has high-lighted the need for more rigorous survey of areas which were originally explored in the nineteenth century. This is a major challenge for developing hydrographic services in the Caribbean, Indian Ocean and W Pacific areas. It also requires the continued commitment of those states which invest in survey programmes in the polar regions. New techniques such as LIDAR may assist progress in some sea areas, but they are expensive to deploy. Regional project co-ordination and cost-sharing should be fully exploited.
Many countries, both with long-established and with developing hydrographic capabilities, are responsible for safe access to ports in areas where the seabed is unstable. Routine re-survey programmes are essential in such areas. There is a real need for those states with expertise in managing such programmes to share their experience.
Renewed attention needs to be given to the disproving of vigias and to the positioning of remote islands, especially adjacent to the maritime shipping routes in the Pacific and adjacent seas.
To date, the IHO has not taken cognisance of
hydrography on rivers and inland waterways. However, there is clear
evidence within the RHCs of need for guidance and sharing of information.
To this end, states with significant inland waterways have been included
in this edition.
Analysis of the Status of Charting
The categorisation in the reports is underpinned by detailed national assessment against the criteria in S-4, S-57 and S-61. Coverage of INT charts is shown in S-11.
Major deficiencies:
Although coverage of both paper and electronic charts has increased, in many cases there has not been a concomitant improvement in the source data from which they are derived. The appearance of deeper draught shipping has also exposed the inadequacy of navigational products in many areas. This is apparent, for example, in the assessment of large-scale cover in the states of the W Pacific and Oceania.
Metrication programmes are underway in many areas e.g. in the UK coverage of islands in the Caribbean, but this rarely indicates the availability of significant modern surveys. Some charts have been withdrawn because of lack of data to enable their update e.g. the UK coverage of Lake Victoria in Africa.
The widespread use of GPS, the advent of ECDIS
and the introduction of AIS, lends great urgency to efforts to identify
datum transfers and to re-publish charts on WGS 84 datum. This requires
very close liaison between HOs and national land survey authorities. This
is particularly important in some parts of Europe, the Caribbean, Africa,
and the Pacific Ocean.
An organisation for the collection and circulation of nautical information is the vital first phase of hydrographic capability which all coastal states should seek to attain. Indeed, it informs subsequent prioritisation of surveys, and it ensures that charts remain accurate. For these reasons a summary of MSI status has been introduced with this Third Edition.
Sea Areas A1, A2 and A3
The analysis of MSI provision is based on sea areas A1 to A3 as defined by IMO in resolution A801(19). Click here for the description of these areas.
Major deficiencies:
Arrangements for communicating up to date information to chart-producing HOs in a timely manner remain deficient in many countries, especially in the Caribbean and Africa. The widespread lack of data on offshore installations is a matter of the greatest concern.
Practical steps are needed in many countries before the GMDSS can be considered to be fully implemented. In addition to the regions mentioned in the last paragraph, there are significant gaps in oceanic areas.
Co-ordination between different maritime agencies is poor in many developing countries, and is not helped by lack of awareness of hydrography within governments.
The top priority for IHO capacity building
effort must be to assist every coastal state to achieve the vital first
stage of hydrographic capacity, namely, the ability to collect, collate
and promulgate urgent navigational safety information in a timely manner.
This work is already underway in a number of the RHC areas through the
medium of expert visits and technical workshops.
Recommendations for the maintenance and use of C-55
Some specific reports from the C-55 data-base are available on the IHO web-site. There are also Data Input Questionnaire (English, French and Spanish) in Word format to enable states to submit updated information at any time.
The date of submission or latest update of information is shown in the heading of the Composite Report for each State and as a separate report "Update information". The IHB will use a Circular Letter to provide an annual reminder of the importance of update, and to encourage states to include update of C-55 in their hydrographic planning process. RHCs will also review the content of C-55 at each meeting.
The C-55 data-base will underpin IHO advice to the UN, IMO and other agencies. Some RHCs are already planning regional data-bases with more detailed layers of information. It is hoped that the systematic approach of C-55 will assist states with developing hydrographic services to put together a coherent national plan.
The data in C-55, together with the additional information provided by states on co-operation and requirements for assistance, will be used by the IHOCBC in the development of a prioritised action plan to implement measures to contribute to the safety of navigation and protection of the marine environment worldwide
TopRevised:janvier 17, 2013 .