and
Peter WYBROW
PLW Associates
Currie House, Herbert Walker Avenue, Southampton, SO15 1HJ
In recent times there has been an increasing interest the impact of shipping and ports on the marine environment. Paradoxically, while shipping and Ports are seen as contributing to pollution, the industry is also seen as an environmentally acceptable form of transport, particularly when compared to road and air.
Environmental legislation, for ships and ports, at the local, regional, national and international level is set to increase in the next ten years. An awareness of this legislation and the environmental issues should have a higher profile in maritime education and training.
This paper will outline:
· current environmental issues associated with shipping e.g. antifouling
· environmental and socio-economic impacts of the issues, and
· important environmental legislation as it affects shipping
Shipping
and Port operations exert pressures on the marine environment.
1. Introduction
Shipping
and Port operations exert pressures on the marine environment. Shipping is seen
by some as a contributor to marine pollution. In 1990, while being
non-specific, marine transport is estimated to contribute some 12% of marine
pollutants. Land based inputs were estimated as making the largest
contribution. Others see marine transport as being the most environmentally
acceptable mode of transport, particularly when compared to road and air
(GESAMP, 1990).
Shipping safety and marine pollution are inextricably linked and in addition to legislation regarding ship safety, environmental legislation, for ships and ports, at the local, regional, national and international level is set to increase in the next ten years. An awareness of this legislation and the environmental issues should have a higher profile in maritime education and training.
Shipping and port activities can impact on the marine environment in two main ways:
§
Accidental impacts: -
e.g. oil spill resulting from collision or grounding/stranding, loss of deck
cargo. The incidents tend to be unique and can be only anticipated by scenario
setting. Legislation can help to minimise risk and mitigation of the effects of
the accident can only be approached from a “toolbox” perspective
§
Operational impacts e.g.
toxic effect of antifouling paints, discharge of Sox and Nox emissions. The
impacts, from ship and port operations, generally tend to be chronic and are
often controlled by legislation. Mitigation of effects of operational impacts
can be planned and controlled.
2.1 Accidental Risks
Marine
accidents, groundings or strandings may result in localised damage and
disturbance to the seabed, but may also lead to loss of:
2.1.1 Oil, either as
cargo or bunkering fuel, or Hazardous
cargo, including noxious liquid substances and harmful substances carried
by sea in packaged form e.g. pesticides, liquefied gas. The effects will be
unique to the situation but the fuel or cargo will have a wide range of toxic
or physical effects on marine habitats. The main impacts of both oil and
chemical spills are either physical, e.g. smothering by crude oil, or, toxic, e.g.
lethal effects of spilt oil or chemicals. It is thought that Birds, molluscs
and fish eggs and larvae are particularly at risk from accidental spills.
GESAMP
data, collected between 1973 and 1981, suggests that 400-300 thousand tonnes of
oil entered the world’s oceans by tanker accidents during that period (GESAMP,
1993).
2.1.2 Collision with marine mammals - While not common, collisions do occur and are
particularly associated with high-speed craft. Also propeller injuries have
been reported on marine mammals.
2.2 Operational
Risks
2.2.1 Operational oil spills cargo and
bunkering fuel – Operational spills
are usually small but repetitive. The effects of these spills are chronic and
localised. Impacts on marine habitats, include, physical disturbance, toxic to
sensitive species and organic enrichment of the sediments. Annual operational
spills of oil (in tonnes) have been estimated as:-
Non-tanker accidents – 750-200
Operational discharge 1080-600
Representing
the second largest input of oil into the marine environment (GESAMP, 1993).
2.2.2 Emissions -Sox, Nox, CFC’s and VOCs are all regarded as
contributing to atmospheric pollution leading to global warming, poor air
quality and acid rain. The input of Sulphur and Nitrogen Oxide by shipping is
small in global terms. However in regions with a large volume of shipping
traffic; there maybe significant regional problems (ImarE, 1996).
2.2.3 Antifouling toxins – The biocides e.g. TBT, Triazines, in some antifouling
coatings can leach into the surrounding water and accumulate in benthic
organisms and sediments. These
biocides, by their nature, are harmful to a range of marine organisms. The
nature of the toxicity is chronic and can effect such functions as morphology,
growth and reproduction of a range of marine species.
2.2.4 Discharge of ballast water and
associated non-native species – The
introduction of non-native species via the discharge of ballast water is well
documented. These species can be
detrimental to local species through competition for space or nutrients or they
can be toxic and affect local fisheries.
2.2.5 Noise - Some evidence that vessel noise can disturb marine
mammals and fish. There is particular concern over cetaceans that may
experience disturbance to feeding and breeding. Cargo handling noise may also
disturb mammals e.g. seals and waterfowl.
2.2.6 Ship and boat wash – Ship wash may result in erosion of intertidal and
shallow water habitats. The resuspension of sediment may also lead to
resuspension of toxins in the sediment. Currently there is great concern
regarding the impact wash generated
by fast-craft.
2.2.7 Waste disposal at sea/ in port – Marine mammals and birds can swallow or become
entangled in plastic litter form ships, often leading to fatalities. Distinguishing between ship or land garbage
is difficult.
Beachwatch
96 (UK) estimated that shipping generated some 17.4% of the total debris
collected on UK beaches.
2.2.8 Dredging and disposal of spoil –Maintenance and capital dredging disturbs the seabed
leading to damage of benthic ecosystems (physical and smothering by sediment),
increased levels of suspended sediments and attendant pollutants/nutrients in
the water column. In addition, the disposal of dredge spoil can also damage
other benthic communities by smothering and/or increasing the uptake of
contaminants or nutrients by being
resuspended into the water column from the dredged sediment (ABP, 1999, ANON,
1998, De Jong, 1997, GESAMP, 1990, ICS, 1993).
3.1 Socio-economic impacts
In addition to the direct biological, ecological and environmental impacts of shipping, there are indirect impacts on the economics and sociology of maritime regions. These are generally less obvious than the direct impacts. However there is evidence emerging that the general public are becoming more aware of the issues. A study carried out by the European Commission in 1999 (ESPO, 2001) based on the views of representative samples of the population in each of the 15 member states threw light on the attitudes of the general public towards the environment. It found that :
·
8 out of 10 Europeans
believe they live on ‘a planet in danger’;
·
5 out of 10 believe that
it is necessary to ‘fundamentally change our way of life and development if we
want to halt the deterioration of the environment’ and that ‘making regulations
stricter’ is the best means of delivering this change.
But
·
8 out of 10 believe that
an environmental protection policy must take into account ‘social and economic
effects’.
It
also found that industry spokespersons are the least trusted on matters of the
environment (environmental protection organizations are the most trusted).
3.1.1 Sustainability
The International Year of the Oceans in 1998 focussed attention on the need for sustainable management of the ocean resources. Much attention has been placed on the sustainability of marine ecosystems, particularly coastal areas. The increasing exploitation of the coast continues on a global scale and the need for the sustainable development of human activities becomes increasing important in Europe as well as the rest of the world. Shipping represents one of the human activities that exert a pressure on the coastal marine environment. Paradoxically, while shipping is seen by some as a contributor to marine pollution, in other areas it is seen as being the most environmentally acceptable mode of transport. The many global Short Sea Shipping initiatives recognise this fact.
3.1.2 Socio-economic impact assessment
The assessment of socio-economic impact of shipping is multifaceted and not easy to assess. The interests of maritime regions that could be affected by shipping are:
Ports, harbours and marinas
Health of residents and visitors to maritime cities
and environs
Fisheries
Shellfish beds
Tourism
Nature reserves,
All
of the above have a high socio-economic value to maritime regions. Ironically,
tourism, ports, harbours and marinas are not only impacted by shipping
operations, but may themselves contribute to socio-economic impacts (Tait &
Dipper, 1998, Viles & Spencer, 1995).
3.2 The main activities associated with
shipping that are known to have a socio-economic impact.
3.2.1 Oil Spills - Operational or accidental spills of oil or other
hazardous cargo can affect all the named sensitive areas, the previously
discussed physical and toxic affects can affect the regions fisheries, by
smothering shellfish beds and its toxic nature to fish eggs and fry. In
addition, the tainting of fish and shellfish flesh by oil is known to impact on
fish sales, following an oil spill. Fishing grounds and shellfish beds maybe
come subject to closure orders. This will have a direct affect on the fisheries
economics of the area.
The
physical affects of an oil slick will impact directly on the nature reserves
and indirectly on tourism, resulting in a loss of tourism income to the region.
Examples would be the loss of amenities due to oil cover, with these areas becoming unattractive to visitors. The loss
of bird or marine mammals, due to oiling, leading to the nature reserves being
less attractive to visit.
Harbours
and marinas that are oiled maybe themselves closed or seen as a less attractive
to visit leading to loss of income in habour and marina dues and the indirect
loss of income generated in associated areas.
3.2.2 Emissions – There is some evidence that the input of Sulphur
and Nitrogen Oxide can lead to localised poor air quality, which could have
health implications for local residents.
VOC’s
from cargo, may cause environmental and health damage at a local level.
3.2.3. Ballast Water -
Discharge of ballast water may lead to the introduction of non-native species.
Historically many of the established introduced species have an impact on
shellfish beds. These take the form of competitive or pathogenic species,
either of which can have a detrimental affect on the commercial shellfish beds.
Additionally, Some toxic or harmful species are known to be transported in
ballast water. Toxins accumulated by shellfish can be harmful to the health of
human and marine mammals e.g. PSP.
The
vibrio bacterium causing Cholera, Salmonella
sp. and faecal coliforms are also known to be transported in ballast tanks and
represent human health hazards (Rawlings et
al., 1999, Knight et al., 1999)
3.2.4 Garbage - Marine debris is generally unsightly and not
attractive to visitors, thus impacting on tourism. Medical products associated
with debris may pose a health risk. As stated before, it is difficult to
distinguish between land and marine debris.
3.2.5 General contamination - As outlined previously, there are many sources of
contaminants associated with shipping, e.g. antifouling, dredging activities.
Any contaminant that is bio-accumulated in marine organisms, particularly
shellfish. may pose economic and health risks (Barrow,1997, De Jong,1997).
4. Environmental
Legislation as it Affects Shipping and Ports.
As stated earlier, shipping safety and marine pollution are inextricably linked. Some environmental legislation deals directly with environmental protection eg MARPOL, while other instruments are primarily aimed at at ship and human safety, eg SOLAS, but indirectly have an influence on environmental safety.
4.1 International
Legislation
The Marine Environmental Protection Committee (MEPC) of the International maritime Organisation (IMO) are committed to implement regulation in order to mitigate the effects of shipping on the environment. The MARPOL Convention was adopted in 1973 and covers the regulation of pollution of the seas by shipping. Originally intended to cover oil pollution as OILPOL and subsequently MARPOL, it now covers many other contaminants:
Annex I- Oil
Annex II – Noxious Liquid Chemicals
Annex III – Harmful Goods (packaged)
Annex V –
Garbage
Annex IV- Sewage
Annex VI – Air Pollution (Nox, Sox, from ship exhausts
and emission of ozone depleting substances
In addition IMO are committed, by means of new Annexes to MARPOL or by new
conventions,
§
to:Global prohibition of
TBT in Antifouling coatings, application ban by 2003, with total ban by 2008, and
§
Control and management
of Ships’ Ballast water to minimise the transfer of Harmful Aquatic
Organisms (IMO,2000)
Also of Interest to IMO are, dumping at sea, double
hulls, prevention of accidental pollution (SOLAS), compensation for pollution
and the designation of “special areas”(IMO, 1998,a, IMO, 1998,b)
4.2 National
legislation
Many countries and regions are now adopting their own
legislation with regard to the protection of the marine environment. Examples
include:
From 1 July 2001, Australia has new mandatory ballast
water requirements. Any ship arriving in Australian waters will be required to
undergo a ballast water risk assessment and then undertake an approved
management option. Interestingly the legislative framework for the new
requirements is under the Quarantine Act, 1908 (AFFA, 2001)
The European Union has recently legislated on air
emissions and port waste reception. Increasingly the EU is looking at shipping
in sustainable terms within the framework of integrated coastal zone management.
Increasingly, regional governments and individual
Ports implement legislation or guidelines with respect to marine environmental
protection.
5. Education and Training
Within STCW, the protection of the marine environment and the prevention of pollution are recognised as being important within training for navigational watch keeping. In addition, the special requirements for tankers are also recognised.
The ISM Code provides an international standard for the safe management and operation of ships and for pollution prevention.
Education and training to STCW and the ISM code will give a basis of knowledge and understanding of the maritime environmental issues. Many IAMU institutions educate their students to a higher level, some offering postgraduate courses in environmental issues. However, more could be done to educate seafarers to the environmental and socio-economic impacts of shipping and port operations.
6. Conclusions
There are many environmental issues associated with Shipping and Port operations. Some of these issues have socio-economic impacts on the communities in maritime areas. However, shipping is seen as an environmentally acceptable method of transport.
International, national and local legislation and guidelines help control and regulate the impact of shipping and port operations on the marine environment.
Increased training is needed in the environmental and legal issues and is recognised within STCW and the ISM code. Education and training in environmental issues will lead to a better educated workforce with a deeper understanding of the environmental and socio-economic impacts of shipping. This better awareness should help in the further development of legally compliant and ultimately a sustainable industry.
The challenge remains to reduce environmental damage by maritime operations to a level that is acceptable and sustainable.
(2) AFFA (2001) Australia’s new mandatory ballast water requirements. http://www.affa.gov.au/docs/quarantine/shipping/ballast html
(4) BARROW, C.J. (1997) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment. Arnold, London
(5) ESPO Environmental Review (2001), European Sea Ports Organisation asbl, p5.
(6) De JONG, F., BAKKER, J.F., VAN BERKEL, C.J.M., DANKERS, N.M.J.A., DAHL, K., GATJE, C., MARENCIC, H. AND POTEL, P (1999) Wadden Sea Quality Status report. Wadden Sea Ecosystem No9 Common Wadden Sea Secretariat, Trilateral Monitoring and Assessment Group, Quality Status Report Group. Wilhelmshaven, Germany
(7) GESAMP (1990) The State of the marine environment. Joint Group of Experts on the scientific aspects of marine pollution. Blackwell Scientific Publications Oxford
(8) GESAMP (1993) Impact of oil and related chemical and wastes on the marine environment. GESAMP reports and studies No50. Joint Group of Experts on the scientific aspects of marine pollution.
(9) ICS (1997) Shipping and the environment – A code of Practice. International Chamber of Shipping, London
(10) ImarE (1996) Shipping and the Environment- Is compromise inevitable? Conference Proceedings Part 1. Vol 108,5 The Institute of Marine Engineers, London.
(11) IMO (1998a) MARPOL – 25 years. Focus on IMO October 1998 pp28
(12) IMO (1998b) Preventing Marine Pollution: The Environmental Threat. March 1998 pp10
(13) IMO (2000) Marine Environment Protection Committee 44th session. http://www.imo.org/meetings/44/mepc44.html
(14) KNIGHT I.T., WELLS, C.S., WIGGINS, B., RUSSELL, H., REYNOLDS, K.A. & HUQ, A. (1999) Detection and enumeration of fecal indicators and pathogens in ballast water of transoceanic cargo vessels entering the Great Lakes. General Meeting of the American Society for Microbiology, Chicago, USA p546.
(15) RAWLINGS, T.K., RUIZ, G.M., SCHOENFELD, S., DOBBS, F.C., DRAKE, L.A., HUQ, A. & COLWELL, R.R. (1999) Ecology and ballast mediated Transfer of Vibrio Cholerae 01 and 0139. 1st national Conference on marine bioinvasions January 1999, MIT Cambridge, USA.
(16) TAIT, R.V. & DIPPER.F.A. (1998) Elements of Marine Ecology 4th Ed Butterwoth-Heinemann. Oxford
(17) VILES, H. & SPENCER, T. (1995) Coastal Problems- Geomorphology, Ecology and society at the coast. Edward Arnold, London.