Maritime Studies
|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Maritime Studies |
|
The Great Barrier Reef and Torres Strait Shipping Study was completed in 1995 with one of the terms of reference being an assessment of the relative risk of an accident occurring on either the inner or outer shipping routes.
The findings were inconclusive although the initial analysis suggested the outer route had a lower risk of an accident until the presence of a pilot was included, in which case the inner route had a slightly lower risk.
The inner route tends to be favoured by mariners because;
• there is mandatory pilotage within the inner route north of Cairns and through Hydrographers Passage and, while the occasional pilot error will occur, it is preferable to non-pilotage;
• the inner route has been well surveyed and navigation hazards and water depths are well charted;
• there is a comprehensive network of navigational aids throughout the inner route, including Differential Global Positioning System;
• the inner route is closer to safe havens for disabled and damaged vessels to shelter and be repaired;
• the inner route provides greater capability to control and monitor the movement of shipping; and
• the inner route has calmer weather and sea conditions than the outer route.
Arguments against the use of the outer route include:
• the route is surveyed to a width of 10km, which means traffic is restricted to that corridor;
• water in the outer route is so deep that vessels cannot anchor if they experience difficulties and would be at the mercy of the prevailing weather conditions which could result in a vessel being set upon the outer edge of the Great Barrier Reef; and
• the ability to mount an effective response to a spill on the outer edge of the Great Barrier Reef is extremely limited if not non-existent.
There is a perception in the community that because vessels use the outer route there will not be an impact on the Great Barrier Reef in the event of an incident leading to an oil spill. This is incorrect.
The nature of the impacts is likely to be different from what might occur due to an accident on the inner route. An incident on the outer route would lead to impacts on the outer edge of the Great Barrier Reef and inward into the lagoon, whilst an inner route incident is likely to cause impacts to coastal fringing reefs and coastal and estuarine environments.
It needs to be noted that in the north of the Great Barrier Reef the seaward edge of the Reef is still close to the coast and an outer route accident in the area could lead to impacts on both the outer reef and coastal environments.
Courtesy: Reef Management News
At the close of the 52nd meeting of the International Whaling Commission, the World Wild Fund for Nature (WWF) welcomed governments’ commitment to maintain the global whaling moratorium firmly in place, while setting the timetable for the completion of a strong management system for whales to replace the current weak and outdated one. However, as with many decisions at the IWC, opinion was divided between the pro- and anti-whaling nations, with Japan and Norway successfully resisting attempts to set up external international inspection of their own markets. The four-day gathering of whaling’s governing body saw deep divisions between the two factions, leading to deadlock when it came to taking any major decisions.
A draft system for calculating quotas was agreed in 1993 but has never been formally adopted, leaving the possibility that it could be revised. During the meeting, the Norwegian government signalled that it is hoping to weaken the management system before it is adopted, in order to allow for bigger catches of whales. Whalers too are unhappy with the draft system, which they see as too conservative, and not allowing large enough catches. ‘If this really precautionary management system is adopted, it will no longer be possible for whaling nations to revise it, and thus weaken the protection that it provides to whales,’ said Cassandra Phillips, WWF’s Coordinator for Whales and the Antarctic. ‘It would provide an effective safety net and help to prevent whaling countries from threatening the future of the great whales against the wishes of the bulk of IWC members.’
Despite high level pressure from the British and American governments, at this meeting Japan continued to ignore the strong wishes of the majority of the members of the IWC for it to halt its ‘scientific whaling’ program. In the face of a Resolution condemning its ongoing whaling, it confirmed its intention to expand the program to include 50 Bryde’s and 10 sperm whales in addition to the 540 minke whales that it currently catches each year. According to Japan and a number of Caribbean nations, this expanded ‘scientific’ program is vitally necessary in order to ensure the survival of fishing communities around the world. According to these countries, whales eat such large quantities of fish, that they are responsible for a serious depletion of stocks worldwide. However, as the British Minister for Fisheries pointed out, whales pale into ‘utter insignificance’ when compared to the major causes for reduced fisheries yields such as overcapacity, pollution, overfishing, and climate change.
More information is available at http://www.enn.com (Environmental News Network) or http://www.panda.org.
Courtesy: World Wild Fund for Nature
An international Workshop on the Prevention of Marine Pollution in the Asia-Pacific Region was held from 7 to 12 May 2000 in Townsville, Australia. Over 100 representatives from some 30 countries from Asia-Pacific and beyond, including international, regional and non-governmental organisations and the private sector participated in the five-day workshop organised by the International Maritime Organisation and Environment Australia and sponsored by a variety of institutions from around the world. Speakers included government officials, members of the secretariats of a number of international and regional organisations, academics, scientists and others with an impressive array of credentials, knowledge and experience. Topics for discussion ranged from pollution from ships, land-based sources, oil spill response, dredging, transportation of hazardous waste and the introduction of marine pests via ships’ ballast water and bottom fouling. It was a packed agenda but delegates were treated to some interesting presentations. Delegates were split into five working groups, dealing with MARPOL; the Global Programme of Action (dealing with land-based sources of marine pollution) and the Regional Seas Programme; the London (Dumping) Convention; the Basel and Waigani Conventions (dealing with the trans-boundary movement of hazardous wastes) and draft instruments for ballast water and antifouling.
The Regional Maritime Legal Adviser (RMLA), Captain Dr Peter Heathcote made a joint address with Dr Michael White QC of the University of Queensland on Legal Regimes in the Pacific Island Countries. The RMLA delivered a paper on the model Marine Pollution Prevention Act for a mythical country called ‘Pasifika’. This model legislation was based on material developed for the Government of the Kingdom of Tonga in 1996, but updated as part of a joint SPREP/SPO project funded by IMO. The presentation covered the history of the development of the legislation, and the changes to the international regimes in the intervening period. It also focused on some of the salient points such as the incorporation of the six international maritime conventions dealing with marine pollution (MARPOL 73/78, INTERVENTION, OPRC, London, CLC and FUND), marine spills and counter-measures, the establishment of a trust fund, board of trustees and a levy on potential polluters, the creation of offences and fines that will act as a deterrent.
Somehow, this presentation and the concept of model marine pollution legislation for ‘Pasifika’ must have cast a spell over delegates, since the concept was referred to many times in the next four days. Many delegates from Asian countries requested copies of the model legislation, as well as the accompanying slides. This, together with a presentation by Sefanaia Nawadra of SPREP on the PACPOL program, showed that the Pacific was at the forefront of measures being taken worldwide to prevent the deleterious effects of marine environment in our waters and preserve the pristine marine environment that we enjoy in the Pacific.
Courtesy Maritime Newsletter
The responsibility for provision of marine aids to navigation in Australia is divided between the Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA), each state and the Northern Territory Government.
AMSA is responsible for some 400 navigational aids. These include light stations, radar transponders (racons) and differential global positioning systems (DGPS) as well as buoys and tide gauges.
The network is serviced by a variety of transport modes including helicopters, vehicles and tender vessels from several depots around Australia.
All costs associated with running the AMSA navigation system are met by the shipping industry through the Marine Navigation Levy.
Vessels less than 24 metres, recreational craft and fishing vessels, probably the biggest users of navigation lights, do not attract the levy. They are able to use navigational facilities provided by AMSA and funded by the shipping industry without charge.
Should the changing pattens and needs of commercial shipping determine that an aid is no longer needed, it is offered for transfer to the appropriate state maritime authority for inclusion in that state’s network.
Navigational aid developments are rapid, and new technologies have been adopted to improve reliability and efficiency.
Where mains electricity is not available, all AMSA aids are now solar powered.
With the continued improvements in ship-borne navigation, including extensive use of radar and satellite-based positioning systems, the need in many locations for long-range lights has decreased to a stage where they can be safely replaced with shorter range aids.
Radar transponders (racons) are being introduced to supplement or replace visual aids, especially in areas where radar returns are poor.
On receipt of a radar pulse from a ship, a responding pulse is transmitted. This is received by the ship and displayed on the radar screen, enabling the ship’s position to be fixed. They are particularly useful on featureless coastlines and reefs.
The continued development and widespread use of satellite-based systems combined with electronic charting is generating further changes in the provision of marine aids to navigation.
AMSA is establishing a free DGPS broadcast service in highly sensitive and tight navigational areas with heavy shipping traffic and major commercial ports around the Australian coastline. A network of 16 stations will be in place by June 2001.
One of the most dramatic technological changes in maritime navigation has been the introduction of accurate satellite navigation systems and the electronic display of chart information. AMSA believes the resultant electronic chart and display information system (ECIDS) will help reduce human error, thereby improving navigation safety, reducing ship accidents and increasing protection for the environment.
ECDIS draws on a variety of positioning and information inputs, including GPS, DGPS, radar, echo sounder, compass and navigational publications advising amendments of charts.
Technological developments in the area of traffic management have also increased the safety of navigation and helped promote marine environment protection. AMSA has implemented a number of initiatives in Queensland, including the introduction of the world’s first mandatory ship reporting systems covering the Torres Strait and the inner route of the Great Barrier Reef. This VHF radio-based system is operated from a single centre at Hay Point near Mackay with radar positioned at focal points along the route.
For further information visit AMSA’s website: www.amsa.gov.au
Courtesy Ships & Ports
THE International Coalition of Fisheries Associations (ICFA) has established a policy on marine protected areas.
ICFA members, including the Australian Seafood Industry Association (ASIC), represented by QSIA Chief Executive Officer Ted Loveday met in Singapore last month to discuss a range of issues affecting the fishing industry world-wide.
One of the main agenda items was establishment of a policy on marine protected areas (MPAs).
This reflected industry concern round the world over problems caused by poor planning of MPAs, interference with sensible fisheries management and unnecessary loss of seafood production at a time of increasing global dependence on this source of food.
ICFA later released a statement on its new policy.
In this statement, ICFA members said the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) defined a marine protected area (MPA) as: ‘Any area of intertidal or subtidal terrain, together with its overlying water and associated flora, fauna, historical and cultural features, which has been reserved by law or other effective means to protect part or all of the enclosed environment’ (IUCN Resolution GA 17:38).
ICFA noted that:
• Fish and fish products provide the most widely available protein based sustenance and livelihoods for the people of the world primarily through the sustainable management of wild living resources and the husbandry of those resources in aquaculture systems;
• Success in achieving sustainable development of fisheries resources is a direct responsibility for all stakeholders in fisheries. Fisheries management today is capable of implementing strategies which can ensure the target populations, and the populations of other species and ecosystems with which they interrelate, are managed to ensure optimal resource outcomes and at the same time ensure that the economic benefits of fisheries resources utilisation can be achieved for the greater welfare of society as a whole.
• Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) and in particular highly protected areas (IUCN Categories 1 and 2) which amongst other things prohibit commercial fishing, are increasingly being promoted internationally by government environmental agencies and NGOs.
In its statement, ICEA expressed serious concern that:
1. There is poor coordination between fisheries agencies and agencies responsible for MPAs at the global, regional, national and local levels.
2. Poor planning of MPAs will result in:
− sustainable development of fisheries being undermined
− sustainable fishing activities throughout the world being unnecessarily restricted
− viability of the world’s fishing industry being threatened
− the substantial contribution the fishing industry makes towards global food security being eroded and substantially reduced
ICFA said it was calling on all nations of the world to take all necessary action to ensure a rational and justified approach to the implementation of MPAs is adopted and the threats MPAs pose to fisheries management regimes, the fishing industry and global food security are addressed and removed.
In particular, ICFA said, governments with the support of the UN FAO, Regional, National and Local fisheries management bodies need to ensure that:
1. Fishing industry planning and management mechanisms for the marine environment. are regional scale, multiple-use and consistent with the principles of sustainable development.
2. The fishing industry and fisheries agencies are fully integrated into the decision-making process regarding assessment, justification, selection and implementation of MPAs.
3. The effectiveness of existing MPAs is assessed before any new MPAs are implemented.
4. Before MPAs are implemented:
− The objectives are clearly and unequivocally defined and justified.
− The economic and social impacts of modifying the fishing industry’s access to fisheries resources is determined and considered.
− Rigorous performance assessment, methodology and criteria are developed and resources are allocated to conduct these assessments.
− Decisions to close areas are justified on sound ecological grounds and not for stock reallocation reasons.
− Structural adjustment funding is provided to offset economic impacts and remove displaced fishing effort because of the loss of any resource access by the fishing industry.
For more information, contact Ted Loveday at QSIA State Office in Brisbane on (07) 3262 6855.
Courtesy The Queensland Fisherman
AustLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MarStudies/2000/27.html