Maritime Studies
|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Maritime Studies |
|
A $6 million marine environment research study of Australia’s North West Shelf was announced on 4 August by the Federal Minister for Industry, Science & Resources, Senator Nick Minchin, and Western Australia’s Minister for the Environment, Mrs Cheryl Edwardes. ‘We are at the start of a pioneering environmental journey. It is a quest to protect the North West Shelf, which is recognised for its impressive marine biodiversity, and to provide sustainable opportunities for the future based on a much better understanding of the marine environment,’ Mrs Edwards said.
The North West Shelf Study is the largest environmental management project in Australia and is an initiative of the Western Australian government and the Commonwealth government agency, CSIRO.
The study aims to eliminate problems that have resulted from a lack of understanding of the environmental impacts of specific developments and assessing developments in isolation. Management of the 110,000 square kilometre study area is currently covered by more than 200 separate federal, state, and local government laws. Edwardes said the study would lead to simpler and better-informed management and planning. She said the collaborative government approach to marine research in Australia would provide a model to help strengthen management in a key region of Australia’s vast Exclusive Economic Zone. ‘Western Australians now have access to one of the most valuable slices of the Zone and we need to manage the known and as-yet-undiscovered wealth of the North West Shelf in a sustainable manner,’ Mrs Edwardes said.
The North West Shelf Study was initiated in 1998 when the WA government approved A$2.7 million over four years and sought collaborating partners to help provide scientific input. In 1999 the Commonwealth Government approved an additional A$3.4 million for work programs. ‘With the rapid growth of marine industries across a range of sectors, the potential for conflict between different uses of the marine environment is increasing,’ Senator Minchin said. ‘Development must occur in an integrated framework to ensure the various industry developments are managed sustainably, both individually and in combination.’
Senator Minchin said the project was boosted substantially by the involvement of the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS), the Australian Petroleum Production Exploration Association, Woodside Energy, Apache Energy, and the Australian Geological Survey Organization (AGSO). ‘The North West Shelf Study further extends research on the integrated management of Australia’s regional marine ecosystems. It complements major projects under way in Australia’s South-east, as part of the National Oceans Policy, and on the Great Barrier Reef,’ Senator Minchin added. The study will be managed by Dr Chris Fandry from the Western Australian Department of Environmental Protection and Dr Keith Sainsbury for CSIRO Marine Research.
For further information contact Dr Sainsbury at CSIRO, phone (03) 6232 5456.
Ships posing the greatest risk to life and the marine environment have been required to implement the International Safety Management (ISM) Code since 1 July.
Shipping companies which operate passenger ships, oil tankers, chemical tankers, gas carriers, bulk carriers and high speed cargo craft of 500 gross tonnage and above are cooperating with governments and regulators to ensure appropriate measures are being enforced.
There is a strong view amongst the industry that of all the prevention measures, the most important is to ensure that crews are competent. ISM is a positive step in eliminating sub-standard crews and unsatisfactory management practices.
It is common knowledge amongst marine incident investigators that the human element is a major contributing factor to incidents and the resulting pollution. Regulators are striving to develop standards, systems and practices which mitigate the inherent human element-induced incidents.
While the regulators accept that a major oil spill cannot be fully cleaned up and that most major spills will result from collisions and groundings, a sound prevention regime is improving navigational safety through technology.
Queensland Transport and the Australian Marine Safety Authority have focused on joint venture initiatives when phasing in technical improvements to navigational safety and ship reporting and surveillance systems such as the SRS.
Existing and emerging technology such as Differential Global Positioning System (DGPS), Electronic Chart and Display Information Systems (ECDIS), surveillance radar and satellite communications further improve safety.
These systems will augment the existing navigation aid infrastructure supporting the Great Barrier Reef. DGPS in particular, is a means for improving the safety of and redundancy within navigation.
DGPS and ECDIS provide another strong link in the chain to protect the Great Barrier Reef. DGPS can provide positional accuracy to plus or minus 10m or better.
The AMSA DGPS network covering the Great Barrier Reef currently consists of base stations at Horn Island, Cape Flattery, Mackay; Gladstone and Brisbane with further extensions planned for Weipa, which will cover the inner route off Lockhardt River, and Ingham by the end of this year. This completed configuration will ensure 100 per cent, 24-hour coverage within the waters of the Great Barrier Reef and also entrances to the Coral Sea.
The enhanced accuracy of DGPS can only be fully utilised when combined with ECDIS, a navigational Geographic Information System which continuously displays a vessel’s position in relation to navigational aids and dangers.
Basically ECDIS allows the display of digital chart information over which is superimposed the continuous real time position of the ship. Manual plotting or fixing is not required and an instantaneous appreciation of position with respect to dangers is apparent to the mariner.
A significant feature of ECDIS is the provision of warnings and alarms that are specifically intended to counter human error, which is the most significant factor in groundings.
ECDIS requires a special digital data base in vector format. The Royal Australian Navy’s Hydrographic office is currently compiling such a database, termed ENC 1 (Electronic Nautical Chart 1), for the Great Barrier Reef inner route from Weipa to Gladstone, ENC 1 will be commercially available in January 2000.
There is currently no national or international legislative requirement for a vessel or reef pilot to carry ECDIS. However, with all performance, technical and test standards for the system developed and adopted internationally and national digital chart databases being compiled throughout the world, ECDIS technology is now being applied operationally.
Courtesy: Reef Management News
In the case of Landcatch v The Braer Corporation [1999] 2 Lloyds Report 316, the Scottish Inner House (Appeal Court) has reaffirmed that the traditional and accepted tests of liability and remoteness should be applied to claims for damages arising out of oil spills. The motor tanker Braer ran aground off the coast of the Shetland Isles in January 1993, spilling 85,000 tonnes of crude oil. There has been a spate of litigation following the spill, mainly directed at a 5 million pound fund set up by the insurer of the Braer (SKULD P&I Club) to compensate parties affected.
Landcatch, a supplier of salmon based on the Scottish mainland, claimed £1,900,000 for loss of profits attributed to the adverse publicity surrounding the oil spill and a general drop in demand for Scottish salmon. It also claimed its expenses in pursuing its claim against The International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund (‘the IOPC Fund’). Landcatch was not directly affected by the oil spill itself.
The Scottish Appeal Court held that the plaintiff could not recover their alleged economic loss, as it was too remote to the oil spill itself. The policy restricting recovery for negligent acts to parties suffering physical loss as distinct from economic loss was applied. The Court followed the earlier Scottish decision in P & O Scottish Ferries v The Braer Corporation [1999] 2 Lloyds Report 535, where a claim for loss of profits due to a drop in passenger numbers to Shetland was also refused. It also disallowed the claim for expenses in pursuing the claim against the IOPC Fund.
The decisions in these cases will be met with relief by the 300 other claimants who have suffered direct physical damage as a consequence of the oil spills. As the fund is for a fixed amount, the dividend for the remaining claimants will inevitably be higher as more ‘remote’ claimants are refused recovery.
John Kavanagh and Stephen Dickens
(McCullough Robertson Lawyers)
Courtesy Business Solutions Bulletin
Aquacultural output, growing at 11% a year over the past decade, is the fastest growing sector of the world food economy. Climbing from 13 million tons of fish produced in 1990 to 31 million tons in 1998, fish farming is poised to overtake cattle ranching as a food source by the end of this decade, according to the Worldwatch Institute in Washington, D.C. This record aquacultural growth is signalling a basic shift in the human diet.
Over the last century, the world relied heavily on two natural systems – oceanic fisheries and farmlands – to satisfy a growing demand for animal protein, but that era is ending as both systems are reaching their productive limits. Between 1950 and 1990, beef production, four fifths of it from rangelands, nearly tripled, climbing from 19 million to 53 million tons before levelling off. Meanwhile, the oceanic fish catch grew from 19 million to 86 million tons, more than quadrupling, before levelling off. Since 1990, there has been little growth in either beef production or the oceanic fish catch. Additional production of beef or seafood now depends on placing more cattle in feedlots or more fish in ponds. At this point, the efficiency with which cattle and fish convert grain into protein begins to reshape production trends and thus our diets. Cattle require some 7 kilograms of grain to add 1 kilogram of live weight, whereas fish can add a kilogram of live weight with less than 2 kilograms of grain. Water scarcity is also a matter of concern since it takes 1,000 tons of water to produce 1 ton of grain. But the fish farming advantage in the efficiency of grain conversion translates into a comparable advantage in water efficiency as well, even when the relatively small amount of water for fishponds is included. In a world of land and water scarcity, the advantage of fishponds over feedlots in producing low-cost animal protein is clear.
Some 85% of fish farming is in developing countries. China accounted for 21 million of the 31 million tons of world aquacultural output in 1998. Other developing countries with thriving aquacultural sectors include India, Bangladesh, Indonesia, and Thailand. Among industrial countries, Japan, the United States, and Norway are the leaders. Japan’s output of 800,000 tons consists of high-value species such as scallops, oysters, and yellowtail. The US output of 450,000 tons is mostly catfish. Norway’s 400,000 tons is mostly salmon.
A world that is reaching the limits with both oceanic fisheries and rangelands while adding 80 million people each year needs efficient new sources of animal protein. Herbivorous species of fish offer a highly efficient way of expanding animal protein supplies in a protein-hungry world. The forces that have made aquaculture the world’s fastest growing source of animal protein over the last decade are likely to make it the fastest growing source during this decade as well.
More information is available at the Worldwatch Institute web-site at www.worldwatch.org/alerts/indexia.html.
Courtesy Worldwatch Institute
For some time now the ASEAN countries and China have been working on a Code of Conduct for the South China Sea. The ASEAN-China regional Code of Conduct once adopted, could help build up trust, enhance cooperation, and reduce tensions in the Spratlys/South China Sea area. However, it is naive to expect that the adoption of the Code would serve as a safety valve to prevent the claimants from taking unilateral actions or counter-actions to bolster their respective sovereignty and jurisdictional claims in the disputed area, or speed up the process of moving toward eventual resolution.
In August 1995, China and the Philippines issued the Joint Statement on the South China Sea and Other Areas of Cooperation, in which the two agreed to abide by specific principles for a Code of Conduct in the disputed area. Similarly, the Philippines and Vietnam signed a joint agreement in November 1995, which also contains ‘basic principles for a Code of Conduct in the contested areas.’ The two existing bilateral Codes failed to prevent China from expanding the structures built on the disputed Mischief Reef in the Spratly archipelago, the Philippines from firing at or arresting Chinese fishing boats operating close to the disputed Scarborough Shoal, and Vietnam from firing at a Philippine Air Force reconnaissance aircraft that flew over the disputed Tennent Reef (Pigeon Reef).
If potential conflicts in the disputed area are to be reduced or managed well enough to avoid tensions escalating into serious armed conflicts, all parties must faithfully observe the agreed principles contained in the Code of Conduct. However, the nature of a Code of Conduct differs from that of a treaty, bilateral or multilateral. A contracting party to an international treaty is obligated to abide by its terms. In comparison, a country which agrees to a voluntary Code is not necessarily bound by its principles, unless the principles are taken from existing bilateral or multilateral treaties that have legal binding force.
Another problem in formulating a South China Sea Code of Conduct centres around the exclusion of Taiwan from the dialogue process. It is a fact that Taiwan is one of the six parties directly involved this sovereignty and maritime jurisdictional dispute. Taiwan Coast Guard personnel and marines are stationed on the largest island in the Spratly chain, Tai-pin-dao (Itu Aba). It is also a fact that the People’s Republic of China has not exercised sovereignty or jurisdictional rights over those islands controlled and administrated by Taiwan, including Pratas Islands and Itu Aba, since the PRC was established in 1949.
Taiwan has been excluded from the process of formulating a regional Code of Conduct mainly because member states of ASEAN adhere to the so-called ‘one-China’ policy. It is unlikely in the near future that the ASEAN states will negotiate with Taiwan for the purpose of adopting a similar Code. In these circumstances, not much can be done by Taiwan to press ASEAN to change course. In the past, and even today, Taiwan’s good neighbour policy has not been met with a favourable response from ASEAN. Therefore, Taiwan, one way or the other, must find a way to help release itself from the frustration it experiences and the unfair treatment it receives. It should also be noted that the possibility of Taiwan taking unilateral actions in the disputed area in support of its sovereignty and maritime jurisdictional claims should never be ruled out, given the fact that Taipei is not a contracting party to the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Taipei was not invited to participate in the process of formulating the ASEAN-PRC Code of Conduct and thus cannot be expected to be bound by it.
Nonetheless, Taiwan intends to give its support to the formulation of the ASEAN-China regional Code of Conduct in the South China Sea. Taipei considers the Code to be a useful confidence building measure, which, if faithfully observed, would help build up trust, enhance cooperation, and reduce tension. However, Taipei considers the exclusion of Taiwan from the dialogue process to be inconsistent with the letter and spirit of both the 1992 ASEAN Declaration on the South China Sea and the 1995 Statement by the ASEAN Foreign Ministers on the Recent Developments in the South China Sea, which encouraged ‘all claimants’ to address the issue in various fora.
The exclusion of Taipei from the process of formulating a regional Code of Conduct is contradictory to ASEAN efforts to develop preventive diplomacy and confidence building measures. Taiwan’s position is that a regional Code must include all six parties concerned, and that any cooperative programs in the disputed area proposed or carried out either in accordance with the ASEAN-China regional Code of Conduct or other agreed bilateral or multilateral agreements must be discussed and agreed upon by all the concerned claimants.
Taiwan urges the other five claimants and the concerned countries to consult with its government and invite it to participate in future deliberations on any cooperative programs in the disputed areas in the South China Sea. Necessary actions will surely be taken by Taiwan to defend its sovereignty and jurisdictional rights and the possibility of taking unilateral actions to explore and exploit resources in the South China Sea can never be ruled out if any cooperative programs are undertaken by other claimants without Taiwan’s participation and the consent of its government.
Yann-huei Song
Research Fellow
Institute of European and American Studies
Academia Sinica, Taipei, Taiwan
On 28 January 2000, the maritime Administrations of France, United Kingdom, Spain, Singapore and the European Commission signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on the setting up of the Equasis information system. The US Coast Guard and the maritime Administration of Japan have expressed their intention to join the signatories, but have not yet finalised internal procedures for doing so. The MOU was signed in the IMO Headquarters in London in the presence of IMO’s Secretary-General William O’Neil.
Equasis will be a unique database collecting safety-related information on the world’s merchant fleet from both public and private sources and making it easily accessible on the Internet. The launch of the database is planed for May 2000.
Already in its first phase, Equasis will contain information from public authorities (port State inspection and detention information from the three participating port State control regions, i.e. Paris MOU, Tokyo MOU and the US Coast Guard) and industry players (such as information on class, insurance, participation in industry inspection schemes and quality organisations). The database will, however, be subject to continuous improvement, and more information sources will be included after the launch of the system in May 2000.
The proposed mechanism to ensure the successful operation of Equasis is through an internationally non-binding MOU agreed between a small number of quality-minded maritime Administrations. The key elements of that organisational structure are:
The parties to the Equasis MOU shall be members of the Supervisory Committee. In addition, IMO, being the main international regulator, should participate in the Committee. The role of the Committee is to supervise the management of Equasis and decide on policy matters related to the operation and future development of the system. After the initial trial period of maximum three years, the MOU will be amended to allow a broader range of Administrations to participate in the Equasis system.
The daily management of Equasis will be carried out by a body having the capacity to conclude agreements on behalf of Equasis with, for example, data providers, users, consultants and providers of IT service, staff, etc. The Management Unit should be in charge of the daily operations of Equasis, including financial and marketing aspects. It will also act as secretariat of the Committee. The French maritime Administration has offered to create a legal structure for the Management Unit.
A Technical Unit will be in charge of the realisation of the project at a technical level. This function will be performed by the Centre Administratif des Affaires Maritimes (CAAM) in Saint Malo, which is the body currently managing the Sirenac database for the Paris MOU on Port State Control.
All organisations providing data to Equasis, such as maritime Administrations, classification societies, insurers’ organisations, shipowners’ organisations, commercial data providers, etc., shall be represented in a consultative body, called the Editorial Board. The task of the Editorial Board is to advise the Management Unit on all aspects related to the best possible presentation of the available data, including aspects of quality control and up-dating. Secondly, the Editorial Board should advise the Committee on policy matters related to the future development, expansion and improvement of the Equasis information system.
The Internet address of Equasis will be: www.equasis.org. For more information, contact Willem de Ruiter, Head of Division, Maritime Safety unit, European Commission; phone +32-2-296 8265; fax +32-2-296 9066.
Courtesy IMO News
The Federal Government has placed an interim ban on ‘shark finning’ in Australian tuna fisheries, where the practice is most prevalent, following a technical review of the situation and discussions with major stakeholders, Fisheries Minister Warren Truss announced recently.
Shark finning involves removing the fins from sharks at sea and discarding the carcasses overboard, a practice that is potentially wasteful and raises concerns over the sustainability of some shark species. The world price for shark fins, which are used primarily in traditional Asian cuisine, has increased significantly in recent years. Shark fins are now one of the world’s most expensive fish products, with a dried fin fetching up to A$250 a kilogram.
‘Longline tuna fishers in particular appear to be the main source of concern with shark finning practices in Australia. I have therefore taken precautionary action and banned the practice in our tuna fisheries. Effectively, this means tuna fishers will need to land whole sharks at a port before the fins can be removed.
‘The ban is designed to ensure better compliance with existing by-catch limits and deter the practice of shark finning by encouraging sharks to be released alive while at sea.’
Mr Truss said the Federal Government’s action would not affect operators in fisheries where sharks are the target species, as processing at sea is a part of their normal operations and carcasses are always landed. He also stressed that the ban is an interim measure and that shark sustainability needs to be considered nationally and on a fishery-by-fishery basis.
‘At my direction, my Department has also established a Shark Advisory Group to help prepare a National Plan of Action for the conservation and Management of Sharks,’ Mr Truss said. As well, the fishing industry is working closely with the Australian Fisheries Management Authority to implement the Commonwealth By-catch Policy that will play a key role in managing by-catch of shark and other species over the longer term.
‘The Coalition Government is strongly committed to the responsible and sustainable management of Australia’s valuable marine resources. In close cooperation with industry, conservationists and other stakeholders, we will continue to protect the environmental integrity and long-term future of Australia’s fishing industry.’
In line with the Federal Government’s interim ban on shark finning, WA Fisheries Minister Monty House has introduced regulations under the Fish Resources Management Act (1994) to prohibit the removal of fins from sharks and the discarding of the associated carcass at sea.
Shark finning has been reported mainly in Commonwealth tuna and billfish fisheries. However, the potential has remained for finning to take place within State managed fisheries.
‘The changes in the Western Australian regulations are timely in that they will complement Federal legislation which will be implemented to stop the practice of shark finning in Commonwealth fisheries,’ Mr House said.
Courtesy Professional Fisherman
AustLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MarStudies/2000/33.html