- Email: [email protected]
Environmental issues with Australian ports
PII:
Ocean & Coastal Management, Vol. 33, Nos 1-3, pp. 229-247, 1996 ~) 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd All rights reserved. Printed in Northern Ireland S0964-5691 (96)000531 0964-5691/96515.00+0-00
ELSEVIER
Environmental issues with Australian ports
Sam Bateman Centre for Maritime Policy, University of Wollongong, Locked Bag 8812, South Coast Mail Centre, Wollongong, NSW 2521, Australia
ABSTRACT Ports and shipping operations are under increased environmental scrutiny in Australia, particularly as so many o f Australia's ports and shipping routes are located in or near major environmentally sensitive areas. The environmental risks involved have been highlighted by the publicity given to shipping accidents. Environmental regulations over aspects o f port operations, including ballast water management, dredge spoil and waste reception, are also becoming stricter. While port authorities have adopted stringent environmental guidelines, they remain concerned that the full impact o f proposed new environmental regulations on maritime industry may not be fully understood. This paper discusses some o f the issues involved with achieving a balance between environmental protection and the need to recognise the importance o f seaborne trade to Australia and to maintain Australia's competitiveness in international trade. © 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd
1. I N T R O D U C T I O N In recent years, ports and shipping operations have been subjected to markedly increased environmental scrutiny in Australia. Partly this is due to the publicity given to shipping accidents and consequent pollution, both in Australian waters and elsewhere, but it is also associated with a developing high marine environmental consciousness aroused in Australians by firstly, the national desire to live or take holidays near the sea, and secondly, by national stewardship of the Great Barrier Reef and other environmentally sensitive marine areas in and around Australia. With the great attention in Australia paid recently to the coastal zone 229
230
S. Bateman
with a major enquiry between 1991 and 1993 by the Resource Assessment Commission ~ and the release in May 1995 of the C o m m o n w e a l t h Coastal Policy, 2 it is somewhat paradoxical that relatively little attention has been given to ports as a major industrial activity in the coastal zone and a central part of the land-sea interface. Where shipping operations have been considered in these documents, it has been in the context mainly of ship-sourced pollution and ballast water issues with only scant discussion, if any, of the problems posed by port operations and the difficulties faced by port authorities in following sound environmental practice in managing their ports. While ports have not received much attention as parts of the coastal zone, aspects of their operations have, nevertheless, attracted considerable attention from government environmental protection agencies. Ballast water management, waste reception facilities and the dumping of dredge spoil are all issues which have received attention in this way with a rising concern among port authorities and the shipping industry generally that they will face significant extra, and possibly inequitable, costs in contributing to the preservation and protection of the marine environment. Maritime industry authorities are concerned about a perceived lack of consultation between industry and the agencies involved in developing the regulatory framework, and a lack of appreciation of the consequences, particularly the economic ones, of some of the regulations being considered. The recent response by several maritime industry authorities to the Australian and New Zealand E n v i r o n m e n t and Conservation Council ( A N Z E C C ) Discussion Paper on Maritime Accidents and Pollution noted that: In assessing issues and potential solutions it is important that all sources of a potential problem are considered equitably and the roles of commercial shipping as well as other maritime interests need to be placed in a global perspective. Similarly in the use of the precautionary principle, careful evaluation and use of guidelines is essential. 3 To some extent this concern is symptomatic of a broader national problem which is the lack of an integrated approach to national oceans m a n a g e m e n t policy. Simply, there are no institutions or mechanisms in place at present in Australia to resolve differences of this nature or to define national priorities with national maritime interests and activities. There is a real challenge involved in maintaining a balance between the need to maintain the economic viability and competitiveness of Australian ports, shipping and overall trading position, and the community's desire to protect the marine environment. However, the development of appropriate and reasonable environmental controls over shipping operations and
Environmental issues with Australian ports
231
ports is made more difficult by the historical and economic legacy of many Australian ports still being situated in less than optimal locations from an environmental protection perspective. Increasing recreational use of coastal areas, leisure boating and marine tourism are also putting additional pressures on port authorities in relation to port operations and land-use management. This paper reviews issues associated with meeting this challenge. It discusses several issues associated with ports, which are currently of concern to maritime industry because they could lead to increased costs both for Australia's shippers and shipping interests and thus a loss of international competitiveness by Australia. The paper concludes that the debate may have become overly influenced in recent years by an emphasis on the environmental side of the national agenda, and that there is an associated need for more extensive, inter-disciplinary and long-term research of relevant issues, as well as ongoing close consultation between environmental authorities (State and Federal), port authorities, the shipping industry and other maritime interests.
2. H I S T O R I C A L P E R S P E C T I V E 4 Australia's economic development has been largely built upon the export by sea of primary produce and minerals. Australia's major cities are predominantly port cities which have worked as 'magnets' to attract immigrants to Australia? In the light of these considerations, ports and their d e v e l o p m e n t should be prominent features of the social and economic history of Australia yet the reality is somewhat different. A prominent Australian maritime historian has claimed that, despite the importance of ports to the Australian economy, an ideological bias inherent in Australian historiography against extreme left wing attitudes and practices, particularly apparent in the waterfront and seamen's unions, has meant that ports 'don't figure largely in urban and economic history' in Australia/' The suitability of a particular anchorage in a bay, harbour or river determined the location of the early European settlements in Australia. As these settlements grew, the ports and their facilities grew with them with spreading urbanisation and a tendency for the more unpleasant features of city life, including slums, sleazy hotels and narrow, congested streets to be concentrated around the port itself. In some instances, such as the Rocks and Darling Harbour areas of Sydney and inner Fremantle, these formerly unattractive areas have been regenerated for their heritage value and as major tourist attractions.
232
s. Bateman
In many cases, major Australian ports came to be located in a highly environmentally sensitive area at the m o u t h and along the banks of a river (such as the port of Brisbane on the Brisbane River, Melbourne on the Yarra and Fremantle on the Swan River) or on the shores of an attractive, sheltered harbour (such as Sydney Harbour, Hobart on the Derwent River estuary, and Albany on King George Sound). In more recent times, there has been a tendency for the port infrastructure to be re-located away from, or downstream from central city locations. For example, port activity in Brisbane, Melbourne and Port Adelaide is now concentrated towards the mouths of the respective rivers rather than up river at wharves (in some instances, almost right in the central business district), and most commercial port operations in Sydney are now conducted at Botany Bay. While these moves are environmentally desirable, the pressures for re-location have only indirectly emerged as a result of environmental concerns. In most instances, there has been a strong commercial imperative arising from containerisation, the need to build and acquire land for new port infrastructure, such as container terminals, oil refineries and tank farms, the costs of maintenance and capital dredging in relatively shallow rivers to accommodate larger vessels, and the congestion costs and delays associated with moving freight to and from centrally located wharves.
3. A U S T R A L I A N P O R T S A N D S H I P P I N G
Ports are not an end in themselves. They are just one part of the transport system involved in the domestic m o v e m e n t of cargoes, or internationally, in either shipping exports to their overseas destinations or in moving imports from the foreign supplier to the domestic buyer. This status of ports as just one link in the transport chain underpins one of the most fundamental factors with the environmental m a n a g e m e n t of p o r t s - - t h e problems which arise cannot be taken in isolation and a myopic view will invariably lead to misdirected solutions. Consideration has to be given to matters such as the nature of cargoes handled by a port (including hazardous cargoes, such as chemicals and explosives), the m e t h o d and convenience of transhipment to and from the port, storage practices, land uses in areas adjacent to the port, buffer zones, and other uses of nearby lands and waters, including fisheries, tourism and recreational activities. Australia has about 80 recognised ports. 7 These vary in size and role
Environmental issues with Australian ports
233
from the busy multi-purpose capital city ports and the largely singlepurpose ore ports in northern Australia, exporting millions of tons of iron ore, coal, bauxite or manganese each year to small multi-purpose ports which often combine fishing and recreational boating with possibly some commercial activity. With such a large and ecologically diverse continent, inevitably the environmental problems faced by ports will also vary from one part of the country to another. The most complex problems are faced by port authorities in Queensland due to the proximity of their ports to the Great Barrier Reef. As an island nation, Australia is heavily dependent upon seaborne trade. In recent decades, air freight has made some inroads into the movement of overseas trade in high value cargoes. Table 1 shows the mode of transport for Australia's overseas trade. It indicates a lot about the nature of Australia's imports and exports, the shipping effort involved, and the types of cargoes handled in Australian ports. A different perspective is gained of overseas trade depending on whether it is measured by value or weight. While value indicates the relative importance of trade, the measure of the shipping task involved in seaborne trade is provided by weight. In tonnage terms, Australia's TABLE 1 Australia's overseas trade--mode of transport, 1990-1991
Weight Inwards
Sea Air Total
Outwards
'000 tonnes
%
'000 tonnes
%
32 202 163 32 365
99.5 0.5 100
304 439 176 304 615
99.95 0.05 100
Value Inwards
Sea Air Total
Outwards
$mill
%
$mill
%
35 116 12 616 47 732
73.6 26.4 100
42 995 9621 52 616
81.7 18.3 100
Source: Yearbook Australia 1994, Table 23.30, p. 656: Table 23.31, p. 657; Table 23.32, pp. 657-659; Table 23.36, p. 662.
234
S. Bateman
exports far exceed imports. Although Australia's exports and imports each year are of a similar order of magnitude in terms of value, there is a marked imbalance between the weight of cargo shipped into Australia by sea and that shipped out of Australian ports. This leads to a disparity in the numbers and types of ships using Australian ports to discharge imports or load exports. About six times as many vessels are required to carry Australian exports as are required for imports. Australia's exports are primarily bulk cargoes with relatively low values per tonne, such as iron ore, coal, bauxite/alumina, manganese and grain, while imports tend to be high value, low mass, manufactured goods. While Australia is largely importing general cargoes or oil in container ships and oil tankers, Australia's exports are largely carried in bulk carriers which enter Australian waters in ballast. Although manufactures dominate imports in value terms, oil is the major commodity imported in terms of weight--nearly 15 million tonnes in 1990-1991 or about 46% of the total weight of imports. ~ This difference between the number and types of ship carrying exports and those carrying imports needs to be appreciated as a major factor in managing many of the environmental problems associated with Australian ports. Trends over time are also important. Whilst Australia's exports and imports have progressively increased in real value over the years, the tonnage of inwards cargoes to Australia has only increased slightly over the last 25 years or so from about 30 million revenue tonnes per annum to about 32 million. Over the same period, the weight of cargoes loaded in Australian ports has increased six-fold reflecting the changing commodity composition of Australian exports and the increased exports of coal and iron ore in particular. This period has also seen the demise of many of the smaller general cargo ports around the country and the opening up of new bulk ore loading ports, especially in Northern Australia. The 10 largest ports at present in terms of cargo throughput, measured in tonnes, are listed in Table 2. The coastal trade has declined in recent decades under pressure mainly from road transport rather than rail, and is now restricted mainly to liquid and solid bulk cargoes although general cargo remains a large feature of the trade from the mainland across Bass Strait to Tasmanian ports. The busiest ports in Australia are in the South East with about 4000 shipping movements per annum in each of the ports of Sydney]Botany Bay and Melbourne]Geelong/Westernport, but the largest ports in terms of cargo throughput are the iron ore and coal ports of Northern and Eastern Australia (see Table 2). Iron ore deposits are mainly located in Western Australia and exports
235
Environmental issues with Australian ports TABLE 2
Australia's 10 largest ports in terms of cargo throughput (tonnes) 1993-1994 Port
Dampier Port Hedland Newcastle Hay Point Gladstone Port Kembla Fremantle Sydney/Botany Bay Brisbane Melbourne
Imports
Exports
Total
283 950 330 601 6 729 721 -8 824 741 8 463 448 8 216 000 14 952 979 9 044 181 7 312 000
60 207 348 53 006 151 46 459 121 43 998 721 23 730 706 18 525 554 1! 792 000 4 114 986 8 540 876 6 758 000
60 491 298 53 336 752 53 188 842 43 998 721 32 555 447 26 989 002 20 008 000 19 067 965 17 585 057 14 070 000
Source: Data supplied by the Association of Australian Ports and Marine Authorities Inc., letter dated 29 August 1995.
of iron ore are now over one h u n d r e d million tonnes per year from the ports of D a m p i e r and Port H e d l a n d principally to Japan. 9 There is also coastal m o v e m e n t of iron ore from these ports to the steel mills in Newcastle and Port Kembla. Australia is a very large producer of coal with exports mainly from the East coast a r o u n d the world. The main coal ports are A b b o t Point and H a y Point in Q u e e n s l a n d and Newcastle and Port K e m b l a in New South Wales. Grain exports are shipped from n u m e r o u s ports a r o u n d the coast equipped with grain elevators from G e r a l d t o n in W e s t e r n Australia to Newcastle in New South Wales. Oil is p r o d u c e d from the offshore oil fields in Bass Strait and on the North West Shelf and shipped to the oil refineries mostly near the state capital cities. Most of the m o v e m e n t of p e t r o l e u m products from these refineries is by sea to ports a r o u n d the Australian coast or to the South Pacific. Exports of liquefied natural gas have increased significantly in recent years with the opening up of the major N o r t h West Shelf project. As Australia's seaborne trade, both coastal and overseas, is comprised mainly of bulk commodities and much of it travels a long distance, relatively small changes in shipping costs can have a disproportionate effect on the economic viability of the trade. Australia's export trade, in particular, is very sensitive to shipping costs which invariably represent a large p r o p o r t i o n of the value of cargoes, especially low value ones such as iron and coal, landed overseas. For these reasons, Australian shipowners, shippers and port authorities are usually opposed to new regulations
236
S. Bateman
which may have a direct impact on Australia's international competitiveness and shipping cost structure.
4. E N V I R O N M E N T A L RISKS The environmental risks of maritime transport operations and the need for greater regulation of both shipping and ports are the centre of increased attention as an element of overall marine policy and sustainable development, both at the international and national levels. The increasing age of the world merchant fleet and the pressure on shipowners to cut costs to the absolute m i n i m u m are blamed as factors to explain an apparently growing n u m b e r of sub-standard merchant ships at sea which are possibly unseaworthy and often operated by poorly trained and inexperienced crews. As a consequence of the relatively low value of the cargoes carried and the low technological sophistication of ship systems, bulk carriers appear to be particularly vulnerable to these criticisms. The report, Ships of Shame, presented to the Australian Parliament in 1992 showed the alarming increase in the numbers of bulk cargo vessels totally lost with their cargoes during the previous 4years. I° The implications of these trends are particularly significant for Australia because of the large numbers of bulk carriers involved in Australia's seaborne trade. Incidents such as the grounding of Exxon Valdez in Alaska, the foundering of the Greek Aegean Sea off the Northwest coast of Spain, the breaking up of the Liberian Braer off the Shetland Islands, and the burning of the Danish-owned Maersk Navigator near the Northern entrance to the Malacca Strait have highlighted the risks to the maritime environment posed by the carriage of dangerous or hazardous cargoes at sea. While high profile maritime accidents such as these attract considerable publicity, they need to be kept in perspective as a source of marine pollution. They account for only about 30-40% of ship-generated oil pollution of the oceans with intentional activities (e.g. bilge-pumping and tank-cleaning) accounting for the remainder. 1~ In turn, it is usually recognised that ship operations are responsible for only about 30% of marine pollution with the remainder due to land-based sources, natural seepage and offshore production. There is a paradox that ships such as the Exxon Valdez, Braer and Maersk Navigator may not have been judged to be unsafe by international standards, because ostensibly they were operated by well-regarded companies with properly qualified crews. Nevertheless, the catastrophes that befell t h e m have drawn attention to the problems of unsafe ships at sea
Environmental issues with Australian ports
237
and have led to tighter international controls over shipping, as well as providing an incentive for regional cooperation to achieve the objective of 'safer ships and cleaner seas'. D e v e l o p m e n t s in the regime of Port State Control (PSC) have been an important element in international efforts to manage the problem of sub-standard ships. In Australia, the Ships of Shame report recognised PSC as a key element in ensuring acceptable levels of maritime safety. ~2 PSC involves the inspection by the officers of a national maritime authority of foreign vessels visiting the country's ports to ensure compliance with the international maritime safety and marine pollution conventions. It is based on the rule of international law, according to which a state exercises full jurisdictional powers within its internal waters and has the right to deny access to such waters. '3 It supplements the primary responsibility of the Flag State for ensuring the compliance of ships flying its flag with the relevant international conventions. While responsibility for safety standards onboard ship primarily rests with the Flag State and standards should be maintained by shipowners, classification societies and insurers, casualty rates have indicated that these 'checks and balances' are not working. Hence PSC emerged as the 'last safety net' to eradicate substandard ships. Port States control the condition of visiting ships to ensure conformity with recognised internationalstandards prescribed by the International Maritime Organization (IMO).A regional approach, rather than an individual country or global approach,has been favoured as the most effective and manageable means of achieving the necessary co-ordination between participating countries. ~4 A n Asia-Pacific M e m o r a n d u m of Understanding (MOU) on PSC was o p e n e d for signature on 2 D e c e m b e r 1993 and has now been signed by 17 countries (Australia, Canada, China, Fiji, Indonesia, Japan, Republic of Korea, Malaysia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Russian Federation, Singapore, Thailand, Vanuatu and Vietnam, with Hong Kong as an Associate Member). This is based on the Paris M O U on PSC adopted in 1982 as an international agreement between the maritime authorities of 15 E u r o p e a n countries aimed at the establishment of a harmonised system of PSC and an effective data exchange system on PSC inspections. Similarly the Asia-Pacific M O U provides for regional cooperation on ship inspections with a regional data base and agreement on target inspection rates for foreign ships visiting the ports of participating countries. With an effective system of PSC now covering East Asian waters, unsafe or sub-standard ships will find it very difficult to trade in the Asia-Pacific region. Australia has taken a leading role in the development of PSC in the Asia-Pacific region and has been very active generally in promoting
238
S. Bateman
maritime safety. This is a consequence of a n u m b e r of factors, including the heavy national dependence on seaborne trade (especially the involvem e n t in bulk shipping which, as has been noted, is the subject of particular ship safety concern) and the national stewardship over large marine areas of special environmental and ecological significance. During 1994, PSC inspections were carried out in Australian ports of 2406ships registered in 72countries. ~5 This reflected a steady increase in numbers from the 783 ships inspected in 1991. Of the ships inspected in 1994, 153vessels registered in 29countries were judged to have deficiencies sufficiently serious (i.e. serious deterioration of the hull structure, overloading or defective equipment such as life-saving, radio and fire-fighting equipment) to impair their seaworthiness and warrant their detention. Bulk carriers accounted for 71.2% of the ships detained in 1994 although they represented only 60.6% of the ships inspected. PSC is proving to be an effective means of improving the safety of maritime transport although the significant n u m b e r of sub-standard ships still being detained in Australian ports suggests there is still a long way to go. On the other hand, there are some indications emerging that the effectiveness of PSC in Australian ports is having an effect on charter rates and shipping costs as the lower quality and cheaper vessels are deterred from trading to Australia in view of the risks of detention. To investigate this trend, the Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) has held initial discussions with a London-based research institute to canvas the potential for a quantitative analysis of the effect of PSC on vessel availability and freight rates in certain Australian commodity tradesJ 6
5. E N V I R O N M E N T A L G U I D E L I N E S In view of the proximity of many Queensland ports to the Great Barrier Reef, 17 it is not surprising that Queensland has tended to lead the way with the development of environmental guidelines for ports. In 1993 Queensland became the first Australian state to produce an environment policy for ports. ~ This was based on a partnership between the Queensland D e p a r t m e n t of Transport, port authorities and the D e p a r t m e n t of E n v i r o n m e n t and Heritage and recognition that most shipping and port operations in Queensland were conducted in, or close to, one of the most beautiful and ecologically important coastal environments in the world with many Queensland ports also being situated near coastal wetlands. The purpose of the Environment Policy for Queensland ports is 'to establish an overall approach for port authorities to sustainable port development and operation, and responsible environmental management'. ~9
Environmental issues with Australian ports
239
The policy recognises that the circumstances of each port will be different and that each will have differing environmental priorities. It provides succinct statements on the broad range of environmental issues associated with the operation of ports (these statements are listed in the Appendix). The Queensland policy was used as a basis for the 'Environmental Guidelines for Australian Ports' issued by the Association of Australian Ports and Marine Authorities ( A A P M A ) in D e c e m b e r 1994. 20 However, these guidelines are just what their title suggests ('a guide for port authorities, a b e n c h m a r k for their performance, and a public c o m m i t m e n t to sound environmental practice') 21 and are rather weaker when c o m p a r e d with the firm statements in the Queensland policy. Unlike the Queensland policy, for example, the A A P M A Guidelines contain no firm e n d o r s e m e n t of the polluter-pays principle and no firm statement of the requirement for port authorities to develop appropriate contingency plans to cover the broadest possible range of pollution incidents likely to occur in the port, including operational pollution from ships, pollution from port industry (including the contamination of land), and dust and noise. 22 The A A P M A Guidelines are also rather more defensive on the topic of dredging and dredged materials. They stress the obligations of port authorities to maintain a depth of clearance below the keel of vessels visiting their ports and refer to the problem posed by the increasing draught of the larger vessels now using Australian ports. 23 The Guidelines go on with a reference to the L o n d o n D u m p i n g Convention: 24 The placement of dredged materials at sea is controlled by the L o n d o n Convention of 1972. This convention was framed so that it could be applied to some of the most contaminated harbours in the world. Generally, the sediments found within Australian ports are far less contaminated than those elsewhere in the world where they have received industrial pollution since the beginning of the industrial revolution. It is worthwhile noting that the L o n d o n Convention recognises, 'The need for maintaining open shipping lanes and harbours for maritime transport and that undue burden should be avoided with regard to the interpretation and application of the provisions of the convention.'25 The A A P M A Guidelines contain more specific guidance to port authorities on waste and recycling than is found in the Queensland policy statements. In addition to noting the requirement for the provision of facilities for receipt, treatment and disposal of ship generated wastes in accordance with the M A R P O L 73/78 convention, 26 the guidelines note that port authorities themselves are 'significant consumers of resources
240
S. Bateman
and every opportunity should be taken to ensure that the best techniques, processes and procedures are adopted to ensure that waste is minimised and that recycling o c c u r s ' . 27
6. B A L L A S T W A T E R The introduction of exotic species, marine pests and diseases through the discharge of ballast water from ships poses a serious threat to the coastal environment, indigenous animal and plant life, and local mariculture. This issue has attracted considerable attention in Australia in recent years and the guidelines adopted in Australia for the management of ballast water arriving from overseas ports provided the basis of the voluntary international guidelines adopted by the International Maritime Organization. 28 More recently, an Australian Ballast Water Management Strategy 29 was released as a consequence of the National Ballast Water Symposium convened by the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service in May 199470 The Australian interest and lead in the problems of ballast water flow from the characteristic of Australian shipping operations that large numbers of ships enter Australian waters in ballast, as well as from the concerns associated with the location of many Australian bulk ore ports near sensitive marine areas, including the Great Barrier Reef. Initially most attention in Australia was focussed on overseas shipping as a source of marine pests but in light of the establishment of the Undaria seaweed and the Northern Pacific starfish in Tasmanian waters (and more recently in Port Phillip Bay in Victoria), coastal shipping was also identified as a means by which unwanted organisms were transported from infected areas to non-infected areas? ~ A national Centre for Research on Introduced Marine Pests (CRIMP) has now been established in Hobart to research and develop early warning tools, better prediction methods and more effective assessment of risks and costs, as well as devising improved preventive measures to combat introduced marine p e s t s . 32 Contingency planning is required based on adequate baseline data but it is probably not feasible to go as far as a plan to deal with the introduction of each new exotic marine pest before it has become established. This would be a very large and probably unrealistic task with the potential to consume a disproportionate amount of research effort. The A N Z E C C Discussion Paper mentioned earlier suggested a series of actions to improve the management of ballast water and to minimise
Environmental issues with Australian ports
241
marine p e s t s . 33 Some of these additional procedures related to the management, regulation and monitoring of the situation but it is not clear as to which organisations should bear the responsibility and the costs of these new procedures, particularly with the large n u m b e r of Federal, State, local government, port authorities and industrial organisations involved in, or affected by, the ballast water issue. Other suggestions require changes in ship design to enable safe water exchange during passage but these changes would involve heavy increases in shipbuilding and ship running costs. The suggestion for re-ballasting at sea begs questions on matters of ship stability and safety, and as to whether any m o v e m e n t of ballast water is safe, and the need for research to determine 'safe' areas even on the high seas.
7. P O R T W A S T E R E C E P T I O N Port waste reception facilities for garbage, sewage, oil and oily wastes are required as an important means of reducing marine pollution and marine debris. The provision of such facilities is required by several international conventions but there are still a n u m b e r of Australian ports without adequate waste disposal facilities. A N Z E C C is conducting a survey of the existing situation for waste reception facilities in ports and boat harbours around Australia and A M S A has undertaken to distribute information on those facilities on completion of the survey. Appropriate pricing regimes are required based on quantity of waste and the difficulty of disposal (i.e. relative toxicity). If waste reception facilities are not reasonably priced then their availability could have the unintentional effect of increasing the illegal dumping of wastes at sea and even in ports. Identifying the source of waste can be difficult and ship crews can be very adept at covertly dumping waste and disguising its origins. Ports should offer incentives to encourage vessels to use waste facilities but the provision of these is an additional burden on the port authorities which will eventually flow through to the shipper and the shipowner.
8. D R E D G E
SPOIL
Dredging is an integral part of the operations of many Australian ports to maintain depths in approach channels, swinging basins and alongside wharves and jetties ('maintenance dredging'). New ports and port
242
S. Bateman
facilities invariably require an element of 'capital dredging', involving the removal of large quantities of sediments, silt, sand, gravel and rock to obtain the required depths for ship operations. Most dredging routinely carried out in Australian ports is maintenance dredging with about 300 000-500 000 tonnes of spoil being dumped at sea each year. 34 The spoil from the dredging operations is usually dumped at sea unless it can be used for reclamation works or to fill land for port development. This sea dumping can have both a chemical and physical impact with elevated concentrations of trace metals in particular areas, the loss of water quality and altered scouring processes, and a biological impact leading to possibly significant reductions in marine biodiversity and changes in the community structure of marine species. It is also recognised that environmental repercussions may arise from the placement of dredged materials on land. 35 Most of the sediment removed by maintenance dredging originates from erosion and land degradation within the watershed area and from sediment recirculation. Integrated catchment management to reduce processes of erosion and runoff and to control the introduction of sediments and contaminants into waterways is thus part of the overall strategy to minimise dredging requirements. Most dredging is strictly controlled by legislation, regulations and protocols which require environmental effects to be taken into account. These are either provided by the States for waters within their jurisdiction 36 or through Federal legislation for Commonwealth waters. The principal Federal legislation is the 1981 Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act administered by the Commonwealth's Environment Protection Agency and applicable to all Australian waters, except those landward of territorial sea baselines, and to all vessels, aircraft or platforms in Australian waters and to all Australian vessels or aircraft in any part of the sea. Since the Act was proclaimed, the permits issued have been mainly for the dumping of dredge spoil, but also for the dumping of ships, chemicals and burials at sea.
9. L O N G E R T E R M ISSUES There is a possibility even in the relatively near future of some resurgence of coastal shipping in Australia and the greater movement of domestic cargoes through Australian ports. Paradoxically this will result from dramatically increased awareness of the environmental costs of road transport. To some extent this trend is already apparent in the U K and Europe. Long distance shipping operations are relatively environmentally
243
Environmental issues with Australian ports TABLE 3
Domestic freight energy efficiency,1993 Mode
Road Urban Non-urban Rail Sea
Freight task ( bill.tn, km )
Energy consumption (petajoules )
Energy efficiency (bill. tn. km ]p J)
31.1 67.4 95.2 96.0
125.80 140.44 22.73 20.10
0.25 0.48 4.19 4.78
Sources: Bureau of Transport and Communications Report 88, Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Australian Transport--Long-Term Projections, Tables III.4 and IV.4, pp. 150 and 165.
friendly in comparison with other modes of transport. Table 3 shows that shipping in Australia is more efficient on a load/distance basis in their use of resources including fuel than other transport modes. Considerable attention has been paid in recent years to the problems of greenhouse gas emissions and global warming. In Australia the transport sector accounts for about 25% of greenhouse gas emissions from energy use and, as a consequence, emission controls in this sector will be an important part of the overall Australian strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 3v At present shipping accounts for only about 4% of total transport emissions (as compared with 34, 37 and 22%, respectively, from cars, trucks and aircraft) and this figure is not projected to change much over the next 20 years. 3~
10. CONCLUSIONS The regulation of the maritime transport industry (both shipping and ports) is attracting increasing attention as an element of overall marine policy and sustainable development. Shipping operations and ancillary services have the potential to cause major damage to coastal and marine environments but they are also essential to the maintenance and growth of the Australian economy. It must also be recognised that Australia's overseas trade is particularly sensitive to international shipping rates. The release in Australia of major policy statements and reports on the coastal zone and the marine environment during 19953'~ has introduced some bias towards the environmental side of the national agenda which is now of concern to the maritime transport industry, especially to port
244
S. Bateman
authorities. There is a particular concern about the equity of applying the precautionary principle in situations which could result in additional costs imposed on ports and shipping operations. The costs of environmental protection are much higher than pollution prevention and some consideration must be given to the stage at which the relevant costs become a community responsibility rather than an industry one. This is a particularly critical consideration when the appropriate applied research is not available to establish baseline data and causal links, or the full range of other options or implications has not been investigated. Further action by Australian authorities must be proportionate to the threat and cognisant of the full range of Australia's national interests in both shipping and environmental protection. Ongoing close consultation is required between environmental authorities, State and Federal, port authorities, the shipping industry and other maritime interests to ensure that the agenda is not biased towards one side or the other. This consideration highlights the importance of a more coordinated approach to maritime and oceans policy generally in Australia. Rather than setting an international lead in state practice with widereaching and new controls over shipping and port operations, it would seem preferable for Australia to be seen at the forefront of interdisciplinary and long-term research of relevant issues (including the environmental impact of shipping relative to other transport modes) to provide a basis for further action. Such research could be resourced through consortiums involving government, academia and industry. It would be in accordance with Australia's position as a country both with a heavy stake and dependence on shipping and a keen interest in the protection and preservation of the marine environment.
REFERENCES 1. Resource Assessment Commission, Coastal Zone Inquiry--Final Report. Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra, AGPS, November 1993. 2. Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories, Living on the Coast. The Commonwealth Coastal Policy, Canberra, May 1995. 3. Association of Australian Ports and Marine Authorities, Australian Shipowners Association, Mineral Council of Australia, and National Bulk Commodities Group, Response to Australian and New Zealand Environment Council ( A N Z E C C ) Discussion Paper on Maritime Accidents and Pollution: Impacts on the Marine Environment from Shipping Operations, July 1995, p. 3.
4. For a review of the development of Australia's seaborne trade, shipping and ports from around 1788 until 1974, covering the first two centuries of
Environmental issues with Australian ports
5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26.
27. 28.
245
European settlement, see Bach, J., A Maritime History of Australia. Thomas Nelson, Sydney, 1976. Broeze, F., Maritime Australia: Integrating the sea into our national history. Maritime Studies 40 (May/June 1988) 14. Broeze, Op. cit., 1988, p. 9. Beresford, A. K. C., Dobson, H. W. & Holmes, C., Lloyd's Maritime Atlas of Worm Ports and Shipping Places. Lloyds of London Press Ltd, London, 1987, pp. 34-35. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Yearbook Australia 1994. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra, 1993, Table 23.30, p. 656. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Op. cit., 1993, p. 506. Three ships were lost in 1988, 13 in 1989, 12 in 1990 and 19 in 1991. Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, Ships of Shame, Inquiry into Ship Safety. AGPS, Canberra 1992, Appendix 1, pp. 99-102. Mitchell, R., Intentional Oil Pollution of the Oceans. In Institutions for the Earth: Sources of Effective Environmental Protection, ed. P. M. Haas, R. O. Keohane & M. A. Levy. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1993, p. 189. Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA), 1994 Port State Control Report. Canberra, 1995, p. 5. For a comprehensive description of the port state regime, see Kasoulides, G. C., Port State Control and Jurisdiction: Evolution of the Port State Regime. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht, 1993. For a recent description of developments with Port State Control, refer Plaza, F., Port state control: towards global standardisation. IMO News, No. 1, 1994, pp. 13-20. AMSA, see note 12. Ibid., p. 6. In 1990, the Great Barrier Reef became the first area identified by the IMO as a particularly sensitive area in terms of Article 211(6) of the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Queensland Department of Transport, Environment Policy for Queensland Ports, Brisbane, 1993. Ibid., p. 4. Association of Australian Ports and Marine Authorities (AAPMA), Environmental Guidelines of Australian Ports. Sydney, December 1994 Ibid., p. 1. Environment Policy for Queensland Ports, see note 18, p. 14. Environmental Guidelines for Australian Ports, see note 20, p. 7. International Maritime Organiszation, International Convention on Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter. IMO, London, 1972. Environmental Guidelines for Australian Ports, see note 20, p. 8. International Maritime Organization, M A R P O L 73/78 Consolidated Edition: Articles, Protocols, Annexes, Unified Interpretations of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as Modified by the Protocol of 1978 Relating Thereto. IMO, London, 1992. Environmental Guidelines for Australian Ports, see note 18, p. 8. Living on the Coast, see note 2, p. 34. The International Guidelines for Preventing the Introduction of Unwanted Aquatic Organisms and Pathogens
246
29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39.
S. Bateman from Ships' Ballast Water and Sediment Discharges were adopted by IMO Resolution MEPC.50(31) on 4 July 1991. Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service, Draft Australian Ballast Water Management Strategy. Canberra, November, 1994. Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service. Ballast Water Symposium Proceedings, 11-13 May 1994, Canberra, 1994. Living on the Coast, see note 2, p. 34. ANZECC Discussion Paper, Maritime Accidents and Pollution, p. 23. Ibid., p. 30. Gordon Smith, J., Sea Dumping Evaluation--Description of Processes for the Issue of Dumping Permits. Consultant's Report for Environment Protection Agency, Canberra, September 1995, p. 20. Environmental Policy for Queensland Ports, see note 18, p. 15. For example, the Victorian 'Protocol for dredging and disposal of dredged material' (1990); and New South Wales Department of Planning, Sea Dumping Guidelines. Sydney, 1989. Bureau of Transport Communications and Economics Report 88, Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Australian Transport--Long-Term Projections. AGPS, Canberra, March 1995, p. xxv. Ibid., p. xxvii. Particularly Living on the Coast; the ANZECC discussion paper Maritime Accidents and Pollution; and Ocean Rescue 2000 Program, Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories, Our Sea, Our Future--State of the Marine Environment Report, Canberra, 1995. APPENDIX: ENVIRONMENT POLICY FOR QUEENSLAND PORTS--SUMMARY OF POLICY STATEMENTS
1. Port planning 1.1. Port land use planning. Port planning will allocate proposed land uses with sensitivity to protecting the natural and h u m a n environment. Port authorities shall utilise environmental information to ensure appropriate consideration of environmental implications. 1.2. Coastal management. Port authorities are to maximise their involvement and play an active role in the formulation of coastal m a n a g e m e n t plans. 1.3. Environmental impact assessment (EIA). Port authorities will consider the potential environmental effects of all projects. W h e r e significant environmental impacts are possible, or where environmental implications are uncertain, port authorities will require or u n d e r t a k e an E I A u n d e r the auspices of state or federal legislation. 1.4. Public participation. Port authorities are c o m m i t t e d to public participation early in the planning process. The views of the community,
Environmental issues with Australian ports
247
stakeholders and port advisory bodies will be considered in decision making regarding planning or development proposals.
2. Environmental management 2.1. Staff and education. Each port authority will charge a senior employee with the primary responsibility to address environmental matters to ensure there is a clear line of responsibility and a point of accumulated knowledge on the port environment. 2.2. Environmental monitoring. Port authorities will undertake environmental scans of the port area to increase baseline knowledge of the port environment. Monitoring of development activities will be undertaken as appropriate or required. 2.3. Environmental auditing. Port authorities will use environmental audits to enhance their environmental m a n a g e m e n t programs. 2.4. Budgeting. Port authorities are committed to making adequate provision for treatment of environmental issues in their annual budget process.
3. Port operation 3.1. Pollution control Port authorities will act to reduce the risk of pollution and where pollution occurs, take appropriate mitigative measures. 3.2. Dredging and dredged materials. Port authorities will evaluate the need for, and environmental impact of dredging works. They will take actions to minimise dredging requirements, p r o m o t e the beneficial use of dredged materials and where possible, encourage integrated catchment management. 3.3. Port users. Port authorities will encourage port users to be responsible environmental managers. 3.4. Cargo facilities and cargo in transit. Port authorities will ensure that handling of cargo is undertaken in an environmentally responsible manner. 3.5. Navigational factors. Port authorities should establish clear consultation procedures with government agencies regulating marine transport.
Ocean & Coastal Management, Vol. 33, Nos 1-3, pp. 229-247, 1996 ~) 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd All rights reserved. Printed in Northern Ireland S0964-5691 (96)000531 0964-5691/96515.00+0-00
ELSEVIER
Environmental issues with Australian ports
Sam Bateman Centre for Maritime Policy, University of Wollongong, Locked Bag 8812, South Coast Mail Centre, Wollongong, NSW 2521, Australia
ABSTRACT Ports and shipping operations are under increased environmental scrutiny in Australia, particularly as so many o f Australia's ports and shipping routes are located in or near major environmentally sensitive areas. The environmental risks involved have been highlighted by the publicity given to shipping accidents. Environmental regulations over aspects o f port operations, including ballast water management, dredge spoil and waste reception, are also becoming stricter. While port authorities have adopted stringent environmental guidelines, they remain concerned that the full impact o f proposed new environmental regulations on maritime industry may not be fully understood. This paper discusses some o f the issues involved with achieving a balance between environmental protection and the need to recognise the importance o f seaborne trade to Australia and to maintain Australia's competitiveness in international trade. © 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd
1. I N T R O D U C T I O N In recent years, ports and shipping operations have been subjected to markedly increased environmental scrutiny in Australia. Partly this is due to the publicity given to shipping accidents and consequent pollution, both in Australian waters and elsewhere, but it is also associated with a developing high marine environmental consciousness aroused in Australians by firstly, the national desire to live or take holidays near the sea, and secondly, by national stewardship of the Great Barrier Reef and other environmentally sensitive marine areas in and around Australia. With the great attention in Australia paid recently to the coastal zone 229
230
S. Bateman
with a major enquiry between 1991 and 1993 by the Resource Assessment Commission ~ and the release in May 1995 of the C o m m o n w e a l t h Coastal Policy, 2 it is somewhat paradoxical that relatively little attention has been given to ports as a major industrial activity in the coastal zone and a central part of the land-sea interface. Where shipping operations have been considered in these documents, it has been in the context mainly of ship-sourced pollution and ballast water issues with only scant discussion, if any, of the problems posed by port operations and the difficulties faced by port authorities in following sound environmental practice in managing their ports. While ports have not received much attention as parts of the coastal zone, aspects of their operations have, nevertheless, attracted considerable attention from government environmental protection agencies. Ballast water management, waste reception facilities and the dumping of dredge spoil are all issues which have received attention in this way with a rising concern among port authorities and the shipping industry generally that they will face significant extra, and possibly inequitable, costs in contributing to the preservation and protection of the marine environment. Maritime industry authorities are concerned about a perceived lack of consultation between industry and the agencies involved in developing the regulatory framework, and a lack of appreciation of the consequences, particularly the economic ones, of some of the regulations being considered. The recent response by several maritime industry authorities to the Australian and New Zealand E n v i r o n m e n t and Conservation Council ( A N Z E C C ) Discussion Paper on Maritime Accidents and Pollution noted that: In assessing issues and potential solutions it is important that all sources of a potential problem are considered equitably and the roles of commercial shipping as well as other maritime interests need to be placed in a global perspective. Similarly in the use of the precautionary principle, careful evaluation and use of guidelines is essential. 3 To some extent this concern is symptomatic of a broader national problem which is the lack of an integrated approach to national oceans m a n a g e m e n t policy. Simply, there are no institutions or mechanisms in place at present in Australia to resolve differences of this nature or to define national priorities with national maritime interests and activities. There is a real challenge involved in maintaining a balance between the need to maintain the economic viability and competitiveness of Australian ports, shipping and overall trading position, and the community's desire to protect the marine environment. However, the development of appropriate and reasonable environmental controls over shipping operations and
Environmental issues with Australian ports
231
ports is made more difficult by the historical and economic legacy of many Australian ports still being situated in less than optimal locations from an environmental protection perspective. Increasing recreational use of coastal areas, leisure boating and marine tourism are also putting additional pressures on port authorities in relation to port operations and land-use management. This paper reviews issues associated with meeting this challenge. It discusses several issues associated with ports, which are currently of concern to maritime industry because they could lead to increased costs both for Australia's shippers and shipping interests and thus a loss of international competitiveness by Australia. The paper concludes that the debate may have become overly influenced in recent years by an emphasis on the environmental side of the national agenda, and that there is an associated need for more extensive, inter-disciplinary and long-term research of relevant issues, as well as ongoing close consultation between environmental authorities (State and Federal), port authorities, the shipping industry and other maritime interests.
2. H I S T O R I C A L P E R S P E C T I V E 4 Australia's economic development has been largely built upon the export by sea of primary produce and minerals. Australia's major cities are predominantly port cities which have worked as 'magnets' to attract immigrants to Australia? In the light of these considerations, ports and their d e v e l o p m e n t should be prominent features of the social and economic history of Australia yet the reality is somewhat different. A prominent Australian maritime historian has claimed that, despite the importance of ports to the Australian economy, an ideological bias inherent in Australian historiography against extreme left wing attitudes and practices, particularly apparent in the waterfront and seamen's unions, has meant that ports 'don't figure largely in urban and economic history' in Australia/' The suitability of a particular anchorage in a bay, harbour or river determined the location of the early European settlements in Australia. As these settlements grew, the ports and their facilities grew with them with spreading urbanisation and a tendency for the more unpleasant features of city life, including slums, sleazy hotels and narrow, congested streets to be concentrated around the port itself. In some instances, such as the Rocks and Darling Harbour areas of Sydney and inner Fremantle, these formerly unattractive areas have been regenerated for their heritage value and as major tourist attractions.
232
s. Bateman
In many cases, major Australian ports came to be located in a highly environmentally sensitive area at the m o u t h and along the banks of a river (such as the port of Brisbane on the Brisbane River, Melbourne on the Yarra and Fremantle on the Swan River) or on the shores of an attractive, sheltered harbour (such as Sydney Harbour, Hobart on the Derwent River estuary, and Albany on King George Sound). In more recent times, there has been a tendency for the port infrastructure to be re-located away from, or downstream from central city locations. For example, port activity in Brisbane, Melbourne and Port Adelaide is now concentrated towards the mouths of the respective rivers rather than up river at wharves (in some instances, almost right in the central business district), and most commercial port operations in Sydney are now conducted at Botany Bay. While these moves are environmentally desirable, the pressures for re-location have only indirectly emerged as a result of environmental concerns. In most instances, there has been a strong commercial imperative arising from containerisation, the need to build and acquire land for new port infrastructure, such as container terminals, oil refineries and tank farms, the costs of maintenance and capital dredging in relatively shallow rivers to accommodate larger vessels, and the congestion costs and delays associated with moving freight to and from centrally located wharves.
3. A U S T R A L I A N P O R T S A N D S H I P P I N G
Ports are not an end in themselves. They are just one part of the transport system involved in the domestic m o v e m e n t of cargoes, or internationally, in either shipping exports to their overseas destinations or in moving imports from the foreign supplier to the domestic buyer. This status of ports as just one link in the transport chain underpins one of the most fundamental factors with the environmental m a n a g e m e n t of p o r t s - - t h e problems which arise cannot be taken in isolation and a myopic view will invariably lead to misdirected solutions. Consideration has to be given to matters such as the nature of cargoes handled by a port (including hazardous cargoes, such as chemicals and explosives), the m e t h o d and convenience of transhipment to and from the port, storage practices, land uses in areas adjacent to the port, buffer zones, and other uses of nearby lands and waters, including fisheries, tourism and recreational activities. Australia has about 80 recognised ports. 7 These vary in size and role
Environmental issues with Australian ports
233
from the busy multi-purpose capital city ports and the largely singlepurpose ore ports in northern Australia, exporting millions of tons of iron ore, coal, bauxite or manganese each year to small multi-purpose ports which often combine fishing and recreational boating with possibly some commercial activity. With such a large and ecologically diverse continent, inevitably the environmental problems faced by ports will also vary from one part of the country to another. The most complex problems are faced by port authorities in Queensland due to the proximity of their ports to the Great Barrier Reef. As an island nation, Australia is heavily dependent upon seaborne trade. In recent decades, air freight has made some inroads into the movement of overseas trade in high value cargoes. Table 1 shows the mode of transport for Australia's overseas trade. It indicates a lot about the nature of Australia's imports and exports, the shipping effort involved, and the types of cargoes handled in Australian ports. A different perspective is gained of overseas trade depending on whether it is measured by value or weight. While value indicates the relative importance of trade, the measure of the shipping task involved in seaborne trade is provided by weight. In tonnage terms, Australia's TABLE 1 Australia's overseas trade--mode of transport, 1990-1991
Weight Inwards
Sea Air Total
Outwards
'000 tonnes
%
'000 tonnes
%
32 202 163 32 365
99.5 0.5 100
304 439 176 304 615
99.95 0.05 100
Value Inwards
Sea Air Total
Outwards
$mill
%
$mill
%
35 116 12 616 47 732
73.6 26.4 100
42 995 9621 52 616
81.7 18.3 100
Source: Yearbook Australia 1994, Table 23.30, p. 656: Table 23.31, p. 657; Table 23.32, pp. 657-659; Table 23.36, p. 662.
234
S. Bateman
exports far exceed imports. Although Australia's exports and imports each year are of a similar order of magnitude in terms of value, there is a marked imbalance between the weight of cargo shipped into Australia by sea and that shipped out of Australian ports. This leads to a disparity in the numbers and types of ships using Australian ports to discharge imports or load exports. About six times as many vessels are required to carry Australian exports as are required for imports. Australia's exports are primarily bulk cargoes with relatively low values per tonne, such as iron ore, coal, bauxite/alumina, manganese and grain, while imports tend to be high value, low mass, manufactured goods. While Australia is largely importing general cargoes or oil in container ships and oil tankers, Australia's exports are largely carried in bulk carriers which enter Australian waters in ballast. Although manufactures dominate imports in value terms, oil is the major commodity imported in terms of weight--nearly 15 million tonnes in 1990-1991 or about 46% of the total weight of imports. ~ This difference between the number and types of ship carrying exports and those carrying imports needs to be appreciated as a major factor in managing many of the environmental problems associated with Australian ports. Trends over time are also important. Whilst Australia's exports and imports have progressively increased in real value over the years, the tonnage of inwards cargoes to Australia has only increased slightly over the last 25 years or so from about 30 million revenue tonnes per annum to about 32 million. Over the same period, the weight of cargoes loaded in Australian ports has increased six-fold reflecting the changing commodity composition of Australian exports and the increased exports of coal and iron ore in particular. This period has also seen the demise of many of the smaller general cargo ports around the country and the opening up of new bulk ore loading ports, especially in Northern Australia. The 10 largest ports at present in terms of cargo throughput, measured in tonnes, are listed in Table 2. The coastal trade has declined in recent decades under pressure mainly from road transport rather than rail, and is now restricted mainly to liquid and solid bulk cargoes although general cargo remains a large feature of the trade from the mainland across Bass Strait to Tasmanian ports. The busiest ports in Australia are in the South East with about 4000 shipping movements per annum in each of the ports of Sydney]Botany Bay and Melbourne]Geelong/Westernport, but the largest ports in terms of cargo throughput are the iron ore and coal ports of Northern and Eastern Australia (see Table 2). Iron ore deposits are mainly located in Western Australia and exports
235
Environmental issues with Australian ports TABLE 2
Australia's 10 largest ports in terms of cargo throughput (tonnes) 1993-1994 Port
Dampier Port Hedland Newcastle Hay Point Gladstone Port Kembla Fremantle Sydney/Botany Bay Brisbane Melbourne
Imports
Exports
Total
283 950 330 601 6 729 721 -8 824 741 8 463 448 8 216 000 14 952 979 9 044 181 7 312 000
60 207 348 53 006 151 46 459 121 43 998 721 23 730 706 18 525 554 1! 792 000 4 114 986 8 540 876 6 758 000
60 491 298 53 336 752 53 188 842 43 998 721 32 555 447 26 989 002 20 008 000 19 067 965 17 585 057 14 070 000
Source: Data supplied by the Association of Australian Ports and Marine Authorities Inc., letter dated 29 August 1995.
of iron ore are now over one h u n d r e d million tonnes per year from the ports of D a m p i e r and Port H e d l a n d principally to Japan. 9 There is also coastal m o v e m e n t of iron ore from these ports to the steel mills in Newcastle and Port Kembla. Australia is a very large producer of coal with exports mainly from the East coast a r o u n d the world. The main coal ports are A b b o t Point and H a y Point in Q u e e n s l a n d and Newcastle and Port K e m b l a in New South Wales. Grain exports are shipped from n u m e r o u s ports a r o u n d the coast equipped with grain elevators from G e r a l d t o n in W e s t e r n Australia to Newcastle in New South Wales. Oil is p r o d u c e d from the offshore oil fields in Bass Strait and on the North West Shelf and shipped to the oil refineries mostly near the state capital cities. Most of the m o v e m e n t of p e t r o l e u m products from these refineries is by sea to ports a r o u n d the Australian coast or to the South Pacific. Exports of liquefied natural gas have increased significantly in recent years with the opening up of the major N o r t h West Shelf project. As Australia's seaborne trade, both coastal and overseas, is comprised mainly of bulk commodities and much of it travels a long distance, relatively small changes in shipping costs can have a disproportionate effect on the economic viability of the trade. Australia's export trade, in particular, is very sensitive to shipping costs which invariably represent a large p r o p o r t i o n of the value of cargoes, especially low value ones such as iron and coal, landed overseas. For these reasons, Australian shipowners, shippers and port authorities are usually opposed to new regulations
236
S. Bateman
which may have a direct impact on Australia's international competitiveness and shipping cost structure.
4. E N V I R O N M E N T A L RISKS The environmental risks of maritime transport operations and the need for greater regulation of both shipping and ports are the centre of increased attention as an element of overall marine policy and sustainable development, both at the international and national levels. The increasing age of the world merchant fleet and the pressure on shipowners to cut costs to the absolute m i n i m u m are blamed as factors to explain an apparently growing n u m b e r of sub-standard merchant ships at sea which are possibly unseaworthy and often operated by poorly trained and inexperienced crews. As a consequence of the relatively low value of the cargoes carried and the low technological sophistication of ship systems, bulk carriers appear to be particularly vulnerable to these criticisms. The report, Ships of Shame, presented to the Australian Parliament in 1992 showed the alarming increase in the numbers of bulk cargo vessels totally lost with their cargoes during the previous 4years. I° The implications of these trends are particularly significant for Australia because of the large numbers of bulk carriers involved in Australia's seaborne trade. Incidents such as the grounding of Exxon Valdez in Alaska, the foundering of the Greek Aegean Sea off the Northwest coast of Spain, the breaking up of the Liberian Braer off the Shetland Islands, and the burning of the Danish-owned Maersk Navigator near the Northern entrance to the Malacca Strait have highlighted the risks to the maritime environment posed by the carriage of dangerous or hazardous cargoes at sea. While high profile maritime accidents such as these attract considerable publicity, they need to be kept in perspective as a source of marine pollution. They account for only about 30-40% of ship-generated oil pollution of the oceans with intentional activities (e.g. bilge-pumping and tank-cleaning) accounting for the remainder. 1~ In turn, it is usually recognised that ship operations are responsible for only about 30% of marine pollution with the remainder due to land-based sources, natural seepage and offshore production. There is a paradox that ships such as the Exxon Valdez, Braer and Maersk Navigator may not have been judged to be unsafe by international standards, because ostensibly they were operated by well-regarded companies with properly qualified crews. Nevertheless, the catastrophes that befell t h e m have drawn attention to the problems of unsafe ships at sea
Environmental issues with Australian ports
237
and have led to tighter international controls over shipping, as well as providing an incentive for regional cooperation to achieve the objective of 'safer ships and cleaner seas'. D e v e l o p m e n t s in the regime of Port State Control (PSC) have been an important element in international efforts to manage the problem of sub-standard ships. In Australia, the Ships of Shame report recognised PSC as a key element in ensuring acceptable levels of maritime safety. ~2 PSC involves the inspection by the officers of a national maritime authority of foreign vessels visiting the country's ports to ensure compliance with the international maritime safety and marine pollution conventions. It is based on the rule of international law, according to which a state exercises full jurisdictional powers within its internal waters and has the right to deny access to such waters. '3 It supplements the primary responsibility of the Flag State for ensuring the compliance of ships flying its flag with the relevant international conventions. While responsibility for safety standards onboard ship primarily rests with the Flag State and standards should be maintained by shipowners, classification societies and insurers, casualty rates have indicated that these 'checks and balances' are not working. Hence PSC emerged as the 'last safety net' to eradicate substandard ships. Port States control the condition of visiting ships to ensure conformity with recognised internationalstandards prescribed by the International Maritime Organization (IMO).A regional approach, rather than an individual country or global approach,has been favoured as the most effective and manageable means of achieving the necessary co-ordination between participating countries. ~4 A n Asia-Pacific M e m o r a n d u m of Understanding (MOU) on PSC was o p e n e d for signature on 2 D e c e m b e r 1993 and has now been signed by 17 countries (Australia, Canada, China, Fiji, Indonesia, Japan, Republic of Korea, Malaysia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Russian Federation, Singapore, Thailand, Vanuatu and Vietnam, with Hong Kong as an Associate Member). This is based on the Paris M O U on PSC adopted in 1982 as an international agreement between the maritime authorities of 15 E u r o p e a n countries aimed at the establishment of a harmonised system of PSC and an effective data exchange system on PSC inspections. Similarly the Asia-Pacific M O U provides for regional cooperation on ship inspections with a regional data base and agreement on target inspection rates for foreign ships visiting the ports of participating countries. With an effective system of PSC now covering East Asian waters, unsafe or sub-standard ships will find it very difficult to trade in the Asia-Pacific region. Australia has taken a leading role in the development of PSC in the Asia-Pacific region and has been very active generally in promoting
238
S. Bateman
maritime safety. This is a consequence of a n u m b e r of factors, including the heavy national dependence on seaborne trade (especially the involvem e n t in bulk shipping which, as has been noted, is the subject of particular ship safety concern) and the national stewardship over large marine areas of special environmental and ecological significance. During 1994, PSC inspections were carried out in Australian ports of 2406ships registered in 72countries. ~5 This reflected a steady increase in numbers from the 783 ships inspected in 1991. Of the ships inspected in 1994, 153vessels registered in 29countries were judged to have deficiencies sufficiently serious (i.e. serious deterioration of the hull structure, overloading or defective equipment such as life-saving, radio and fire-fighting equipment) to impair their seaworthiness and warrant their detention. Bulk carriers accounted for 71.2% of the ships detained in 1994 although they represented only 60.6% of the ships inspected. PSC is proving to be an effective means of improving the safety of maritime transport although the significant n u m b e r of sub-standard ships still being detained in Australian ports suggests there is still a long way to go. On the other hand, there are some indications emerging that the effectiveness of PSC in Australian ports is having an effect on charter rates and shipping costs as the lower quality and cheaper vessels are deterred from trading to Australia in view of the risks of detention. To investigate this trend, the Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) has held initial discussions with a London-based research institute to canvas the potential for a quantitative analysis of the effect of PSC on vessel availability and freight rates in certain Australian commodity tradesJ 6
5. E N V I R O N M E N T A L G U I D E L I N E S In view of the proximity of many Queensland ports to the Great Barrier Reef, 17 it is not surprising that Queensland has tended to lead the way with the development of environmental guidelines for ports. In 1993 Queensland became the first Australian state to produce an environment policy for ports. ~ This was based on a partnership between the Queensland D e p a r t m e n t of Transport, port authorities and the D e p a r t m e n t of E n v i r o n m e n t and Heritage and recognition that most shipping and port operations in Queensland were conducted in, or close to, one of the most beautiful and ecologically important coastal environments in the world with many Queensland ports also being situated near coastal wetlands. The purpose of the Environment Policy for Queensland ports is 'to establish an overall approach for port authorities to sustainable port development and operation, and responsible environmental management'. ~9
Environmental issues with Australian ports
239
The policy recognises that the circumstances of each port will be different and that each will have differing environmental priorities. It provides succinct statements on the broad range of environmental issues associated with the operation of ports (these statements are listed in the Appendix). The Queensland policy was used as a basis for the 'Environmental Guidelines for Australian Ports' issued by the Association of Australian Ports and Marine Authorities ( A A P M A ) in D e c e m b e r 1994. 20 However, these guidelines are just what their title suggests ('a guide for port authorities, a b e n c h m a r k for their performance, and a public c o m m i t m e n t to sound environmental practice') 21 and are rather weaker when c o m p a r e d with the firm statements in the Queensland policy. Unlike the Queensland policy, for example, the A A P M A Guidelines contain no firm e n d o r s e m e n t of the polluter-pays principle and no firm statement of the requirement for port authorities to develop appropriate contingency plans to cover the broadest possible range of pollution incidents likely to occur in the port, including operational pollution from ships, pollution from port industry (including the contamination of land), and dust and noise. 22 The A A P M A Guidelines are also rather more defensive on the topic of dredging and dredged materials. They stress the obligations of port authorities to maintain a depth of clearance below the keel of vessels visiting their ports and refer to the problem posed by the increasing draught of the larger vessels now using Australian ports. 23 The Guidelines go on with a reference to the L o n d o n D u m p i n g Convention: 24 The placement of dredged materials at sea is controlled by the L o n d o n Convention of 1972. This convention was framed so that it could be applied to some of the most contaminated harbours in the world. Generally, the sediments found within Australian ports are far less contaminated than those elsewhere in the world where they have received industrial pollution since the beginning of the industrial revolution. It is worthwhile noting that the L o n d o n Convention recognises, 'The need for maintaining open shipping lanes and harbours for maritime transport and that undue burden should be avoided with regard to the interpretation and application of the provisions of the convention.'25 The A A P M A Guidelines contain more specific guidance to port authorities on waste and recycling than is found in the Queensland policy statements. In addition to noting the requirement for the provision of facilities for receipt, treatment and disposal of ship generated wastes in accordance with the M A R P O L 73/78 convention, 26 the guidelines note that port authorities themselves are 'significant consumers of resources
240
S. Bateman
and every opportunity should be taken to ensure that the best techniques, processes and procedures are adopted to ensure that waste is minimised and that recycling o c c u r s ' . 27
6. B A L L A S T W A T E R The introduction of exotic species, marine pests and diseases through the discharge of ballast water from ships poses a serious threat to the coastal environment, indigenous animal and plant life, and local mariculture. This issue has attracted considerable attention in Australia in recent years and the guidelines adopted in Australia for the management of ballast water arriving from overseas ports provided the basis of the voluntary international guidelines adopted by the International Maritime Organization. 28 More recently, an Australian Ballast Water Management Strategy 29 was released as a consequence of the National Ballast Water Symposium convened by the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service in May 199470 The Australian interest and lead in the problems of ballast water flow from the characteristic of Australian shipping operations that large numbers of ships enter Australian waters in ballast, as well as from the concerns associated with the location of many Australian bulk ore ports near sensitive marine areas, including the Great Barrier Reef. Initially most attention in Australia was focussed on overseas shipping as a source of marine pests but in light of the establishment of the Undaria seaweed and the Northern Pacific starfish in Tasmanian waters (and more recently in Port Phillip Bay in Victoria), coastal shipping was also identified as a means by which unwanted organisms were transported from infected areas to non-infected areas? ~ A national Centre for Research on Introduced Marine Pests (CRIMP) has now been established in Hobart to research and develop early warning tools, better prediction methods and more effective assessment of risks and costs, as well as devising improved preventive measures to combat introduced marine p e s t s . 32 Contingency planning is required based on adequate baseline data but it is probably not feasible to go as far as a plan to deal with the introduction of each new exotic marine pest before it has become established. This would be a very large and probably unrealistic task with the potential to consume a disproportionate amount of research effort. The A N Z E C C Discussion Paper mentioned earlier suggested a series of actions to improve the management of ballast water and to minimise
Environmental issues with Australian ports
241
marine p e s t s . 33 Some of these additional procedures related to the management, regulation and monitoring of the situation but it is not clear as to which organisations should bear the responsibility and the costs of these new procedures, particularly with the large n u m b e r of Federal, State, local government, port authorities and industrial organisations involved in, or affected by, the ballast water issue. Other suggestions require changes in ship design to enable safe water exchange during passage but these changes would involve heavy increases in shipbuilding and ship running costs. The suggestion for re-ballasting at sea begs questions on matters of ship stability and safety, and as to whether any m o v e m e n t of ballast water is safe, and the need for research to determine 'safe' areas even on the high seas.
7. P O R T W A S T E R E C E P T I O N Port waste reception facilities for garbage, sewage, oil and oily wastes are required as an important means of reducing marine pollution and marine debris. The provision of such facilities is required by several international conventions but there are still a n u m b e r of Australian ports without adequate waste disposal facilities. A N Z E C C is conducting a survey of the existing situation for waste reception facilities in ports and boat harbours around Australia and A M S A has undertaken to distribute information on those facilities on completion of the survey. Appropriate pricing regimes are required based on quantity of waste and the difficulty of disposal (i.e. relative toxicity). If waste reception facilities are not reasonably priced then their availability could have the unintentional effect of increasing the illegal dumping of wastes at sea and even in ports. Identifying the source of waste can be difficult and ship crews can be very adept at covertly dumping waste and disguising its origins. Ports should offer incentives to encourage vessels to use waste facilities but the provision of these is an additional burden on the port authorities which will eventually flow through to the shipper and the shipowner.
8. D R E D G E
SPOIL
Dredging is an integral part of the operations of many Australian ports to maintain depths in approach channels, swinging basins and alongside wharves and jetties ('maintenance dredging'). New ports and port
242
S. Bateman
facilities invariably require an element of 'capital dredging', involving the removal of large quantities of sediments, silt, sand, gravel and rock to obtain the required depths for ship operations. Most dredging routinely carried out in Australian ports is maintenance dredging with about 300 000-500 000 tonnes of spoil being dumped at sea each year. 34 The spoil from the dredging operations is usually dumped at sea unless it can be used for reclamation works or to fill land for port development. This sea dumping can have both a chemical and physical impact with elevated concentrations of trace metals in particular areas, the loss of water quality and altered scouring processes, and a biological impact leading to possibly significant reductions in marine biodiversity and changes in the community structure of marine species. It is also recognised that environmental repercussions may arise from the placement of dredged materials on land. 35 Most of the sediment removed by maintenance dredging originates from erosion and land degradation within the watershed area and from sediment recirculation. Integrated catchment management to reduce processes of erosion and runoff and to control the introduction of sediments and contaminants into waterways is thus part of the overall strategy to minimise dredging requirements. Most dredging is strictly controlled by legislation, regulations and protocols which require environmental effects to be taken into account. These are either provided by the States for waters within their jurisdiction 36 or through Federal legislation for Commonwealth waters. The principal Federal legislation is the 1981 Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act administered by the Commonwealth's Environment Protection Agency and applicable to all Australian waters, except those landward of territorial sea baselines, and to all vessels, aircraft or platforms in Australian waters and to all Australian vessels or aircraft in any part of the sea. Since the Act was proclaimed, the permits issued have been mainly for the dumping of dredge spoil, but also for the dumping of ships, chemicals and burials at sea.
9. L O N G E R T E R M ISSUES There is a possibility even in the relatively near future of some resurgence of coastal shipping in Australia and the greater movement of domestic cargoes through Australian ports. Paradoxically this will result from dramatically increased awareness of the environmental costs of road transport. To some extent this trend is already apparent in the U K and Europe. Long distance shipping operations are relatively environmentally
243
Environmental issues with Australian ports TABLE 3
Domestic freight energy efficiency,1993 Mode
Road Urban Non-urban Rail Sea
Freight task ( bill.tn, km )
Energy consumption (petajoules )
Energy efficiency (bill. tn. km ]p J)
31.1 67.4 95.2 96.0
125.80 140.44 22.73 20.10
0.25 0.48 4.19 4.78
Sources: Bureau of Transport and Communications Report 88, Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Australian Transport--Long-Term Projections, Tables III.4 and IV.4, pp. 150 and 165.
friendly in comparison with other modes of transport. Table 3 shows that shipping in Australia is more efficient on a load/distance basis in their use of resources including fuel than other transport modes. Considerable attention has been paid in recent years to the problems of greenhouse gas emissions and global warming. In Australia the transport sector accounts for about 25% of greenhouse gas emissions from energy use and, as a consequence, emission controls in this sector will be an important part of the overall Australian strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 3v At present shipping accounts for only about 4% of total transport emissions (as compared with 34, 37 and 22%, respectively, from cars, trucks and aircraft) and this figure is not projected to change much over the next 20 years. 3~
10. CONCLUSIONS The regulation of the maritime transport industry (both shipping and ports) is attracting increasing attention as an element of overall marine policy and sustainable development. Shipping operations and ancillary services have the potential to cause major damage to coastal and marine environments but they are also essential to the maintenance and growth of the Australian economy. It must also be recognised that Australia's overseas trade is particularly sensitive to international shipping rates. The release in Australia of major policy statements and reports on the coastal zone and the marine environment during 19953'~ has introduced some bias towards the environmental side of the national agenda which is now of concern to the maritime transport industry, especially to port
244
S. Bateman
authorities. There is a particular concern about the equity of applying the precautionary principle in situations which could result in additional costs imposed on ports and shipping operations. The costs of environmental protection are much higher than pollution prevention and some consideration must be given to the stage at which the relevant costs become a community responsibility rather than an industry one. This is a particularly critical consideration when the appropriate applied research is not available to establish baseline data and causal links, or the full range of other options or implications has not been investigated. Further action by Australian authorities must be proportionate to the threat and cognisant of the full range of Australia's national interests in both shipping and environmental protection. Ongoing close consultation is required between environmental authorities, State and Federal, port authorities, the shipping industry and other maritime interests to ensure that the agenda is not biased towards one side or the other. This consideration highlights the importance of a more coordinated approach to maritime and oceans policy generally in Australia. Rather than setting an international lead in state practice with widereaching and new controls over shipping and port operations, it would seem preferable for Australia to be seen at the forefront of interdisciplinary and long-term research of relevant issues (including the environmental impact of shipping relative to other transport modes) to provide a basis for further action. Such research could be resourced through consortiums involving government, academia and industry. It would be in accordance with Australia's position as a country both with a heavy stake and dependence on shipping and a keen interest in the protection and preservation of the marine environment.
REFERENCES 1. Resource Assessment Commission, Coastal Zone Inquiry--Final Report. Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra, AGPS, November 1993. 2. Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories, Living on the Coast. The Commonwealth Coastal Policy, Canberra, May 1995. 3. Association of Australian Ports and Marine Authorities, Australian Shipowners Association, Mineral Council of Australia, and National Bulk Commodities Group, Response to Australian and New Zealand Environment Council ( A N Z E C C ) Discussion Paper on Maritime Accidents and Pollution: Impacts on the Marine Environment from Shipping Operations, July 1995, p. 3.
4. For a review of the development of Australia's seaborne trade, shipping and ports from around 1788 until 1974, covering the first two centuries of
Environmental issues with Australian ports
5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26.
27. 28.
245
European settlement, see Bach, J., A Maritime History of Australia. Thomas Nelson, Sydney, 1976. Broeze, F., Maritime Australia: Integrating the sea into our national history. Maritime Studies 40 (May/June 1988) 14. Broeze, Op. cit., 1988, p. 9. Beresford, A. K. C., Dobson, H. W. & Holmes, C., Lloyd's Maritime Atlas of Worm Ports and Shipping Places. Lloyds of London Press Ltd, London, 1987, pp. 34-35. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Yearbook Australia 1994. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra, 1993, Table 23.30, p. 656. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Op. cit., 1993, p. 506. Three ships were lost in 1988, 13 in 1989, 12 in 1990 and 19 in 1991. Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, Ships of Shame, Inquiry into Ship Safety. AGPS, Canberra 1992, Appendix 1, pp. 99-102. Mitchell, R., Intentional Oil Pollution of the Oceans. In Institutions for the Earth: Sources of Effective Environmental Protection, ed. P. M. Haas, R. O. Keohane & M. A. Levy. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1993, p. 189. Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA), 1994 Port State Control Report. Canberra, 1995, p. 5. For a comprehensive description of the port state regime, see Kasoulides, G. C., Port State Control and Jurisdiction: Evolution of the Port State Regime. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht, 1993. For a recent description of developments with Port State Control, refer Plaza, F., Port state control: towards global standardisation. IMO News, No. 1, 1994, pp. 13-20. AMSA, see note 12. Ibid., p. 6. In 1990, the Great Barrier Reef became the first area identified by the IMO as a particularly sensitive area in terms of Article 211(6) of the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Queensland Department of Transport, Environment Policy for Queensland Ports, Brisbane, 1993. Ibid., p. 4. Association of Australian Ports and Marine Authorities (AAPMA), Environmental Guidelines of Australian Ports. Sydney, December 1994 Ibid., p. 1. Environment Policy for Queensland Ports, see note 18, p. 14. Environmental Guidelines for Australian Ports, see note 20, p. 7. International Maritime Organiszation, International Convention on Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter. IMO, London, 1972. Environmental Guidelines for Australian Ports, see note 20, p. 8. International Maritime Organization, M A R P O L 73/78 Consolidated Edition: Articles, Protocols, Annexes, Unified Interpretations of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as Modified by the Protocol of 1978 Relating Thereto. IMO, London, 1992. Environmental Guidelines for Australian Ports, see note 18, p. 8. Living on the Coast, see note 2, p. 34. The International Guidelines for Preventing the Introduction of Unwanted Aquatic Organisms and Pathogens
246
29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39.
S. Bateman from Ships' Ballast Water and Sediment Discharges were adopted by IMO Resolution MEPC.50(31) on 4 July 1991. Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service, Draft Australian Ballast Water Management Strategy. Canberra, November, 1994. Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service. Ballast Water Symposium Proceedings, 11-13 May 1994, Canberra, 1994. Living on the Coast, see note 2, p. 34. ANZECC Discussion Paper, Maritime Accidents and Pollution, p. 23. Ibid., p. 30. Gordon Smith, J., Sea Dumping Evaluation--Description of Processes for the Issue of Dumping Permits. Consultant's Report for Environment Protection Agency, Canberra, September 1995, p. 20. Environmental Policy for Queensland Ports, see note 18, p. 15. For example, the Victorian 'Protocol for dredging and disposal of dredged material' (1990); and New South Wales Department of Planning, Sea Dumping Guidelines. Sydney, 1989. Bureau of Transport Communications and Economics Report 88, Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Australian Transport--Long-Term Projections. AGPS, Canberra, March 1995, p. xxv. Ibid., p. xxvii. Particularly Living on the Coast; the ANZECC discussion paper Maritime Accidents and Pollution; and Ocean Rescue 2000 Program, Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories, Our Sea, Our Future--State of the Marine Environment Report, Canberra, 1995. APPENDIX: ENVIRONMENT POLICY FOR QUEENSLAND PORTS--SUMMARY OF POLICY STATEMENTS
1. Port planning 1.1. Port land use planning. Port planning will allocate proposed land uses with sensitivity to protecting the natural and h u m a n environment. Port authorities shall utilise environmental information to ensure appropriate consideration of environmental implications. 1.2. Coastal management. Port authorities are to maximise their involvement and play an active role in the formulation of coastal m a n a g e m e n t plans. 1.3. Environmental impact assessment (EIA). Port authorities will consider the potential environmental effects of all projects. W h e r e significant environmental impacts are possible, or where environmental implications are uncertain, port authorities will require or u n d e r t a k e an E I A u n d e r the auspices of state or federal legislation. 1.4. Public participation. Port authorities are c o m m i t t e d to public participation early in the planning process. The views of the community,
Environmental issues with Australian ports
247
stakeholders and port advisory bodies will be considered in decision making regarding planning or development proposals.
2. Environmental management 2.1. Staff and education. Each port authority will charge a senior employee with the primary responsibility to address environmental matters to ensure there is a clear line of responsibility and a point of accumulated knowledge on the port environment. 2.2. Environmental monitoring. Port authorities will undertake environmental scans of the port area to increase baseline knowledge of the port environment. Monitoring of development activities will be undertaken as appropriate or required. 2.3. Environmental auditing. Port authorities will use environmental audits to enhance their environmental m a n a g e m e n t programs. 2.4. Budgeting. Port authorities are committed to making adequate provision for treatment of environmental issues in their annual budget process.
3. Port operation 3.1. Pollution control Port authorities will act to reduce the risk of pollution and where pollution occurs, take appropriate mitigative measures. 3.2. Dredging and dredged materials. Port authorities will evaluate the need for, and environmental impact of dredging works. They will take actions to minimise dredging requirements, p r o m o t e the beneficial use of dredged materials and where possible, encourage integrated catchment management. 3.3. Port users. Port authorities will encourage port users to be responsible environmental managers. 3.4. Cargo facilities and cargo in transit. Port authorities will ensure that handling of cargo is undertaken in an environmentally responsible manner. 3.5. Navigational factors. Port authorities should establish clear consultation procedures with government agencies regulating marine transport.