Overview
5.1
This chapter outlines some of the environmental initiatives that have been introduced, or are actively being considered across the shipping industry. These initiatives include low sulphur fuel, the provision of adequate waste reception facilities in ports and port related facilities, and a significant reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2050.
5.2
The Department of the Environment and Energy (the Department of the Environment) pointed to the vital role Australia's marine environment plays in relation to Australia and its economy. In addition to providing benefits to human well-being, the marine environment supports fisheries, marine tourism, resource exploration and mining. The 2015-2025 National Marine Science Plan has estimated that Australia's marine industries will contribute approximately $100 billion to the economy by 2025—which is more than double the 2012 contribution.
5.3
According to the Department of the Environment there are various threats and stressors which could potentially impact Australia's marine environment. These include the exploitation of resources, habitat destruction, ocean acidification, ocean warming and rising sea levels, and pollution. Shipping incidents can also cause substantial damage, and often require significant resources and effort to clean up and remediate.
5.4
A reduction in the age of the ships that visit Australian ports, improvements to navigation technologies and ship routing measures have reduced the risks associated with accidents at sea, anchor scouring and vessel groundings. The potential is always there, however, for incidents and accidents to cause damage to sensitive marine ecosystems. Some of Australia's unique places, for example the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area, are particularly vulnerable to damage from shipping accidents.
Regulatory framework
5.5
Australia's obligations in relation to standards to prevent pollution from ships are set out in International Maritime Organization (IMO) conventions, specifically the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL). Through the IMO, the Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities (Department of Infrastructure) and Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) work to ensure that international maritime environmental protection standards are reflected in Australian legislation. These include standards on air and oil pollution, ballast water, toxic antifouling, garbage, and fuel efficiency.
The Australian Maritime Safety Authority
5.6
As set out in the Australian Maritime Safety Authority Act 1990, AMSA plays a central role in protecting the marine environment from pollution from ships and other environmental damage potentially caused by shipping.
5.7
AMSA submitted that the organisation's objective is to minimise the impact of shipping on the environment, and the impact of marine pollution incidents should they occur, by:
maintaining a regulatory system consistent with international standards;
influencing the development, implementation, monitoring and enforcement of international environment protection stands and the operation of international liability and compensation schemes;
providing timely and appropriate response to marine casualties; and
providing ship-sourced pollution response services, consistent with international and regional obligations.
5.8
AMSA also manages the National Plan for Maritime Environmental Emergencies and works with state and territory governments in relation to:
shipping, ports, oil, salvage, exploration and chemical industries;
emergency services and fire brigades nationally;
the maintenance of marine oil and chemical spill contingency plans;
the maintenance of detailed state, local and industry contingency plans;
the strategic positioning of emergency response equipment; and
the oversight of a national training program.
The IMO’s Marine Environmental Protection Committee
5.9
The Marine Environmental Protection Committee (MEPC) of the IMO is an international committee which considers the environmental sustainability of shipping. Under the IMO’s remit through MARPOL, the MEPC provides for the international regulation of environmental issues and describes regulations relating to oil, chemicals carried in bulk, sewage, garbage and emissions from ships. Other matters the MEPC covers includes ballast water management, anti-fouling systems, ship recycling, pollution preparedness and response, and identification of special areas and sensitive sea areas.
Key areas of discussion
Great Barrier Reef
5.10
The Great Barrier Reef is an Australian icon and the world's largest coral reef ecosystem. It has significant social, economic and cultural value, and is recognised around the globe. The diversity of its habitats and biodiversity make it one of the richest and most complex natural systems on Earth.
5.11
Recognising the reef's global significance and importance, in 1981 it was included on the World Heritage list. The reef supports a wide range of activities, such as tourism; fishing; recreation; traditional use; research; defence; shipping; and port operations, and brings in billions of dollars to Australia's economy each year while also supporting 64 000 jobs.
5.12
In the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority's (GBR Authority) Great Barrier Reef Outlook Report 2009 (2009 Outlook Report), it noted that:
Shipping can potentially damage the Great Barrier Reef by collisions, groundings, introduction of invasive marine pests, oil and chemical spills, introduction of anti-fouling paints, waste disposal and anchor damage. Almost all ships travel safely along the designated shipping routes of the Great Barrier Reef with little if any impact. In the last 10 years there have been three or fewer major shipping incidents each year and, despite the increase in shipping traffic, the number of major incidents has been stable over that period.
5.13
The 2009 Outlook Report also pointed out that, while it is possible, through careful management, to minimise the risk of major incidents, a predicted increase in shipping is likely to increase the possibility of a major incident.
5.14
The grounding of the Shen Neng 1 in 2010 provides an example of the large‑scale damage which shipping incidents can cause to the Great Barrier Reef. The Department of the Environment submitted that this event either severely damaged or completely destroyed 115 000 square metres of the Douglas Shoal, and moderately damaged an additional 285 000 square metres. Although these types of accidents are rare, this incident highlighted the extent of the damage they can cause, as well as a number of deficiencies in Australia's regulatory and operational arrangements relating to the protection of the marine environment.
5.15
A 2014 report noted that, since 2000, mining and industrial activity has resulted in a significant increase in shipping in the Great Barrier Reef region. The report also predicted that the number of ships calling into ports bordering the region would increase by approximately 250 per cent over the next two decades, likely driven by growth in the mining and liquefied natural gas industry; port expansions; and general increases in trade.
5.16
Noting the expected increase in shipping traffic volume, the GBR Authority submitted that adequate resources will be required to deliver measures to prevent and respond to shipping incidents. This includes resourcing ship monitoring and vessel traffic services, as well as the capability to rapidly respond following a shipping incident to minimise environmental damage. It also stated that '[m]anagement of the potential increases in consequential impacts of shipping may require an evaluation of current environmental monitoring regimes and the physical management of shipping in the Great Barrier Reef waters to mitigate environmental harm'.
Long-term sustainability plan
5.17
In 2015, in response to a World Heritage Committee recommendation, the Australian and Queensland governments released the Reef 2050 Long‑Term Sustainability Plan (the 2050 Plan).
5.18
The 2050 Plan provides an overarching framework for management of the reef, and focuses on actions which address key threats and build the health and resilience of the reef in the face of a changing climate.
5.19
Its implementation is led by the Australian and Queensland governments and the GBR Authority, and it is currently being updated as part of its first five yearly reviews. During August and September 2020, an updated 2050 Plan was released for a six-week public consultation period, and it is expected that a final updated plan will be released in early 2021.
Queensland parliamentary inquiry
5.20
A recent Queensland parliamentary inquiry into the state's intrastate shipping industry specifically considered ‘options to minimise any potential impacts on the Great Barrier Reef from a strengthened intrastate shipping industry' as part of its terms of reference.
5.21
In the inquiry's final report, a number of key impacts the shipping industry has had on the Great Barrier Reef were discussed. These impacts included shipping incidents resulting in spillages; the introduction of non‑native species; increased noise pollution; dredging; dumping; and increased marine debris.
5.22
To offset these risks, the report highlighted the existing mechanisms in place to protect the Great Barrier Reef, such as: zoning; monitoring regimes; the Great Barrier Reef and Torres Strait Vessel Traffic Vehicle Service; the Great Barrier Reef and Torres Strait Ship Reporting System; the Australian ship reporting system; port pilotage service; anchoring and mooring regulations; two-way routes and areas to be avoided; conventions, treaties, and legislation; a north‑east shipping management plan; and fuel standards.
5.23
The report noted that ship groundings have decreased over time, which could be a result of higher quality ships and seafarer training; electronic navigation; port state control inspections; improved monitoring; and compulsory pilotage in high-risk areas.
Greenhouse gas emissions
5.24
The IMO is responsible for the emissions resulting from international shipping as, due to the industry's global and complex nature, they cannot be attributed to any particular jurisdiction and are not covered by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
5.25
Although international shipping is considered the most energy-efficient mode of transport, in 2012 it was estimated that it contributed approximately 2.2 per cent of global carbon dioxide emissions. Given this, and the expected increase in sea trade in the future, a global approach to improve the industry's energy efficiency and reduce emissions is considered necessary.
5.26
In October 2016, the IMO agreed to develop a strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from shipping and, in April 2018, adopted an initial strategy which was consistent with the Paris Agreement temperature goals. This strategy includes improving energy efficiency by at least 40 per cent by 2030 and progressing towards 70 per cent by 2050. Further, it aims to reduce total greenhouse gas emissions across the sector by 50 per cent by 2050, with a longer-term view of phasing them out completely.
5.27
The MUA advocates for stronger domestic incentives to support investments in ship pollution reduction technologies and practices, and submits that Australia prioritise adoption of, amongst other things, low sulphur fuels, optimised engines, exhaust after‑treatment, and alternative fuels, like LNG and biofuels, which have lower emissions.
5.28
BioEnergy Australia, the national industry association promoting Australia's bio economy, noted the current global transition towards the use of biofuels in the shipping sector, and highlighted that this will result in improved community health outcomes through reduced greenhouse gas emissions. It was, however, concerned that Australia has no national policy, and submitted that we are lagging behind other countries which have invested in the production of these products.
Sulphur emissions
5.29
International efforts to reduce the impact of emissions from ships have resulted in the reduction of the amount of sulphur permitted in ships' fuel oil. From 1 January 2020, sulphur content in shipping fuel was reduced from 3.5 per cent m/m to 0.5 per cent m/m. The new limit aims to reduce the impact of sulphur oxide and particulate matter emissions on the environment and human health, particularly for those people who live in port cities and coastal communities.
5.30
As part of its oversight role, AMSA has engaged with the Australian and state governments, marine fuel oil suppliers, port authorities and shipping industry stakeholders to promote compliance with the new requirements, including those associated with the use of exhaust gas scrubbers.
5.31
The shipping industry's shift toward using fuel with lower sulphur has been described as a positive initiative. It is however, also noted that while fuel with a lower sulphur content results in lower emissions, it also involves a higher cost.
Emission Control Areas
5.32
An increasing awareness of the impacts of shipping emissions, and the material difference in emissions standards between maritime and land transport, has resulted in a number of regions around the world introducing IMO-designated Emission Control Areas (ECAs). ECAs have more restrictive fuel standards in place, requiring a sulphur content of 0.1 per cent m/m.
5.33
IMO-designation of an ECA requires evidence that the benefits of reducing sulphur emissions beyond the current global limit exceeds the economic costs incurred by the shipping sector.
5.34
Since December 2016, cruise ships berthing in Sydney harbour have been issued with formal directions from AMSA to use either lower sulphur fuel or implement alternative measures which achieve an equivalent outcome. The directions aim to reduce exhaust emissions of sulphur oxides and other particulates from cruise ships berthed in Sydney harbour.
Port waste reception facilities
5.35
Under MARPOL, Australia has an obligation to provide adequate waste reception facilities. The provision of facilities for the disposal of ships' waste aims to reduce the probability of ships illegally disposing waste at sea.
5.36
Ports and port-related facilities are currently the responsibility of state and territory governments. A substantial number of ports, however, are managed as private commercial enterprises and existing regulation is not sufficient to guarantee appropriate disposal facilities are provided. While some ports have established reception facilities for ships, the majority simply facilitate access to vessels for commercial contractors. When combined with Australia's biosecurity laws, which require specific handling and disposal of waste from international ships, Australia has one of the most expensive waste disposal services in the world.
5.37
It was noted that, under current conditions, waste disposal can be 'cost prohibitive and act as a disincentive for ships to discharge their waste in Australia in accordance with international obligations'. Further, it was argued that the current situation has the potential to impact Australia's reputation internationally and increase the risk of pollution in Australian waters.
5.38
AMSA submitted that to meet its international obligations under MARPOL, Australia needs to develop a consistent national approach to the provision of waste reception services in ports. For example, the option of incorporating waste disposal costs in berthing fees may provide the motivation for vessels to dispose of waste appropriately when operating in Australian waters, address the growing marine pollution problem, and improve the protection for Australian waters.
Spillages
5.39
The detrimental effect of spillages also remains a key concern. These can take numerous forms, such as container spills; fuel spills; and oil spills, and can affect broad geographic areas and communities.
5.40
There are a number of recent examples of container spills off the coast of Australia. For example, on 1 June 2018 the container ship YM Efficiency lost 81 containers overboard near Newcastle; and on the morning of 24 May 2020, approximately 50 containers were lost overboard from the Singapore-flagged container ship APL England.
5.41
The YM Efficiency spill resulted widespread pollution, requiring contractors to remove approximately 1040 tonnes of rubbish from around 400 kilometres of shoreline. This pollution included plastics, furniture, tyres, and papers products.
5.42
The owner of the YM Efficiency, Taiwanese shipping company Yang Ming, and its insurer, have taken the position that the containers do not constitute pollution and, as the chief executive officer of AMSA, Mr Mick Kinley, said in his evidence to the committee: '[t]he company and the insurers are of the view that they don't need to recover the containers…'. This has resulted in AMSA undertaking the recovery operation and pursuing Yang Ming and its insurers to recover the associated costs.
5.43
In further evidence to the inquiry, Mr Kinley highlighted the limitations on his ability to detain ships that have, or are suspected of having, spilled containers. He indicated that, although the regulator has clear legislation to detain ships suspected of causing an oil spill, and obtain financial security prior to their release, there isn't a similar mechanism to detain ships which spill containers. He also noted that Australia is not a signatory to the Wreck Removal Convention, which may have assisted in the YM Efficiency case.
Committee view and recommendations
Great Barrier Reef
5.44
The Great Barrier Reef is an Australian icon which is recognised around the world. The committee acknowledges its cultural, social, and economic significance, and that it supports one of Earth's richest natural systems. Given this, the committee strongly believes that the GBR must be adequately protected from threats posed by shipping.
5.45
The committee notes that, although groundings have become less frequent in recent times, due to, amongst other things, improved ships and seafarer training, the number of ships calling into ports bordering the GBR region is predicted to increase by 250 per cent over the next two decades. Given this, the committee supports adequate resourcing of the GBR Authority to ensure that it can effectively respond to incidents as they occur, while also proactively pursuing measures aimed at preventing them.
5.46
The committee recommends that the Australian government adequately resources the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority to ensure it can effectively prevent and respond to shipping incidents into the future.
Greenhouse gas emissions
5.47
The committee recognises that international shipping is considered the most energy‑efficient mode of transport and, hence, strongly supports its continued role in global trade and meeting Australia's freight and transport tasks.
5.48
Notwithstanding this, the committee is also cognisant that international shipping contributes approximately 2.2 per cent of global carbon dioxide emissions, and, hence, supports measures which will reduce its environmental impact into the future. Consequently, the committee supports the IMO's plan to improve energy efficiency by at least 40 per cent by 2030, with the aim to progress towards 70 per cent by 2050; and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions of the sector by 50 per cent by 2050.
Port waste reception facilities
5.49
The committee is very concerned that Australia has one of the most expensive waste disposal services in the world, and that this can act as a significant disincentive for ships to discharge their waste in accordance with international requirements.
5.50
Hence, the committee supports AMSA's submission that Australia needs a nationally consistent approach for the provision of port waste reception services which promotes the appropriate disposal of waste by ships when they are operating in Australian waters.
5.51
The committee recommends that the Australian government works with state and territory governments to develop a consistent national approach to the provision of waste reception services in ports.
Spillages
5.52
The committee is very concerned about recent container spillages off the coast of Australia and the level of pollution these incidents can cause. The committee notes that Australia is not a signatory to the Wreck Removal Convention, and is especially concerned by evidence provided by AMSA that it does not have the power to effectively detain ships that have, or are suspected of having, spilled containers.
5.53
The committee recommends that the Australian government strengthens the Australian Maritime Safety Authority's ability to detain ships which have caused, or are suspected of having caused, environmental damage, irrespective of the type of event which caused the damage.
5.54
The committee recommends that the Australian government considers all options, including ratifying the Nairobi International Convention on the Removal of Wrecks, to improve its management of wreck identification and removal in Australia, and strengthens its ability to recover any costs incurred recovering and removing cargo which has fallen overboard from a ship.