Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas (PSSAs) and Marine Environmentally High Risk Areas (MEHRAs)

Transcription

1 Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas (PSSAs) and Marine Environmentally High Risk Areas (MEHRAs) September 2003 RATIONALE On 4 September 2002, The World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) adopted the Plan of Implementation, which strongly reaffirmed its commitment to the Rio principles and the full implementation of Agenda 21. In this context, international shipping is under significant pressure to minimise the impact of accidents and operations on the marine environment. These pressures arise from global agreements, port initiatives and raised public awareness. Oil spills, collisions and groundings as well as waste discharges, anti-fouling systems, anchor damage, wake impacts and ship-generated noise have become increasingly important and high profile issues. For example, in 2002 approximately 2.1 billion tonnes of oil were transported by sea [1]. Two to three million tonnes of this oil enter the sea from tanker operations, activities and accidents. Although only about 5% of marine oil pollution is due to major tanker accidents, one big spill can disrupt sea and shore life over many miles and years. Thus large spills, even though a relatively minor source of marine oil pollution, can be devastating. Since the Braer ran aground near the Shetland Islands, over 10 years ago, and the Sea Empress accident at Milford Haven in 1996, where levels of pollution were exacerbated by lack of tugs or clear emergency procedures, the need for further protective measures to eliminate and reduce shipping related impacts around the UK coast, has been highlighted [2]. Recent disasters such as the Erika (1999) and Prestige (2002) act as a reminder of the threats posed by shipping to the marine and coastal environment. Data obtained from the Maritime Coastguard Agency (2003) indicate that there have been 104 tanker-related oil pollution incidents in UK waters between 1998 and 2002, and between 2000 and 2002 one in ten ships were involved in an accident. Management Options Ship owners and operators can take action through ensuring the integrity, maintenance and effective environmental management of their vessels and, secondly, through due consideration of the environmental requirements of any regions in which their ships will operate. In order to 1

2 achieve the latter, it is important for nations individually and collectively to identify sensitive locations where a combination of high environmental and socio-economic values, and high vulnerability to shipping impacts, requires special care to be taken. Such areas are likely to benefit from further review and appraisal of the measures available to help reduce accidents and prevent pollution by controlling where ships go and what they do. As a consequence Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas (PSSAs) and Marine Environmental High Risk Areas (MEHRAs) have been proposed. PSSA'S The International Maritime Organization s (IMO) Resolution A.927(22): Guidelines for the Designation of Special Areas under MARPOL73/78 and Guidelines for the Identification and Designation of Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas defines a Particularly Sensitive Sea Area (PSSA) as: An area which needs special protection through action by IMO because of its significance for recognised ecological or socio-economic or scientific reasons and which may be vulnerable to damage by maritime activities. This resolution updates and replaces, in an abbreviated form, resolutions A.885(21) Procedures for Designation of Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas and the adoption of associated protective measures; and A.720(17) Guidelines for the Designation of Special Areas. The guidelines set out by IMO for an area to gain PSSA status are separated into three categories, which are then subdivided into further criteria. For a PSSA to be designated it must meet any one of the following criteria (see also Annex 1): Table 1: PSSA categories and criteria PSSA Categories Ecological Social, cultural and economic Scientific and educational Criteria to be met Uniqueness, dependency, representativeness, diversity, productivity, naturalness, integrity and vulnerability Economic benefit, recreation and human dependency Research, baselines and monitoring studies, education and historical values Having established exceptional value(s) the purpose of a PSSA is to identify areas where these values or environmental assets are vulnerable to damage by international shipping. Associated 2

3 Protective Measures (APMs), within the purview of IMO can be proposed to determine the most appropriate way to address any vulnerability. This should also take into account oceanographic, ecological, local vessel traffic and other conditions that make the area sensitive to shipping impacts, together with the impact of any proposed APM on the safety and efficiency of navigation. The need for critical evaluation of this information and consensus building is important as achieved by the Wadden Sea feasibility study [4]. Only IMO Member States can propose PSSA designations. Currently there are six PSSAs (dates of designations are in brackets): The Great Barrier Reef, Australia (1991); the Sabana- Camaguey archipelago, Cuba (1997); the Malpelo Islands, Columbia (2002); Florida Keys in the United States (2002); the Wadden Sea, in Northern Europe (2002); and Paracas National Park, Peru (2003). At MEPC 48 a draft Guidance Document for Submission of PSSA Proposals (MEPC 48/7/1) was approved for distribution as an MEPC circular. The 49 th Session of IMO s Marine Environmental Protection Committee (MEPC) approved two further PSSAs in principle The Torres Strait (effectively an extension of the Great Barrier Reef PSSA) and The Atlantic Coast and Channel. More proposals are currently under consideration including the Baltic Sea; parts of the Barents Sea; Sulu-Sulawesi Sea; Straits of Bonifacio, Andaman and Nicobar Islands; Laksadweep Islands; S. Africa coast; and the Galapagos Islands. PSSAs may be agreed on the basis of a simple majority. MEHRA'S Marine Environmental High Risk Areas (MEHRAs) are a UK national initiative first identified by the Donaldson Report (1994) [2] whose remit was to improve the safety of shipping and increase protection of the environment. The report was commissioned following the Braer oil spill in 1993 [3] and resulted in a total of 103 recommendations, including a definition of MEHRAs as: Comparatively limited areas of high sensitivity which are also at risk from shipping. There must be a realistic risk of pollution from merchant shipping. Routeing measures aim to encourage ships to follow routes where vessels are less likely to collide with each other, run ashore or get into difficulties. They also aim to reduce the scope for a disaster if a ship does get into difficulty and direct ships away from areas where pollution would be highly damaging. Given the right of vessels to use such areas, the purpose of MEHRAs is to draw attention to where extra protection from shipping is desirable. To give MEHRA's maximum effect the intention of the UK government is to restrict any designations to relatively small areas of coastline. Publicised information in the form of charts and electronic navigational aids will be made available to ship masters, which should be taken into account 3

4 when planning passages. The master is then expected to observe the highest standards of care, exercising extreme caution when transiting through these areas. The following combination of maritime and environmental considerations are highlighted by the Donaldson Report [2] : Table 2: Considerations for MEHRA status Maritime Considerations Environmental and Socio-economic Considerations The number, type and size of vessels passing and the nature of their cargoes The distance of the usual shipping lanes from the shore Any circumstances giving rise to an increased Existence of wildlife feeding or breeding sites of international significance or the presence of biological communities of flora or fauna of particular interest or rarity; nature conservation designations such as Special risk of collision such as a significant amount Protection Areas under the EC Birds of traffic going across the normal flow Directive (1979) or Special Areas of Conservation under the Habitats Directive (1992) will normally be regarded as evidence of this Hydrological conditions relevant to safe navigation, such as lack of safe anchorages The existence of commercially exploitable biological resources and mariculture sites Prevailing meteorological and tidal characteristics Where and how? The extent to which the area provides a public recreational amenity TWT and WWF Marine Update Ships of shame or vessels of virtue? (1999) evaluated progress being made towards implementing Donaldson s recommendations. Generally positive progress on shipping standards contrasted with lack of progress in establishing MEHRA's. The UK Department for Transport (DfT) response has been to continue to address the task of identifying areas around the UK that are seen as being at high risk from shipping pollution [5]. As the identification of MEHRA's is based on environmental sensitivity and risk from shipping it was deemed appropriate to expand on the existing environmental sensitivity guidelines devised by IMO for PSSA s (Annex 1). A point system methodology was adopted and used to identify environmentally sensitive sites in the UK and surrounding waters. This information was then used in combination with the risk assessment results to identify potential UK MEHRA sites. Limitations and assumptions have been acknowledged. For example, operational pollution was not considered and the traffic database used does not include non-routine traffic such as naval vessels, fishing vessels, pleasure craft or offshore traffic transiting to mobile drilling units. The comprehensiveness of environmental sensitivity criteria has also been questioned. Furthermore, where measures were already in place they were taken into account and the risk assessment carried out on top of existing measures without analysing whether these measures were working. Consultation on the methodology employed, that arguably failed to identify some of the most important potential MEHRA locations, has prompted additional traffic survey work. Almost a decade after the Donaldson Report, DfT are due to announce the list of MEHRAs. 4

5 During this period stakeholders have only been engaged in consultation once (on the original methodology) consequently there has been a lack of opportunity for seeking additional expertise. Important questions remain concerning site selection, and both identification and implementation of any APMs. It is also important to note that this work deals only with oil pollution and not other hazardous cargoes. Complementary Designations The Wildlife Trusts and WWF recognise the importance of using both PSSAs and MEHRAs together in order to help deliver an ecosystem-based approach that incorporates environmental considerations within the management of shipping activities. Both protection measures are important tools in the prevention of potentially devastating shipping impacts. Table 3: A comparison of PSSAs and MEHRAs PSSAs International concept (larger size) Applied anywhere throughout the world as long as the country of jurisdiction is a member of the IMO More likely to be recognised by ship masters Can employ a range of associated protective measures such as routeing, Areas To Be Avoided, pilotage, Vessel Traffic Services, reporting and information monitoring Requires IMO approval for designation MEHRAs National concept (smaller size) Only applicable in territorial waters (12 nautical miles from coastal baseline) Masters likely to be unfamiliar with MEHRA concept Primarily aimed at raising awareness. Measures include routeing provisions (e.g. Traffic Separation Schemes) and response measures (e.g. availability of oil spill response equipment) Does not need IMO approval for designation, but can receive greater recognition if the designation and associated protective measures are brought to the attention of IMO. THE GREAT BARRIER REEF A CASE STUDY OF GOOD PRACTICE Although MEHRAs is a UK concept it has been recognised in Australia. The use of PSSAs and MEHRAs as important spatial tools has already been implemented within the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. In Australia the State has authority to 3 nautical miles (nm) and the Commonwealth is responsible for the 12nm territorial sea, which includes the waters of the Great Barrier Reef. The area was designated as the first PSSA in 1991, introducing two associated protective measures: compulsory pilotage and mandatory ship reporting. At the same time, the extent of 5

6 the PSSA is considerable (350,000 kilometres 2 ) scattered over a distance of 2,300 km, and it was determined that increased protection was needed in specific smaller areas. An oil spill risk assessment was jointly undertaken by Queensland Transport and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority [6], together with a shipping profile for the area. The results quantified the vulnerability of the area to shipping. Several areas within the PSSA were subsequently proposed by this report in 2000 for non-statutory MEHRA status: The Prince of Wales Channel The Great North East Channel Inner Route North of Cape Flattery, including port of Cape Flattery Whitsunday Islands Hydrographers Passage Moreton Bay For each of these areas shipping management plans have been created and the disaster management concept of Pollution, Preparedness, Response and Recovery (PPRR) is being implemented. The management plans prescribe geographically specific appropriate associated preventative and response measures in line with the risk assessment findings. For example, two airstrips were identified in remote northern areas for dispersant stock piling. This response measure places resources in situ for an initial operational period. How these areas were to be communicated to the shipping industry was also proposed within the oil spill risk assessment. The methods identified were by navigation charts, through the reef guide, via notices to Mariners, and using the Reef Centre. The key outcome of the Great Barrier Reef oil spill risk assessment was the recommendation and promulgation of specific MEHRA's within Queensland. The intention is that the notification of these areas will promote a change in behaviour amongst seafarers who navigate ships through these areas as well as the owners and charterers who have responsibility for ships operating within these waters. Arguably this approach also helped the Torres Strait PSSA proposal by providing additional focus, shipping data and risk assessment information. CONCLUSIONS PSSA designation brings with it international recognition. It is also consistent with adopted guidelines that advocate a precautionary approach and the polluter pays principle. At MEPC 49 a draft guidance document for identification of appropriate protective measures (MEPC(49/8/200)) was introduced, though postponed for later consideration. Whilst APMs to control shipping impacts are integral to the PSSA concept, it is not a requirement of PSSA designation to introduce any APMs and provision is also made for the introduction of APMs at a later date. Notwithstanding the importance of raised awareness and global publicity, the real and immediate effectiveness of any PSSA will relate to the introduction of appropriate APMs firmly linked to risk assessment studies. At a national level MEHRAs are proposed to identify areas where pollution would be particularly damaging to critical natural and socio-economic assets. Selection of such areas 6

7 around the UK has proceeded painfully slowly. Whilst they are non-statutory, MEHRAs can raise awareness of less extensive areas, but TWT and WWF have expressed scepticism as to whether the identification of MEHRAs alone will really influence shipping activity. The Australian view is that the sheer size of the Great Barrier Reef required identification of areas of significantly higher risk that would be meaningful to mariners, where, for example, maintaining the highest vigilance is needed. However, their effectiveness must depend on integration of risk reduction measures, such as the availability of emergency tugs within the vicinity, and communication of the importance of MEHRAs to mariners. PSSAs and MEHRAs, particularly when developed as a tiered approach, can significantly contribute to a sustainable shipping policy and management regime. As demonstrated in Australia, the two concepts complement each other to create a strong integrated marine spatial planning and management tool for reducing potential shipping impacts. In many ways this approach can be likened to the establishment of core zones within terrestrial protected areas, where the level of protection (on land this generally means restricted access) from, for example, trampling, is highest. The challenge is to gain the balance between the respective size of PSSA s and MEHRAs. Australia has one large PSSA complemented by four MEHRAs both within and outside the same waters to highlight the added importance of these specific areas. It would not be desirable for MEHRAs to be too small, as they might become a lost mark on a navigational chart. Whilst the PSSA/MEHRA concept represents an element of marine spatial planning, encouraging international co-operation and ensuring that shipping and shipping route decisions will be compatible with other activities, it retains a strong sectoral focus and further work is needed to achieve the necessary co-ordinated overall framework for marine areas. Recommendations Future PSSA proposals would benefit from the scrutiny of a properly constituted formal technical evaluation group. Such an expert group of MEPC could consider in detail any proposals and supporting evaluations produced by or on behalf of applicant nations. This would provide a far more objective process than the current, sometimes political, checklist vetting within a time constrained MEPC session and would provide IMO with a more secure and scientific decision base. Furthermore it would match more closely to the UNESCO process of World Heritage site selection. WWF have taken a lead with the formulation of a draft guidance document to assist IMO Member Governments in identifying appropriate APMs for PSSA s (MEPC 49/8/2). Although not formally adopted this guidance builds on MEPC 48/7/1 and is summarised in Annex 2. Greater use can also be made of the implicit authority available under UNCLOS for port states and coastal states to adopt measures to protect their marine environment and resources. The process for this, however, could be made clearer. The development of MEHRAs at a national or state level should be strongly supported and encouraged. Further debate is needed on the basis of MEHRA delineation. Identification of MEHRAs in itself, however, is not good enough. Thought must be given to how MEHRA status will be communicated, given that, for example, navigational charts are updated 7

8 approximately every decade. Donaldson suggested Notice to Mariners as an appropriate way to publise this information In order to achieve ecosystem-based planning and management there is considerable merit in a tiered approach whereby a PSSA identifies a wider area of vulnerability and MEHRAs target the most vulnerable areas, whether these are inside or outside the PSSA. In effect this achieves the original core and buffer area concept envisaged for PSSA s and perhaps, in view of custom and practice, such a system should also be recognised by IMO. The UK and other nations should seek to follow the Australian example of establishing MEHRAs in tandem with PSSA s. Overall objectives should be developed for PSSA s and MEHRAs based on a forward looking agenda, considering multiple uses and taking into account transboundary and cumulative effects. Consensus building and stakeholder involvement as achieved within the Great Barrier Reef region will be critical. Integration of the PSSA/ MEHRA concept in developing the policy and legal framework for marine spatial planning, and ensuring compatibility with other marine activities including the development of offshore renewable energy will need further consideration. References 1. UNCTAD Secretariat, (2002), Review of Maritime Transport, United Nations 2. HMSO, (1994), Report of Lord Donaldson s inquiry into the Prevention of Pollution from merchant Shipping, HMSO 3. Davies, J.M., (1997), The impact of an oil spill in turbulent waters: The Braer, TSO, London 4. Southampton Institute, (2001), Particularly Sensitive Sea Area (PSSA) Wadden Sea Feasibility Study, Common Wadden Sea Secretariat 5. Safetec UK (1999), Identification of the Environmental High Risk Areas (MEHRA s) in the UK, Department for Environment, Transport and Regions 6. Queensland Transport and GBRMPA, (2000), Oil Spill Risk Assessment for Coastal Waters of Queensland and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Text by Southampton Institute For more information contact: Ali Champion [email protected] Simon Walmsley [email protected] Joan Edwards [email protected] The Wildlife Trusts WWF-UK The Kiln Panda House Waterside Weyside Park Mather Road Godalming Newark, NG24 1WT Surrey, GU7 1XR Tel: Tel: Fax: Fax: Charity No Charity No

9 Annex 1: PSSA criteria For an area to be identified as a PSSA it must meet at least one of the following criteria: PSSA CRITERIA Description of Criteria ECOLOGICAL CRITERIA Uniqueness An ecosystem can be unique or rare. An area is unique if it is the only one of its kind. Habitats of endangered species that occur in one area are an example. Dependency Ecological processes of such areas area highly dependent on biologically structured systems. Such biotically structured ecosystems often have high biodiversity, which is dependant on the structuring organisms. Dependency also embraces area representing the migratory routes of marine fish, reptiles, birds and mammals. Representativeness These areas have highly representative ecological processes, or community or habitat types or other natural characteristics. Diversity These areas have a high variety of species or include highly varied ecosystems, habitats, communities, and species. Productivity The area has high natural productivity. Naturalness The area has high naturalness, as a result of the lack of human-induced disturbance or degradation Integrity The area is a biologically functional unit, an effective, self-sustaining ecological entity. The more ecologically self-contained the area is, the more likely it is that its values can be more effectively protected Vulnerability The area is susceptible to degradation by natural events or the activities of people. Communities associated with the coast may have a low tolerance to changes in environmental conditions, or they may exist close to the limits of their tolerance. Social, cultural and economic criteria Economic Benefit The area is of particular importance to utilisation of living marine resources Recreation The area has special significance for recreation and tourism Human Dependency The area is of particular importance for the support of traditional subsistence and/or cultural needs of the local human population Scientific and educational criteria Research The area has high scientific interest Baseline and The area provides suitable baseline conditions with regard to biota or monitoring studies environmental characteristics Education The area offers opportunity to demonstrate particular phenomena Historical Value The area has historical and/or archaeological significance 9

10 ANNEX 2: EXISTING IMO PROTECTION MEASURES EXTRACTED FROM IMO DRAFT GUIDANCE DOCUMENT ON ASSOCIATED PROTECTIVE MEASURES (MEPC 49/8/2). Category Ships Routing Systems Ships Reporting Systems Vessel Traffic Service Systems Discharge and Emission Restrictions Possible Protection Measures for PSSA s Area Categories Territorial Sea Measures Pursuant to UNCLOS Article Additional Measures Measures Used Traffic Separation Schemes Areas to be Avoided No Anchoring Areas Inshore traffic zones Deep water routes Precautionary areas Recommended routes IMO guidelines and criteria for Ship Reporting Systems resolution 43(46) Voluntary / Mandatory IMO Guidelines for Vessel Traffic Services A.857(20) MARPOL Special Areas MARPOL Annex VI Sox Emission Control Area Special Discharge Restrictions for PSSA s Potential Measures Special passage planning requirements Special anchoring requirements Special activity restrictions Discharge restrictions Air pollution limitations Description of oceanographic and ecological conditions that make the area vulnerable to shipping Highlight inadequacies in existing international rules and standards Suggestion of measures to be used in the Exclusive Economic Zone similar to those for the territorial sea Measure to reduce the potential for damage to the marine environment by ships on an area specific basis Example: no anchoring area in Florida Keys PSSA Separate proposals for amendments to an existing instrument or a new instrument would be required in accordance with IMO procedures 10