The Academy of Natural Sciences

search

skip to content

You are in: Home > Museum > Online > Know Your Environment > On The High Seas part.1

Know Your Environment

Environmental Protection
on The High Seas

Part 1: Battling Environmental Damage on the Earth's Final Frontier

by Roland Wall, May 2002

1. Introduction
2. The Law of the open sea
3. Cruise ships - the environmental cost of comfort
4. References & further reading
   

Introduction

In our increasingly "globalized" world, the products we use may travel thousands of miles and through dozens of hands before reaching us. According to industry estimates, almost 80% of this world trade is moved by ships, making commercial maritime shipping one of the cornerstones of the modern world economy.

Maritime shipping links us all in ways we scarcely realize. Anything you own that was manufactured in some distant part of the world—a shirt from China, for example, or a Japanese car, or a candy bar from Germany—has probably spent time being transported by ship. This is even more likely for raw materials—oil, lumber, even one's morning coffee and the sugar in it.

How many of us, though, ever stop to think about the ships themselves? Who owns them? How are they managed? What are they actually carrying at any given time? And what happens to them when they have outlived their usefulness? These are questions that the average consumer rarely has reason to consider. But underlying each of these is a fact that is even less apparently, that the operation of ships has the potential for a range of inherent environmental impacts.

These impacts may come from many sources, and can vary according to the type of ship, the cargo, and the practices of the owners and operators. But there are several common factors when looking at ships and the environment: ship operations can have long lasting and long range effects on the marine ecology, these effects are enmeshed in the social and economic factors that define shipping, they can take place in areas far outside the jurisdictions they are affecting, and they often occur away from public view.

Few people realize, for example, that more oil has been spilled each year from ships cleaning out storage tanks and flushing bilgewater than from all the accidental oil spills combined. Or that in their trips around the world, ships may also be transporting a host of organisms that can play havoc when introduced into new settings.

Other unseen aspects of shipping are even more suprising. How many people are aware that most steel hulled ships end their existence beached in southern Asia where they are cut up for scrap with little regard for worker or environmental safety? And who would even guess that modern pirates still stalk the seaways, robbing ships while at the same time placing dangerous cargoes at risk of being spilled or wrecked?

In the next two issues we will be looking at a few of the ways maritime shipping can influence the environment, and at some of the efforts being made to control this problem. There is no question that the production, use and disposal of large commercial ships will play a crucial (if often unseen) role in the global economy for the foreseeable future. It is important for people to realize, however, that this role, must be balanced against long term environmental concerns.

top of page

The Law of the Open Sea

There are a variety of ways that the operation of commercial ships can affect the environment. Some of these—such as the transport of so-called invasive organisms—are inherent risks in the legitimate business of shipping. Others—for example the disposal of old ships—are necessary functions that can result in environmental problems if mismanaged. And still others—though difficult to assess accurately—are simply the result of negligence or malfeasance.

One of the great challenges throughout history has been to maintain a rule of law at sea. Vast stretches of the sea are simply empty, and can only be reached with great difficulty, leaving large areas that are not under the jurisdiction of any government and in which human activity itself is severely constrained. Despite the brisk commerce done by international traders and corporations, most of the ocean is vacant most of the time. These was demonstrated recently when two European adventurers—on a balloon flight around the world—reported seeing only a single ship in a dozen days of travel over oceans.

Yet for all this solitude and inaccessibility, hundreds of years of international maritime trade have led to a wide-ranging network of agreements, treaties, conventions and practices that regulate the world's seaways. Shipping is above all a commercial practice, and mariners and shipping companies must be able to do business with each other and with their land bound counterparts in order to make the process worthwhile. Marine insurance, international safety and navigation standards, organizations of pilots who control the knowledge needed to traverse treacherous waterways—all are examples of how international shipping is tightly tied to governing and regulatory bodies.

Underpinning shipping practices are the laws of individual countries and the coordination of international organizations. These international bodies derive from early maritime treaties, such as those designed to control piracy (ultimately the model for the administration of international criminal law.) In 1946, the United Nations recognized the need for a central body on international shipping rules, and established the International Maritime Organization (IMO). With the facilitation of the IMO, there are accepted international norms for practices ranging from navigation rules to ship design, including actions related to the environment.

Probably the most commonly perceived ways that ships can damage the marine ecology is by the discharge or disposal of substances directly from the ship into the sea. Thus one of the most important environmental treaties, and one of the foundations of international environmental law, is the "Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, modified by the Protocol of 1978", (usually referred to as MARPOL 73/78) Administered by the IMO, MARPOL 73/78 covers both the accidental and intentional discharge or disposal of a wide range of shipborne materials, including oil, chemicals, goods in packaged form, sewage, garbage and air pollutants.

Contrary to popular opinion, tanker accidents such the Exxon Valdez are not the main source of oil spills into the oceans. Much more prevalent has been the discharge of oil by the flushing of ballasts, bilges and storage tanks. While ballast—the water that ships carry to maintain stability in rough seas—can carry invasive organisms (see Part 2), the more immediate problem has been the washing of oil and other contaminants into the marine environment.

The great tanker disasters receive wide publicity, but some experts believe that 2 to 3 times as much oil has entered the sea from tank washings as from all accidental spills combined. (It should be noted, however, that most of the oil entering the sea—over fifty percent—is not from ships at all, but originates on land, with mishandled oil entering stormwater.

MARPOL explicitly addresses the issue of intentionally discharging oil during tank flushings. In the past, empty tankers were pumped full with water to keep the ship stable in transit, then flushed out prior to being refilled with oil. Since the 1970's a series of MARPOL regulations have been phased in that limit the discharge of oil during ship operations. New technology allows waste oil to be separated from wash water, and changes the methods used for ballasting. The most recent regulations, requiring double hulls on all tankers, are designed to eliminate spillage due to accidents as well.

Another obvious source of marine pollution is also one of the most common—the discarding of trash and solid waste from vessels at sea. A 1995 study [1] by the National Research Council (NRC) found that all sectors of commercial and recreational shipping generate "considerable amounts" of garbage, although the exact amounts are not known.

Internationally, the disposal of plastics at sea is prohibited by "Annex V" of the MARPOL treaty, which also limits other sorts of garbage disposal from ships based on the type of material being discharged and the distance from shore. The U.S. ratified Annex V in 1987, and further passed the Marine Plastics Pollution Research and Control Act designed to limit the disposal of plastics in U.S. territorial waters.

Aside from the very real aesthetic effects, the major problems from so-called "floatables" such as plastic are their interaction with marine organisms. Floatable debris can be ingested by organisms, or they can become entangled in it. In both cases the result can be injury or death. Sea turtles, for example, are especially prone to strangling on floating plastic bags which they mistake for prey, while debris such as abandoned fishnets can entangle marine mammals such as seals.

Other types of debris are less obvious but just as deadly. According to the Center for Marine Conservation (CMC) "Cargo wastes such as plastic strapping bands and sheeting are also especially damaging to marine life. Plastic strapping is second only to fishing nets as the most commonly seen item entangling seals." [2]

The number of animals affected by floating debris is enormous. The EPA estimates that over 100,000 marine mammals and over 1 million shorebirds die each year from ingestion of, or entanglement with, plastic debris. The CMC states that "plastic wastes generated from these sources [ships and boats] are among the most pervasive and threatening forms of debris found in our oceans."

The MARPOL treaty, and the U.S. federal laws implementing it have stringent requirements and relatively severe penalties (up to $500,000 fine per incident and the possibility of lengthy imprisonment). The disposal of all trash is prohibited within three miles of a shoreline and of most trash within 12 miles. Only beyond the 25-mile zone can trash be dumped with impunity, and even there the dumping of all plastics is prohibited.

Despite this, implementation of the Annex V requirements has been a problem. According to the NRC's 1995 report, federal officials reported many inspections in which no garbage at all was found on ships, suggesting that many fleets at the time were violating the law and dumping. The Coast Guard cited a variety of difficulties in enforcing the treaty, including the vastness of the oceans, the low risk perceived by violators, and the lack of emphasis the violations received in prosecution.

On a positive note, the NRC reported some success in controlling dumping of plastic, notably due to dedicated advocates. They cited studies which suggest that the level of plastics found on beaches was decreasing. Still, the problem remains difficult to track. The annual International Coastal Cleanup sponsored by the CMC in the year 2000 collected over 13 million pounds of trash in 60 countries with over 4 million coming from the U.S. alone. Of the more than 5 million objects collected in on U.S. beaches, over half continue to be plastic.

The Coastal Cleanup also makes clear the effects ships have on the environment are not just the result of the actions of large shipping magnates or shadowy international deals. As with so many environmental problems, individual responsibility plays a key role. Thus, among the trash picked up in a single day on American beaches were over 1 million cigarette butts. That translates into a million people making a personal decision to pollute the ocean with trash. This is a reminder that while ships may facilitate polluting of the oceans, it is the behavior of people on the ships that actually causes the pollution.

top of page

Cuise Ships - The Environmental Cost of Comfort

One source of marine pollution that has received a great deal of publicity has been the discharge of contaminants from ocean-going cruise ships. For many years cruise ships have been seen as synonymous with comfort and luxury, the floating playgrounds of the affluent. More recently, cruises have become accessible to wider numbers of people, as over 200 cruise ships now roam the oceans dispensing hospitality and relaxation to some 9 million passengers per year.

These "ultimate getaways," however, have not been without their problems, and several recent incidents have suggested that the cruise industry may be another aspect of commercial shipping with hidden environmental impacts. Carrying as many as 5000 people on board at a time, a modern cruise ship is virtually a mobile city, and as such has a city's full range of logistic and waste management problems. According to estimates from the Blue Water Network as well as data released by the cruise industry, in a weeks time a single cruise ship can generate:

• 210,000 gallons of sewage;
• 1,000,000 gallons of "graywater" (water from sinks, bathing and washing);
• 8 tons of solid waste;
• 25,000 gallons of oily bilge water.

In addition, a variety of other types of waste are generated in smaller amounts, including photo chemicals, dry cleaning products and used paint.

Given these city-sized waste problems and some highly publicized incidents of illegal discharges by cruise ships, the entire industry has come under increased public scrutiny. The U.S. General Accounting Office stated in a letter [3] to Congressional investigators that cruise ships have been involved in a total of 87 illegal discharges into U.S. waters between 1993 and 1998. Put another way, this constitutes roughly 4% of the total illegal discharges by foreign flagged ships during that time period (virtually all cruise ships are registered under foreign flags).

Cruise companies are quick to point out that this is a very tiny proportion of the total illegal discharges, and that, more importantly, the number has been steadily declining (from a high of 24 in 1994 to 8 and 9 in 1997 and 1998 respectively). Nonetheless, the cruise industry not been blameless. In fact, some of the cases actually involved multiple discharges (in some instances, repeatedly), indicating that the problem may be more extensive than simple numbers suggest.

According to the GAO, prosecutions "included many more [than 87] separate discharge incidents over the period from 1993 through 1998. For example, in a plea agreement [with the U.S. Department of Justice], one large company admitted to falsifying its oil record books and acknowledged 'regular and routine' illegal discharges of 'harmful quantities of oil-contaminated bilge waste and other pollutants' in numerous jurisdictions."

That plea agreement involved Royal Caribbean, the second largest cruise company in the world. Justice department officials were quoted [4] as saying "at least eight of the company's ships were involved in hundreds of separate illegal discharge incidents in 1994 and 1995; one of the company's ships continued the illegal discharges into 1998." A nine million dollar fine was levied against the company as part of the plea agreement. It was seen as a strong warning to cruise companies everywhere. Yet, just a year later Royal Caribbean was again fined, this time a record 18 million dollars for dumping in Alaskan waters. This time the plea agreement led to the company being placed under a five year environmental compliance plan.

In defense, Royal Caribbean has publicly condemned the actions of employees which led to the fines, and has fired or disciplined those involved. Their advertising emphasizes the aggressive stand they are taking towards waste reduction, that they have implemented extensive environmental training, and that an Environmental Officer is assigned to each ship to manage the waste stream. Yet many of these actions were mandated as part of the plea agreements.

Royal Caribbean, however, is certainly not the only company to come under fire. While cruise ships are responsible for 4% of illegal discharges by foreign flag ships, they constitute only 1.5% of the total foreign flagged ships in operation the U.S. The GAO report points out that violations have been detected by cruise companies ranging from large to small.

For places like Florida, Alaska and the Caribbean, cruise ships are two edged sword. On the one hand, there is no question that cruises and tourism make up a lion's share of some local economies. The cruise companies are quick to point out the large number of jobs and the amounts of public income that are a direct result of money generated by cruises.

On the other hand, it is challenging to operate luxurious, mobile accommodations for tens of thousands of people without having some environmental impact. By definition, the luxury promised by the cruise lines requires volume amounts of fuel, food, chemicals, and materials, and it generates, even by conservative estimate, huge amounts of waste and rubbish. Though cruise lines may be aggressive in pursuing environmental standards, there will ultimately be costs which must be passed along to passengers, something an expanding business is loathe to do.

The paradox is that cruise lines rely on environmental amenities to sell their product. Lacking the pristine waters of the Caribbean and the spectacular views of Alaska's Inner Passage, it is unlikely that anyone would be paying to cruise through them in a ship. As Royal Caribbean acknowledges in its marketing material, "we realize that our livelihood is drawn from the beauty and grandeur of the seas."

Nevertheless, with the Florida, Alaska and U.S. governments all taking action on the issue of cruise ships, it seems likely that actions will have to speak louder than words. Moreover, the increased scrutiny will probably limit cruise companies beyond even what the law requires. Carnival Cruises, for example, indicated last year that it had released "grey water" from sinks and showers into Los Angeles harbor, a perfectly legal practice that still brought considerable criticism.

With the cruise industry growing (nine new cruise ships were launched in 2001) and with the public's appetite for luxury vacations also expanding, it seems likely that environmental effects from these vessels will continue. It will be important for government and the industry to work together to develop ways to support this important sector of the economy without destroying the environmental values that give exotic vacations their appeal.

top of page

References & Further Reading

1. NRC, Marine Board, 1995. Clean Ships, Clean Ports, Clean Oceans: Controlling Garbage and Plastic Wastes at Sea. National Academy Press, Wash.DC. [go back]
2. CMC, 1998-2001. "Sources of Marine Debris,"
   www.cmc-ocean.org/mdio/sources.php3 [go back]
3. GAO, 2000. Marine Pollution: Progress Made to Reduce Marine Pollution by Cruise Ships, but Important Issues Remain. United States General Accounting Office,Report to Congressional Requesters, GAO/RCED-00-48 [go back]
4. Quoted in GAO 2000, cited above.
   [go back]
5. The EPA Office of Waterhas extensive material on cruise ships posted on-line at
   www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/cruise_ships/
6. Information on the IMO and on international treaties affecting the marine environment can be found on-line at:
   www.imo.org/Conventions/ mainframe .asp?topic_id=258
   

top of page