Ship Air Pollution

Scheduled service awaiting approval from government

Gary Cheung – Updated on Jul 14, 2008 – SCMP

Seaplanes flying over Victoria Harbour and taking passengers to and from Macau will become a reality in the foreseeable future if the government approves a plan to relaunch the flights, which form part of the collective memory of Hongkongers.

WaterfrontAir, a firm founded by Canadian entrepreneur Michael Agopsowicz, plans to operate a scheduled seaplane service between a new Kai Tai Waterfront Aerodrome and the Pak On ferry terminal near Macau’s Cotai Strip.

The company intends to use a fleet of 18-seater DHC-6 Twin Otter floatplanes for the flights, which would take about 20 minutes.

It plans to create a licensed water aerodrome opposite the old Kai Tak airport runway.

Passengers would be taken to the Kowloon City ferry pier after the seaplanes landed.

The Tourism Commission and the Tourism Board have given their backing to the proposal because it would enhance Hong Kong’s appeal as a city with diversity and fun. But the project first needs to pass an environmental-impact assessment.

Mr Agopsowicz, also director of the company, said he would look for investors for the project and planned to commission an environmental-impact assessment and a noise- impact assessment in the second half of the year.

The firm plans to charge about HK$1,500 for a one-way trip, compared with HK$2,200 to HK$2,400 for a helicopter trip between Hong Kong and Macau or about HK$150 for a jetfoil. It plans to run 20 flights a day.

The firm estimates 150,000 visitors will take the trips every year.

Mr Agopsowicz said he discussed the concept with Permanent Secretary for Transport and Housing Francis Ho Suen-wai on March 18.

In a letter to Mr Agopsowicz on May 5, the bureau said: “From the aviation point of view, we have no objection in principle to your idea, but the feasibility of the idea hinges on the satisfactory resolution of a wide range of technical issues.”

A bureau spokeswoman said these issues concerned the feasibility of the idea from the perspectives of civil aviation, district planning, land-use planning, environmental impact and interface with marine activities.

“The Tourism Commission considers that an alternative means of fast transportation to Macau should be a [welcome] addition to enhance connectivity and choice. The seaplanes championed by you look attractive and elegant, and are good for leisure travel,” the bureau said in its letter to Mr Agopsowicz.

The commission was of the view that the plan would enhance Hong Kong’s appeal.

In a letter to Mr Agopsowicz last month, Tourism Board executive director Anthony Lau Chun-hon said: “Not only can the service offer users the opportunity to view Hong Kong’s spectacular skyline and cityscape over Victoria Harbour, it can also strengthen Hong Kong’s image as a major cosmopolitan city.”

Scheduled seaplanes between Hong Kong and Macau were operated between the 1930s and 1950s.

Mr Agopsowicz said seaplanes did not have a significant environmental impact. “They compare very favourably to conventional motorised boats in terms of air and water pollution,” he said.

He added that the DHC-6 planes he planned to deploy for the services were much quieter than helicopters and the service would operate in daytime only.

Mr Agopsowicz said seaplane services did not require a huge amount of investment and he estimated that the start-up investment for the project would be below US$5 million.

Bruce Liu Sing-lee, Kowloon City district councillor representing the Kai Tak constituency, said he would support the proposal if the noise level was acceptable.

“I think the seaplane services would create a substantial number of job opportunities for the neighbourhood and the whole Kowloon City district,” Mr Liu said.

Updated on Jun 24, 2008 – SCMP

Your leader on the Civic Exchange report, describing the burden of pollution which results from Hong Kong’s port operations (“Take pollution fight to region’s ports”, June 18), contrasts with the stereotyped comments of the deputy director of marine (“Use policies on fuel tax to lower port pollution: study”, June 18).

He offers only caveats on the costs of the transition from the current use of polluting fuels to an essential and effective air quality management strategy. There are many reasons why he could have publicly recognised that a rapid solution to this problem was imperative for all marine activities in Hong Kong.

Why does he feel it necessary to take this line when there is even strong support from the shipping industry itself to clean up?

For years, all government departments voicing a view on pollution issues have, as a reflex, given primacy to the relatively minor operational and economic aspects of the transition to cleaner fuels rather than the fact that emissions of sulfur dioxide, and toxic metals such as nickel from heavy residual oil, kill hundreds and damage the health of thousands each year.

We also showed this month that the external costs paid by the general population for pollution amount to a major cause of environmental injustice and that burning dirty fuel is a false economy (“Young and old pay high price for bad delta air”, June 12).

We should remind ourselves that, overnight, on June 30 to July 1, 1990, Hong Kong permanently restricted the territory-wide landside use of fuels to those with not more than 0.5 per cent sulfur content.

The operational and economic turbulence was minimal in all sectors burning fossil fuels. Annual deaths fell by 600 a year, mainly from heart and lung diseases, and there were health gains at all ages, especially in children. Unfortunately, that event 18 years ago was the last significant impact on air concentrations of pollutants in Hong Kong. Today, almost 4 million people are affected by the plumes created from intensive dirty port activities, with predictable health impacts. We need an intersectoral approach to pollution abatement in our shipping channels and ports as an urgent public health priority.

Anthony J. Hedley, department of community medicine, school of public health, University of Hong Kong

Sarah Monks, SCMP – Jun 19, 2008

In an unusual reversal of roles, a global industry – shipping – is pressing international regulators for tighter controls over its toxic emissions. And Hong Kong owners have been in the vanguard, campaigning for earlier use of cleaner fuels by the world’s 60,000 ocean-going merchant ships.

The International Maritime Organisation (IMO) stunned itself and the world in April when its normally fractious members agreed to tighten emission caps by 2020 for sulfur oxides (SOx), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and other pollutants. The revised caps, which the IMO is expected formally to adopt in October, would end shipping’s dependence on the dirtiest, cheapest fuel – residual oil, a tar-like refinery waste product.

“We are embarked on a very positive journey in the next 10 years that will see a massive decrease in toxic air emissions from ships,” said Arthur Bowring, managing director of the Hong Kong Shipowners Association (HKSOA), which has 160 members. “We have set ourselves an obligation. We now have to live up to that and meet that as an industry. If it hadn’t been for Hong Kong and Intertanko [the London- and Oslo-based International Association of Independent Tanker Owners] the IMO’s revisions would have been minor changes.”

The IMO’s intended new cap for sulfur content in fuel is 3.5 per cent (from the present 4.5 per cent) after January 1, 2012, falling steeply to 0.5 per cent from 2020. The limits in specified emission control areas would be 1 per cent in less than two years (from 1.5 per cent now) and fall to 0.1 per cent from 2015.

Thus, in a little over a decade, the world’s merchant ships are expected to have switched from the residual oil they have burned for nearly a century to a cleaner distillate, which is closer to truck diesel and jet fuel than it is to refinery waste.

“We dream of clean engine rooms and engineers in clean boiler suits,” said Mr Bowring. “We can’t wait to get to global distillate fuel grade so we can fill up our ships with a consistent quality fuel just like we fill up our cars.” He pointed to present difficulties for ships carrying multiple grades of fuel and aiming to meet different emissions regimes. Switching fuels at sea is a potentially dangerous procedure, with a risk of engines stalling in busy shipping lanes. Failure to use the right fuel could lead to costly sanctions such as ship detention.

Mr Bowring said the maritime industry, which accounts for about 90 per cent of world trade, realised some years ago that it must shift to a proactive mode in tackling public concerns about marine emissions.

Emissions have risen as seaborne trade has more than doubled in less than 20 years. Emissions have also been linked to deaths and heart diseases in places close to heavy marine traffic.

“You’ve got to be proactive. You can’t hide behind the regulations and the legislation and wait until you are forced,” said Mr Bowring. “And it’s very clear to us that our industry has to contribute to the reduction of pollution in the Pearl River Delta.”

According to the Environmental Protection Department’s air pollutant inventory, marine emissions are the second-largest source (5 per cent) of sulfur dioxide in Hong Kong, after electricity generation (89 per cent). They are the third-largest source (18 per cent) of NOx, after electricity generation (44 per cent) and road transport (23 per cent).

Mr Bowring said self-interest had been a powerful reason for the industry’s change of tack as it was better for the industry to develop its own regulations via the IMO, a UN agency, than be vulnerable to a patchwork of conflicting local regulations that would make sea transport less efficient.

In 2005, the HKSOA stepped on to the international stage with aggressive proposals to switch to cleaner fuel. Mr Bowring said it was a natural role for Hong Kong, as the city was the world’s fourth-largest centre for owning, operating and managing ships.

“Asia is not known for being outspoken. Hong Kong is willing to be outspoken. That’s the nature of Hong Kong,” said Mr Bowring. “It gives us great leverage and we’ve used it for a number of maritime issues in addition to marine emissions, such as bulk carrier safety standards and fatigue at sea. We’re willing to go out on a limb over issues and go on the world stage and be seen as a voice for Asia.”

The HKSOA lobbied unsuccessfully at the IMO for even tighter caps and a faster switch to global distillate that would eliminate the need for special emissions control areas but the world’s maritime administrators, including Hong Kong’s Marine Department, preferred “a compromise solution”, said its deputy director, Patrick Chun Ping-fai.

“Although I think people might appreciate their [HKSOA’s] argument … it appeared to us that their proposal would not be feasible or viable after taking into account various considerations, in particular the impact on the shipping community and also the ability of the oil refineries industry to provide a very-low-sulfur-content fuel to ships all over the world,” Mr Chun said.

The eventual April amendment to the IMO convention, known as MARPOL Annex VI, has a compromise clause to review the fuel supply situation in 2018, with an option to postpone the adoption of global distillate until 2025.

“We’ve dug a hole for ourselves here,” said Mr Bowring. “The burden is on us to find a solution with the refineries. They will have to switch from supplying about 380 million tonnes of residual oil to supplying the same amount of distillate. They will probably need new refineries and to upgrade existing refineries to create the capacity.”

He predicted that distillate would be twice as expensive as residual oil, though the impact on transport costs would be marginal as fuel was a relatively small factor in the end consumer price.

The IMO’s intended final sulfur-content levels were “a leap rather than a step”, said Douglas Rait of specialist maritime firm Lloyd’s Register. “It remains to be seen exactly how the fuel oil supply industry will react, what type and composition of fuel oils will be produced to meet the requirement, and what means will be necessary to assess their key characteristics on delivery,” added Mr Rait, global manager of the firm’s fuel-oil-bunker analysis and advisory service.

A spokeswoman for ExxonMobil Hong Kong, a major fuel supplier, said the company would be ready for the global changeover to 0.5 per cent distillate by 2020 and supplies would be ensured. A Shell Hong Kong spokeswoman said the IMO proposals provided flexibility for reaching the revised emission reduction levels.

Demand for cleaner marine fuel needs to rise sharply by 2020 to spur refineries to invest in its production, said Mr Bowring. A key HKSOA strategy was to press for an emissions control area for Hong Kong and Pearl River Delta waters, with cleaner fuel a requirement for entry.

“If we have a PRD emissions control area at 0.1 per cent it will instantly reduce the SOx and particulate matter from all ships going into one of the world’s largest shipping areas. It will also guarantee refineries a distillate market by ramping up demand,” he said.

Various port authorities would need to work together to create a regional emissions control area. But the Environmental Protection Department says they “have different priorities and considerations in terms of the implications that such a move may have on their port activities and businesses”.

Another hurdle to justifying an IMO-approved emissions control area is the prior need to show that equivalent efforts are being made to reduce pollution from factories and other land-based sources.

“The Guangdong authorities have already put a lot of effort into reducing air pollution,” said the Marine Department’s Mr Chun. “It will be very difficult to convince industry in the area to put in even more efforts to reduce air pollution if they want to make this a sulfur emissions control area.”

He noted, too, the challenges in convincing local fishermen, barge operators and related interest groups about the need for measures that imply higher fuel costs or require them to upgrade their engines. They had already been given an extended grace period to comply with IMO emissions caps that took effect in Hong Kong this month.

The Environmental Protection Department believes there are options other than an emissions control area for reducing pollution from ships. “For instance, we have set up an interdepartmental working group to examine the feasibility of local ferries using ultra-low-sulfur diesel, including conducting a trial,” it said in a statement. It was also in talks with its Guangdong counterparts.

For the co-founder and chief executive officer of policy think-tank Civic Exchange, Christine Loh Kung-wai, reducing marine and port emissions is “low hanging fruit” for the government. “You have the shipping companies and even the terminal operators ready to change, and some of the local craft operators also want to do something.

“The shipowners operate global businesses and are keenly aware of reforms taking place at other ports. They know their ships have to operate at higher environmental levels at ports in Europe and North America, and they can do the same in Hong Kong. They want to do it, which is driving them to ask for a level playing field so laggards do not benefit.”

Civic Exchange this week released a report, titled Green Harbours, which recommends reducing emissions from the marine and port sectors in Hong Kong and Shenzhen. It notes that governments and industry players in Hong Kong and the Pearl River Delta have taken steps such as encouraging the use of low-sulfur fuels, using electricity to power port machinery and reducing fuel consumption.

Ms Loh said the government had to play a “convening role” for the industry as a whole. “Something like requiring ships to slow down within Hong Kong waters is doable tomorrow – it will save fuel and reduce emissions,” she said.

Smoke on the water

Hong Kong’s port is an economic lifeline – and one of its worst sources of pollution

Christine Loh – Updated on Jun 19, 2008 – SCMP

Low-hanging fruit is ripe for picking. But it can only be harvested at the optimal time. And, so, the government must move ahead to deal with marine and port-related emissions now because emission levels are rising, yet many stakeholders are ready to perform at a higher environmental level. By taking decisive action in the near future, the government will win political kudos.

The authorities have a duty to act if they are serious about protecting public health. Hong Kong and the Pearl River Delta have some of the busiest ports in the world. Between 2001 and 2006, Hong Kong’s container throughput increased by about 32 per cent, from 17.8 million to 23.5 million 20-foot equivalent units (teus), a measurement for containerised tonnage. Our neighbour, Shenzhen, has also seen massive increases, from about 5 million teus in 2001 to nearly 18.5 million teus in 2006.

Millions of people in the region live and work close to ports and are directly exposed to very harmful levels of shipping and port-related emissions. After all, ship emissions come from the burning of bunker fuel, which is highly toxic. While in total tonnage terms, marine emissions are much less than from power plants, bunker fuel is nevertheless very dirty and its emissions affect more than 3 million people in Hong Kong, according to a government-commissioned study. Despite the lower quantity, ship emissions have a large negative impact on people’s health.

Moreover, port activities include the operation of many types of equipment, such as cranes, as well as tens of thousands of barges and trucks moving goods round the clock. They all burn lower-quality diesel and thus contribute to Hong Kong’s and the delta’s poor air quality. There is no doubt that old, polluting lorries are a major contributor to this city’s roadside pollution, which is desperately high.

While long-term predictions are less precise, current government-sponsored estimates show that our city may handle a staggering 40 million teus by 2030. With Shenzhen’s ports also growing quickly – some believe they will grow even faster – there is, in fact, an urgent need to clean up, otherwise the rising tonnage of cargo will become an even bigger public health threat.

Our ship owners know Hong Kong can do better. This is because their ships sail around the world and, in European and North American ports, there have been much greater efforts in recent years to promote green port policies to reduce the public health impact on port cities. Their ships have to improve their environmental performance when they dock at those ports, for example, by using cleaner fuels and reducing speed.

So, ship owners know they can do the same when their ships sail into Hong Kong and Shenzhen, and it would mean lower emissions for the residents of this region.

There is an additional cost component to using cleaner fuel. But if all ships entering a port have to meet the same tighter emissions levels, it is a new, level playing field. The ship owners insist that voluntary measures don’t work because there will always be the temptation for some to save costs by continuing to use dirtier fuel, for example.

Cargo terminal operators in Hong Kong have also started to use cleaner fuels for their equipment as part of their corporate social responsibility programmes. Since they are in fact global port operators, these companies are also affected by international trends. Some of the larger companies that operate various types of harbour craft – tugs and ferries – are also looking at what emissions improvements they can make and are providing key staff with environmental management training. The most difficult stakeholder group is the lorry operators, many of whom feel they are in a sunset industry. But, even here, better driving skills can help with fuel efficiency, leading to lower costs at a time when energy prices are very high.

The government needs to be willing to convene ongoing dialogue with the stakeholders to press home green port policies and work with the marine and port operation sector to explore a range of clean-up options.

Christine Loh is chief executive of the non-profit think-tank Civic Exchange, which published the report Green Harbours: Hong Kong & Shenzhen this week

Change of tack

Hong Kong shipowners are at forefront of a battle for tighter emissions curbs

Sarah Monks – Updated on Jun 19, 2008 – SCMP

In an unusual reversal of roles, a global industry – shipping – is pressing international regulators for tighter controls over its toxic emissions. And Hong Kong owners have been in the vanguard, campaigning for earlier use of cleaner fuels by the world’s 60,000 ocean-going merchant ships.

The International Maritime Organisation (IMO) stunned itself and the world in April when its normally fractious members agreed to tighten emission caps by 2020 for sulfur oxides (SOx), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and other pollutants. The revised caps, which the IMO is expected formally to adopt in October, would end shipping’s dependence on the dirtiest, cheapest fuel – residual oil, a tar-like refinery waste product.

“We are embarked on a very positive journey in the next 10 years that will see a massive decrease in toxic air emissions from ships,” said Arthur Bowring, managing director of the Hong Kong Shipowners Association (HKSOA), which has 160 members. “We have set ourselves an obligation. We now have to live up to that and meet that as an industry. If it hadn’t been for Hong Kong and Intertanko [the London- and Oslo-based International Association of Independent Tanker Owners] the IMO’s revisions would have been minor changes.”

The IMO’s intended new cap for sulfur content in fuel is 3.5 per cent (from the present 4.5 per cent) after January 1, 2012, falling steeply to 0.5 per cent from 2020. The limits in specified emission control areas would be 1 per cent in less than two years (from 1.5 per cent now) and fall to 0.1 per cent from 2015.

Thus, in a little over a decade, the world’s merchant ships are expected to have switched from the residual oil they have burned for nearly a century to a cleaner distillate, which is closer to truck diesel and jet fuel than it is to refinery waste.

“We dream of clean engine rooms and engineers in clean boiler suits,” said Mr Bowring. “We can’t wait to get to global distillate fuel grade so we can fill up our ships with a consistent quality fuel just like we fill up our cars.” He pointed to present difficulties for ships carrying multiple grades of fuel and aiming to meet different emissions regimes. Switching fuels at sea is a potentially dangerous procedure, with a risk of engines stalling in busy shipping lanes. Failure to use the right fuel could lead to costly sanctions such as ship detention.

Mr Bowring said the maritime industry, which accounts for about 90 per cent of world trade, realised some years ago that it must shift to a proactive mode in tackling public concerns about marine emissions.

Emissions have risen as seaborne trade has more than doubled in less than 20 years. Emissions have also been linked to deaths and heart diseases in places close to heavy marine traffic.

“You’ve got to be proactive. You can’t hide behind the regulations and the legislation and wait until you are forced,” said Mr Bowring. “And it’s very clear to us that our industry has to contribute to the reduction of pollution in the Pearl River Delta.”

According to the Environmental Protection Department’s air pollutant inventory, marine emissions are the second-largest source (5 per cent) of sulfur dioxide in Hong Kong, after electricity generation (89 per cent). They are the third-largest source (18 per cent) of NOx, after electricity generation (44 per cent) and road transport (23 per cent).

Mr Bowring said self-interest had been a powerful reason for the industry’s change of tack as it was better for the industry to develop its own regulations via the IMO, a UN agency, than be vulnerable to a patchwork of conflicting local regulations that would make sea transport less efficient.

In 2005, the HKSOA stepped on to the international stage with aggressive proposals to switch to cleaner fuel. Mr Bowring said it was a natural role for Hong Kong, as the city was the world’s fourth-largest centre for owning, operating and managing ships.

“Asia is not known for being outspoken. Hong Kong is willing to be outspoken. That’s the nature of Hong Kong,” said Mr Bowring. “It gives us great leverage and we’ve used it for a number of maritime issues in addition to marine emissions, such as bulk carrier safety standards and fatigue at sea. We’re willing to go out on a limb over issues and go on the world stage and be seen as a voice for Asia.”

The HKSOA lobbied unsuccessfully at the IMO for even tighter caps and a faster switch to global distillate that would eliminate the need for special emissions control areas but the world’s maritime administrators, including Hong Kong’s Marine Department, preferred “a compromise solution”, said its deputy director, Patrick Chun Ping-fai.

“Although I think people might appreciate their [HKSOA’s] argument … it appeared to us that their proposal would not be feasible or viable after taking into account various considerations, in particular the impact on the shipping community and also the ability of the oil refineries industry to provide a very-low-sulfur-content fuel to ships all over the world,” Mr Chun said.

The eventual April amendment to the IMO convention, known as MARPOL Annex VI, has a compromise clause to review the fuel supply situation in 2018, with an option to postpone the adoption of global distillate until 2025.

“We’ve dug a hole for ourselves here,” said Mr Bowring. “The burden is on us to find a solution with the refineries. They will have to switch from supplying about 380 million tonnes of residual oil to supplying the same amount of distillate. They will probably need new refineries and to upgrade existing refineries to create the capacity.”

He predicted that distillate would be twice as expensive as residual oil, though the impact on transport costs would be marginal as fuel was a relatively small factor in the end consumer price.

The IMO’s intended final sulfur-content levels were “a leap rather than a step”, said Douglas Rait of specialist maritime firm Lloyd’s Register. “It remains to be seen exactly how the fuel oil supply industry will react, what type and composition of fuel oils will be produced to meet the requirement, and what means will be necessary to assess their key characteristics on delivery,” added Mr Rait, global manager of the firm’s fuel-oil-bunker analysis and advisory service.

A spokeswoman for ExxonMobil Hong Kong, a major fuel supplier, said the company would be ready for the global changeover to 0.5 per cent distillate by 2020 and supplies would be ensured. A Shell Hong Kong spokeswoman said the IMO proposals provided flexibility for reaching the revised emission reduction levels.

Demand for cleaner marine fuel needs to rise sharply by 2020 to spur refineries to invest in its production, said Mr Bowring. A key HKSOA strategy was to press for an emissions control area for Hong Kong and Pearl River Delta waters, with cleaner fuel a requirement for entry.

“If we have a PRD emissions control area at 0.1 per cent it will instantly reduce the SOx and particulate matter from all ships going into one of the world’s largest shipping areas. It will also guarantee refineries a distillate market by ramping up demand,” he said.

Various port authorities would need to work together to create a regional emissions control area. But the Environmental Protection Department says they “have different priorities and considerations in terms of the implications that such a move may have on their port activities and businesses”.

Another hurdle to justifying an IMO-approved emissions control area is the prior need to show that equivalent efforts are being made to reduce pollution from factories and other land-based sources.

“The Guangdong authorities have already put a lot of effort into reducing air pollution,” said the Marine Department’s Mr Chun. “It will be very difficult to convince industry in the area to put in even more efforts to reduce air pollution if they want to make this a sulfur emissions control area.”

He noted, too, the challenges in convincing local fishermen, barge operators and related interest groups about the need for measures that imply higher fuel costs or require them to upgrade their engines. They had already been given an extended grace period to comply with IMO emissions caps that took effect in Hong Kong this month.

The Environmental Protection Department believes there are options other than an emissions control area for reducing pollution from ships. “For instance, we have set up an interdepartmental working group to examine the feasibility of local ferries using ultra-low-sulfur diesel, including conducting a trial,” it said in a statement. It was also in talks with its Guangdong counterparts.

For the co-founder and chief executive officer of policy think-tank Civic Exchange, Christine Loh Kung-wai, reducing marine and port emissions is “low hanging fruit” for the government. “You have the shipping companies and even the terminal operators ready to change, and some of the local craft operators also want to do something.

“The shipowners operate global businesses and are keenly aware of reforms taking place at other ports. They know their ships have to operate at higher environmental levels at ports in Europe and North America, and they can do the same in Hong Kong. They want to do it, which is driving them to ask for a level playing field so laggards do not benefit.”

Civic Exchange this week released a report, titled Green Harbours, which recommends reducing emissions from the marine and port sectors in Hong Kong and Shenzhen. It notes that governments and industry players in Hong Kong and the Pearl River Delta have taken steps such as encouraging the use of low-sulfur fuels, using electricity to power port machinery and reducing fuel consumption.

Ms Loh said the government had to play a “convening role” for the industry as a whole. “Something like requiring ships to slow down within Hong Kong waters is doable tomorrow – it will save fuel and reduce emissions,” she said.

Leader – 18th June 2008

Many people worry about air pollution from motor vehicles, with good reason. Yet, marine vessels are also significant, although lesser known, sources of toxic emissions into the air. The boom in international trade with China has made ports in Hong Kong and the Pearl River Delta the busiest in the world. Increased activities by ships, trucks, trains, cargo cranes and harbour craft in the region mean they can no longer be ignored as pollution sources. This is especially troubling given their proximity to highly populated city centres. The think-tank Civic Exchange has provided a valuable public service by providing a study on this growing problem, along with practical recommendations that authorities would do well to take seriously.

Hong Kong and the delta region have lagged behind the best practices in North America and Europe, the study finds. However, many local operators are taking initiatives, on their own, to make their operations more energy-efficient and friendlier to the environment. The Hong Kong government and Beijing have also ratified a key annex to the International Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution from Ships. In Hong Kong’s case, it came into effect at the start of this month.

Still, much work needs to be done. New rules and regulations – such as emission standards – need to be brought in line with the annex provisions and local needs. For this to happen, the Hong Kong government and authorities in Guangdong must take the initiative. Many port operators, according to the report, complain that some of their smaller rivals are enjoying a free ride from their anti-pollution programmes without having to take part in them. Only regulations can create a level playing field where everyone is bound by the same rules. Most of these rules and standards are not difficult to formulate or enforce. Civic Exchange recommends use of low-sulfur fuels, reducing vessel speed limits in delta waters, and educating port staff. But they need cross-border standards and co-operation to work. Clearly, our ports will only become busier as the mainland’s economic growth continues. For the sake of public health, we have a duty to make our ports clean and green.

Keith Wallis, Hong Kong – Monday 16 June 2008

Ships could be asked to reduce speeds to 12 knots.

VESSEL operators could be given incentives to switch to low-sulphur fuels within 64 km of Hong Kong and Shenzhen ports and to reduce ship speeds to just 12 knots, as part of a package of initiatives to reduce maritime pollution.

The plans are among a raft of proposals set to be unveiled tomorrow in a report by Hong Kong public policy think tank Civic Exchange.

The 45-page study, Green Harbours: Hong Kong and Shenzhen — reducing marine and port related emissions, recommends 12 key measures to be implemented by both the private and public sectors.

The document is important because it was prepared with help from the Hong Kong Shipowners’ Association, the Marine Department, terminal companies including Hutchison Ports and other local organisations. As a result, many of the proposals could be speedily launched.

Chief among these are the implementation of what Civic Exchange said are “fast and easy wins, such as requiring vessels to slow down to reduce fuel consumption”.

Vessel operators would be given incentives to switch to a low-sulphur fuel within 64 km of Hong Kong and Shenzhen ports. Under the proposal, port operators would pay shipping companies the difference between the price of bunker fuel and the low-sulphur distillate fuel for vessels that make the fuel switch at least 32 km from the ports.

To qualify for the incentives, ships must also participate in the ports’ voluntary vessel-speed reduction programme, limiting speeds to 12 knots. In addition, ships must burn low-sulphur fuel in their auxiliary engine while at berth.

The report also calls for “the creation of a regional cross-industry body to manage port and marine related environmental issues” and says the Hong Kong government “is well-placed to convene this group”.

The report also calls for “a comprehensive green ports strategy and related policy measures” to be developed. This should include the use of “regulatory processes under international treaties such as emissions control areas to engage Hong Kong, the Pearl River delta and Beijing”.

Officials are urged to “consider imposing fees on high-sulphur fuels and lowering taxes and duties on ultra low sulphur diesel” while improving fuel distribution to decrease the actual cost of ultra-low-sulphur diesel for local craft.

The report also calls for a government-led detailed inventory of maritime-related pollutants, including greenhouse gases, to provide a strong technical foundation for both policy decisions and on-going research and monitoring in southern China. It says research should be carried out on the health effects of marine and port related emissions to determine subsequent policy measures to reduce the impact of maritime related pollution.

Civic Exchange praises several companies, including China Navigation, the privately-owned Swire shipping company, Shekou Container Terminal, and Yantian International Container Terminal for their environmental iniatives, including switching to low-sulphur diesel and electric-power port equipment.

But the group said: “There is a willingness among them to do better but they will need government regulation to create a level playing field so that laggards do not benefit from non-action. Thus, marine and port-related emissions in fact represent a low-hanging fruit for the authorities, which they must harvest sooner rather than later.”

Agence France-Presse in Hanoi – Updated on Apr 12, 2008

The food security of millions of people is at risk because overfishing, climate change and pollution are inflicting massive damage on the world’s oceans, marine scientists have warned.

The two-thirds of the planet covered by seas provided one-fifth of the world’s protein – but 75 per cent of fish stocks were now fully exploited or depleted, a Hanoi conference that ended yesterday was told.

Warming seas were bleaching corals, feeding algal blooms and changing ocean currents that affected the weather, and rising sea levels could in future threaten coastal areas from Bangladesh to New York, experts said.

“People think the ocean is a place apart,” World Ocean Observatory head Peter Neill said. “In fact, it’s the thing that connects us – through trade, transportation, natural systems, weather patterns and everything we depend on for survival.”

Marine ecosystems and food security were key concerns at the Global Conference on Oceans, Coasts, and Islands, an international meeting of hundreds of experts from governments, environmental groups and universities.

“There is a race to fish, but in wild-capture fisheries right now we can catch no more,” said Steven Murawski, fisheries chief science adviser at the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

“We catch 100 million metric tonnes per year, and that’s been very flat globally. Our only hope is if we conserve and rebuild stocks,” he said, adding that sustainable aquaculture could help make up the shortfall.

The plunder was risking long-term sustainability with “too many fishing boats taking too many fish and not allowing the stocks to regenerate”, Conservation International’s Frazer McGilvray said.

“Once the oceans are gone, we’re gone. The oceans sustain the planet.”

The world had already seen the effects of overfishing, experts said. North Atlantic cod fisheries collapsed in the 1990s, and anchovies previously disappeared off Chile, herring off Iceland and sardines off California.

Sixty-four per cent of ocean areas fall outside national jurisdictions, making it difficult to reach international consensus or to stop illegal fishing – a growing concern as hi-tech ships scour the high seas.

“It’s the Wild West. It’s a very small number of boats, but the technology allows them to take enormous amounts of fish,” Mr Neill said.

“They take only the high commercial product and they throw the bycatch overboard. The waste is extraordinary.”

Marine life was also being harmed by climate change, Mr Murawski said. “We’ve seen that fish populations go up and down with variations in the climate,” he said. “Increasingly, we are starting to see long-term change affect the productivity, the distributions, the migrations.”

The trend was speeding up, he said. “Our forecasts are wrong. The melt-off is much faster than has been forecast in the models.”

Meanwhile, land-based pollution put heavy strain on oceans, the UN Environment Programme’s Ellik Adler said.

“Rivers of untreated sewage, factories, refineries, oil industry discharge their effluent into the marine environment, and this causes huge damage,” he said. “Marine pollution has no political borders.”

There were few easy fixes, experts said, but one initiative now being considered was setting up a global network of marine protected areas.

“You’ve got to get agreements between countries,” said consultant Sue Wells, who has worked in coastal East Africa. “Some developed countries have already closed some areas, and most coastal countries are now considering it.”

Satellites could monitor no-catch areas, she said, while inspiration could come from South Pacific fishing communities.

“They have taboo areas, coral reef sanctuaries, where fish would be saved for bad weather periods or major festivals and feast,” she said. “They know if they leave an area and don’t fish there, they’ll have much better stocks.”

It was a view that had been lost in modern times, she said, where the common view was “if I don’t go and fish it, someone else will”.

Published on Apr 4, 2008

Latest proposal will hit poorer countries hard

Airline and shipping operators, especially those in developing countries, will be hit hard if a European Union proposal on greenhouse gas emissions is adopted, officials warned yesterday.

The EU submitted a proposal yesterday to the ongoing Bangkok round of climate-change negotiations to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.

Delegates from 163 countries have participated in the United Nations-sanctioned conference here with the objective of managing carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases blamed for global warming.

As a result, EU delegates asked for the control of greenhouse gases from the use of maritime and aviation fuels.

According to EU delegates, airlines and shipping lines are important sources of these emissions, which have been growing at a fast rate and neither is covered by the Kyoto Protocol.

“Even though it is just the first draft of a proposal, there is a strong chance it will be approved by member countries,” said Sirithan Pairojborriboon, director of the Greenhouse Gas Management Public Organisation.

“If that’s the case, airline operators [such as Thai Airways International and other Asian carriers] will be affected significantly, as they will be forced to control their emissions or else they will be charged for such emissions.”

Sirithan warned that the burden would be heavy for airline operators in developing countries, as currently they have no obligations on emission controls under the global climate pact.

“These operators could be forced to pay even though the total emissions of their respective countries is not within the level of Annex I countries,” he said, adding that the tourism and logistics industries might also be affected.

Annex I countries have to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by about 5 per cent from the 1990 level. Under the Kyoto Protocol, this target is supposed to be met by 2012.

Currently, Thailand and other developing countries are not on the Annex I list and emission cuts are still voluntary.

According to Sirithan, the EU has suggested two options for its proposal: allowing an emission trading system among airlines or initiating a carbon dioxide charge on airlines.

The EU proposal yesterday faced strong opposition from many delegates from developing countries, he said.

“They fear that a rise in costs from greenhouse gases will affect air fares or route management and in the end reduce the airline industry’s competitiveness,” Sirithan said, adding that the EU plan is expected to be debated more widely in the next round of climate talks in Bonn, Germany, in June.

The EU proposal was submitted to one of the two meetings at the Bangkok Climate Talks – called the Meeting of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol – which will end today.

Kamol Sukin

The Nation

Updated on Mar 10, 2008 – SCMPThe nearest craft to a water taxi that we ever had in Hong Kong were the good old walla-wallas. They were noisy and smelly, but provided an essential service in the days before cross-harbour tunnels once the ferries stopped running each night.

I can agree then with Thomas Gebauer (“Water taxi plan is bad news”, March 5) when he writes of smoke-puffing vessels polluting the atmosphere.

However, there is a new breed of water taxi on the waters of Sydney Harbour that is environmentally friendly.

These vessels could well be called water buses, as they can carry 60 to 100 passengers and their power source is solar energy and the wind.

Allan Zeman is criticised for supporting the water taxi concept for access to Ocean Park (“Water taxi plan wins support”, February 29).

Mr Zeman has never picked a dud horse yet, and my bet is he would put his money on this environmentally friendly form of transport. It will surely be a real winner.

Gordon Andreassend, Kowloon