THE UK Government appears reluctant to sign the International Maritime Organisation’s (IMO) new convention on ballast water control, which is in stark contrast to its punctiliousness over observance of other inter-governmental agreements. It suggests conservationists’ suspicions that there is a connection to its attitude to ship to ship oil transfers may have substance, although it does not seem to have prevented oil-producing Norway from signing.
The use of ballast water to stabilise ships without cargoes is of course well established. Most of the marine species in ballast water loaded at one side of the world will not survive in foreign waters. But some do. They can alter the entire local ecology, and can contaminate local seafood.
Conservation body WWF highlights the example of comb jellyfish from North America (Mnemiopsis leidyi) which arrived in the Black Sea in ballast water in 1982. They had no enemies in their new home, and propagated at an alarming rate. By the mid-1990s, they accounted for 90 per cent of the total biomass in the Black Sea, a biomass more than the total annual global fish catch. It led to the near-collapse of Black Sea commercial fisheries. The species quickly spread into the neighbouring Azov Sea.
WWF concluded that alien invasive species can be as damaging as oil spills, and their effects much more persistent. So the community group Cromarty Rising is to be congratulated for highlighting the UK Government’s attitude to IMO’s new convention, when so close to becoming law.
The issue also underlines the dysfunctionality of present arrangements. Edinburgh is charged with protecting Scotland’s terrestrial and marine environment; but the Department for Transport in Whitehall and its Maritime and Coastguard Agency in Southampton decide the level of risk presented by oil transfers or alien species to Scotland’s seas.
That is a matter of concern, the more so given environmental protection is hardly likely to strengthen after Brexit.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel