---

Antarctic: Tourist Ships

I am very grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, for initiating this debate. He is very knowledgeable on the subject and has a track record and history of taking legislation through your Lordships' House on issues relating to the Antarctic, and a strong personal interest in issues relating to Antarctic exploration and travel to it. As he reminded us, last year he initiated a debate on the subject—and prescient that debate was. Recent events have made another opportunity to discuss Antarctic matters very timely, with the issue of passenger safety and the need to protect the marine environment coming very much to the fore. This afternoon, in this very short but important discussion, we have had some valuable and timely additions to contribution of the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, particularly from the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, who is a great marine expert and who commands tremendous respect on this subject. I confess that this issue is not one on which I have a ready knowledge, nor can I claim any depth of knowledge, but it has been fascinating to work through the briefing material and talk to officials and the noble Viscount. I have learnt something from this and I am extraordinarily grateful to all who have helped me. I thank all noble Lords who have contributed. I shall try to deal with as many of the points that have been raised as I possibly can. We have the benefit of some time. The Antarctic is a place of great beauty and wonder—a pristine environment like no other on earth. It is a truism to say that it is an area of global significance due to its profound impact on the world’s climate and ocean systems. With climate change being very much to the fore of our thinking, that significance and its importance are increasing. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, drew attention to that in his concluding comments. It is not going to be far away from our thinking. The land mass occupies something like a tenth of the overall land mass of the globe and has a profound effect on the environment. The area is attracting an increasing number of tourists, and a number of noble Lords drew attention to that. That brings its own set of challenges. The world cruise industry is undergoing a strong renaissance. A record 4 million Europeans took a cruise last year, of which 1.3 million passengers came from the United Kingdom. That shows just how much we love to travel. Compare that with other nation states, and the figures are very different. Perhaps we are a curious nation. Not long ago I took a taxi to my railway station. I said to the driver that I had not seen him for a while and he told me ““I’ve been very busy””. I asked, ““Have you been travelling?””. He said, ““Yes, I have been travelling and have recently been to the Antarctic””. I would wager that a generation ago, very few taxi drivers would even have contemplated a trip to the Antarctic and certainly they would not have set their meter running to get there. I was struck by that. It is symptomatic of the way that tourism and cruise tourism is developing. The rate of growth is currently 17 per cent per annum. Cruising is a success story and the United Kingdom industry and our citizens are benefiting significantly from the opportunities afforded by this growth. It is a benign growth but one with challenges. It is benign because it extends and raises our interest levels and awareness of the wider world and globalisation. The Antarctic region is also becoming a destination of choice for many cruise ship operators. Until recently, few people other than scientists and explorers—certainly not taxi drivers—had ever visited Antarctica. In the past few years, however, the region, particularly the Antarctic Peninsula, has become a common destination on many cruise itineraries. As concerns about climate change increase, the growth in the number of people seeing for themselves this vital region of the globe is not altogether a bad thing, given that it helps to spread the knowledge about this area and its contribution as a pivotal component of the earth’s ecosystem. The UK recognises tourism as a legitimate activity under the Antarctic Treaty and we support the self-regulatory framework established by the International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators. Nevertheless, we are concerned to ensure that there is proper management of the tourism industry in the Antarctic and to set strict environmental guidelines. We are also concerned to ensure that tourism to the Antarctic is carefully planned and monitored to ensure the safety of those involved as well as to minimise the environmental impact of their activities. The arrival of more cruise ships in Antarctic waters, some of which are very large indeed, poses certain risks, which were demonstrated by the sinking of the MS ““Explorer”” near the South Shetland Islands last November and referred to by noble Lords this afternoon. Fortunately, that marine casualty did not lead to any loss of life among the 154 passengers and crew on board at the time of the accident, nor did it have a major environmental impact. But there is, of course, no room for complacency, since there were a number of fortunate factors involved in that incident. Governments are aware of the potential difficulties arising from operating cruise ships in Antarctic waters, and consideration will be given to how we can learn from the lessons of the MS ““Explorer”” when the results of the accident investigation are known. As noble Lords have rightly said, this is a matter for the International Maritime Organisation to take the lead on in due course. The Antarctic treaty parties have asked the IMO to consider guidelines for Antarctic shipping, which would be based on the existing Arctic Shipping Guidelines. The current guidelines include provisions on ship suitability and emergency equipment, to take up the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. That has to include a requirement that all lifeboats carried by polar class ships should be of the fully enclosed type, to provide adequate shelter from the environment. The United Kingdom has been pressing for the guidelines to also apply to the Antarctic, and the IMO has indicated its intention to consider amending the current Arctic guidelines for use in both Arctic and Antarctic waters. Safeguards are already in place. The Antarctic treaty’s protocol on environmental protection of 1991, which has been implemented domestically through the Antarctic Act 1994, requires all activities in Antarctica to be planned to minimise the environmental impact. In addition, the UK has also implemented an agreement of the Antarctic treaty parties in 2004 that all tourism activities in that region must be able to demonstrate self-sufficient search-and-rescue and contingency plans. All treaty-flagged or registered vessels entering Antarctica must have either a permit or licence to do so from one of the contracting parties to the Antarctic treaty. The United Kingdom is one of those parties, and the FCO issues permits, under the Antarctic Act 1994, following a checklist of relevant requirements. In addition, only ships carrying fewer than 500 passengers are allowed to disembark their passengers on Antarctica. Hydrographic survey work and chart production also make an essential contribution to maritime safety. The United Kingdom continues to make a significant contribution, and the United Kingdom Hydrographic Office, supported by HMS ““Endurance””, is the most active player in the production of Antarctic hydrographic charts. Most vessels visiting the Antarctic region are not UK-registered, and therefore we have no statutory obligation to them. There are also a number of UK-based operators which operate ships in the area but choose to register their vessels outside the UK. Whatever the registration of the vessel concerned, they are good ship owners with a strong safety culture behind them. Corporate social responsibility is also a key component in improving the social, economic and environmental standards of shipping. That means doing more than the bare minimum needed to comply with legal requirements. After all, better crew standards lead to safer ships, safer ships lead to fewer accidents, and fewer accidents mean less cost and less damage to the environment. The requirements for ships operating in Antarctica are underpinned by the Safety of Life at Sea Convention—or SOLAS, as it is more commonly called—the International Safety Management Code and the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, which is commonly known as MARPOL. They are global safety requirements which are kept under constant review. The stringent SOLAS requirements require the subdivision of passenger ships into watertight compartments, bilge-pumping arrangements and stability requirements to enable the ship to withstand significant accident damage. As I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, knows better than I, the degree of subdivision varies with the ship's length. Therefore, in this instance we can be enthusiastic about larger ships. There are also requirements covering machinery and electrical installations to ensure that services which are essential for the safety of the ship, passengers and crew are maintained under various emergency conditions. SOLAS also details requirements for life-saving appliances such as lifeboats, rescue boats and lifejackets according to the type of ship. These provisions are supplemented by the International Life-Saving Appliance Code which provides specific technical requirements for life-saving appliances. The International Safety Management Code also requires, for example, that ship operators have procedures to ensure the safe operation of ships and protection of the environment in compliance with relevant international legislation and to have procedures to respond to emergency situations. Noble Lords mentioned that the increase in the number of vessels operating in Antarctica poses a risk to the marine environment. Safety and protecting the marine environment go hand in hand. By enhancing the safety of the passengers and crew, the marine environment is also being protected. Governments recognise, however, the need to protect the marine environment in such an important region. Ships operating in Antarctica must also comply with the relevant provisions of MARPOL. This is the main international instrument aimed at preventing ship-source pollution. The seas and coasts of Antarctica benefit, like all other seas and coasts around the world, from the protection afforded by the MARPOL provisions, and as Antarctica is designated as a special area for the purposes of the MARPOL provisions regulating discharges of oil, noxious liquid substances and garbage, the relevant standards are even more stringent for ships operating in these waters. As the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, said, passenger ships mainly use heavy grade oil for their propulsion. However, heavy grade oil is a highly polluting substance and can pose severe problems when spilled in icy conditions. Noble Lords will no doubt be pleased to learn that in response to the increasing number of passenger ships entering Antarctic waters and in recognition of the threat which heavy grade oil poses to the pristine Antarctic environment, work has been initiated in the IMO to develop a measure which will very substantially restrict the use and carriage of heavy grade oil in the Antarctic region. The IMO’s Sub-Committee on Bulk Liquids and Gases discussed the issue in some detail when it met in February 2008, and it is expected that this subject will be a high priority work programme at future sessions of the sub-committee. But ships can damage the environment in other ways which are much less obvious than a heavy oil spill. The United Kingdom is leading the development of the interim Ballast Water Regional Management Plan for Antarctica so as to meet the requirements of Annex II to the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty, which deals with the conservation of Antarctic fauna and flora, and requires precautions to be taken to prevent the introduction of non-native species to the Antarctic treaty area, such as the marine organisms that may be found in the ballast water taken on board vessels to ensure stability. Such non-native species may cause serious ecological impacts if let out of a vessel with the discharge of ballast water into a different environment. Of course, we need to ensure that both these environmental protection initiatives achieve their objectives. This brings me to the provisions of Annex VI of the 1991 Protocol to the Antarctic Treaty. This annex concerns the setting up of a liability regime for environmental emergencies which will impose strict liability for the costs of environmental damage following an accident in Antarctica. The liability regime will be covered by a system of compulsory insurance and the establishment of a fund to provide compensation. At present, only two of the 28 states required for entry into force have ratified the annex. While this is disappointing, the United Kingdom Government are keen to progress our ratification of the annex and we fully intend to introduce the necessary legislative proposal as soon as parliamentary time permits. The measures in place are satisfactory to help ensure maritime safety and protect the environment, but we are not complacent, which is why we continue to play a leading role in seeking to strengthen the existing international arrangements. Questions were raised, many of which I think I have probably answered. The noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, asked how we might control cruise ships. We take the view that a simple ban is not realistic. Such bans would need global rather than individual action, and it is fair to say that there would be little likelihood that all Governments would agree. We think that the best approach is to continue to develop and raise global shipping standards more generally. We as a nation can be proud of the role that we have played, particularly through the IMO in advancing this. The noble Viscount also talked about the size of vessels entering Antarctic waters. I referred to that. We recognise that the size of vessels entering Antarctic waters needs to be considered some more. Larger vessels, as I pointed out, tend to be newer. They are also built to a higher specification, with superior safety standards as compared with some of the smaller vessels. We must take a balanced view. There are protections through having larger vessels, but the potential for adverse environmental impacts is greater. We therefore need experts to consider this issue carefully and keep it very much under review. The noble Viscount also referred to sat-nav. We see immediate benefits to this. The IMO is instituting a system of long-range identification and tracking of vessels. This system, coupled with the use of GPS, will assist in the monitoring of vessels in the region. That is very much to be encouraged, and we as a Government are trying to play our part in moving the IMO along in that general direction. The noble Lord, Lord Greenway, mentioned the rewriting of the Arctic and Antarctic guidelines and the pairing of cruise ships. That is a very important issue. I can confirm simply that the IMO is looking at the existing guidance. We do not quite know what the outcome of those investigations will be, but work is being pursued. The idea of pairing cruise ships to heighten safety is transparently a sensible notion that I understand is under active consideration. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, talked about training. He drew attention to the tragic incident off Land’s End, and expressed a lack of confidence that training issues were being taken seriously. We do take those issues very seriously. In the guidelines that are issued to those who promulgate cruises in the area, that issue must be addressed by organisers and operators. Specific reference was made to the number of qualified crew, accompanying guides and expedition staff, who must be fully be apprised.