By MARVIN MITTELSTAEDT
Toronto Globe and Mail
Friday, August 17, 2007
Ocean freighters have long been fixtures on the Great Lakes, but they're being buffeted by an unusual environmental storm.
Many wildlife conservationists have begun to view the ships as enemy No. 1, blaming them for wreaking havoc on the fragile ecosystem of the freshwater Great Lakes by introducing many of its worst foreign-invader species.
Some of those worried about foreign species are proposing a radical solution: kicking these boats out of the lakes until fleet owners make sure the ships aren't unwittingly carrying pests, typically as stowaways in the ballast water that vessels carry for stability, or growing on hulls.
The argument against ocean vessels is bolstered by recent studies suggesting that the ships, long thought to be an economic asset, confer marginal financial advantages while contributing to the huge cost of dealing with foreign pests -- which, once established, are nearly impossible to eradicate.
Not all the exotic species washing up on the lakes are brought by oceangoing boats, but they're considered the main conduit, bringing in about 75 per cent of recent pests.
The latest worrisome arrival, detected in 2005, was a fish-killing virus viewed as the Ebola of the seas. For many environmentalists, that was the last straw, even though it's not yet known exactly how a pathogen normally found in the Atlantic Ocean came to be in the lakes.
"The situation is so dire that proposals that several years ago would have been looked at as frivolous or unworkable are now being viewed as real possibilities," says Andy Buchsbaum, director of the Great Lakes office of the National Wildlife Federation in Ann Arbor, Mich., of the proposal to block ships.
In May, the federation was part of a group of 90 organizations calling for a moratorium on ocean freighters, pending passage of U.S. legislation that would impose tough foreign-species-control measures on boat traffic.
Invasive species are also spawning court battles. In June, the federation, along with a number of conservation groups, announced they would be suing ocean-shipping companies over them.
The shipping industry, in turn, is taking Michigan to court over new rules it imposed in January, requiring ocean vessels to show that they won't discharge foreign species, or have state-approved technology to treat ballast water. The industry has said that cost-effective technologies for dealing with invasive species in ballast water don't yet exist.
The Canadian government, in an effort to slow the rate of foreign introductions, last year imposed new rules requiring all ocean vessels to first flush their ballast tanks in the open ocean or seal them before being allowed to sail in the Great Lakes. It's hoped saltwater treatment will kill ballast-tank organisms adapted to ter, considered at the highest risk of establishing themselves on the lakes.
The federal Transport Canada agency doesn't favor a ban and it says the new measures for ballast-tank flushing will reduce the chances of new introductions. "Transport Canada is of the opinion that the risks ... of invasive species can be managed," said Anne-Marie Bouchard, a spokeswoman for the department.
Although halting ocean shipping once might have been viewed as an extreme step, it's an idea bolstered by research showing the move would protect the lakes from foreign pests at a relatively low cost.
According to one recent research paper, if the approximately 500 ocean ships that now enter the Great Lakes each year were allowed no closer to them than the port of Montreal, and their cargo transferred to railways, lake freighters or barges, the cost would be about $55 million a year in extra freight charges. Lake freighters, because they don't leave the Great Lakes area, aren't blamed for bringing in foreign species.
The cost of ending ocean shipping would be relatively low because it moves only a marginal amount of freight, about 7 percent of tonnage on the lakes, according to John Taylor, a professor of logistics at Grand Valley State University in Michigan and one of the authors of the paper.
The ocean tonnage carried was more significant -- double the current totals -- in the late 1970s, when the Communist East Bloc was a big grain importer.
Taylor estimated all the ocean freight could be replaced by as few as four trains, while the transportation costs for companies now relying on the vessels would rise by about 6 percent. He said in return for small economic advantages from ocean shipping, the region has left itself vulnerable to the higher risk of foreign species.
"You've got to wonder about the tradeoffs," he said.
The shipping industry doesn't buy his $55 million figure, and doesn't accept that it is mainly to blame for the arrival of so many foreign species -- about 180 at last count and rising by a new one on average every 28 weeks.
Richard Corfe, president of the St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corp., operator of the Canadian section of the seaway, calls the figure "far-fetched." The seaway company calculates it confers about $1.5 billion a year in economic benefits, although this figure doesn't distinguish between ocean freight and shipping within the lakes, which accounts for the bulk of cargo movements.
Post new comment