Ron O'Grady: Cruise ships threaten disaster in Antarctic

News that the first mega-size cruise ship is about to take tourists to Antarctica next January will be greeted with horror by those concerned to protect the great white continent from a tourist invasion.

Their shock is compounded by the realisation that they are powerless to prevent the cruise ship Golden Princess ploughing through Antarctic waters for three weeks with its 3700 passengers and crew on board.

One reason for concern is that the Antarctic is a legal curiosity.

Seven countries, including New Zealand, have bases on the continent and 36 other countries joined them in signing the Antarctic Treaty of 1959. But the treaty nations do not recognise Antarctica as a state, and simply avoid the issue by neither recognising nor rejecting the claims of these seven countries.

The consequence of this situation is that countries like New Zealand have no legal basis on which to challenge the threat which tourism poses to the Antarctic.

In recent years, nations with bases in Antarctica have been under huge pressure to allow tourists to visit the world's last great wilderness.

There was reluctance in giving permission. The Australian Antarctic Division pointed out the paradox that both science and tourism have the potential to damage the very qualities that draw them to Antarctica.

Eventually the treaty states gave in to pressure and permitted limited tourism with certain restrictions on activities.

In 1991 tour operators set up their own self-regulatory body known as the International Association of Antarctic Tour Operators (IAATO). At that stage the annual number of tourists to Antarctica was around 5000, but by 2003 the number had exceeded 22,000. This year the number could be close to 30,000.

In June 2003 the Antarctic Treaty nations met in Madrid and agreed that the region must be protected, and that meant tourism should be curbed.

While recognising that tourism operators had done their best to regulate the flow of tourists, a more stringent and possibly independent regulatory body was needed.

The need for such a body is increasingly evident. Many of the shipping companies, like Princess Cruises, have their ships registered in Bermuda or other countries which are not party to either the Antarctic Treaty or IAATO and therefore not subject to any restrictions.

With no rules about the size or type of vessel permitted to enter Antarctic waters the potential for disaster is obvious.

Very few of the new ships sailing south this year have strengthened hulls to protect them against icebergs and pack ice. The possibility of an accident causing a leak from large vessels loaded with bunker oil is worrying. It could create a catastrophe in a region which is still largely pristine.

The presence of the first mega-cruise ship in Antarctica next year is the herald of another worrying international development.

Cruise ships are becoming trendy for tourists and represent the fastest growing sector of the tourism industry. Shipyards cannot keep up with the demand and at least 20 mega-ships are expected to be built over the next two years. Some of those now in production will reach up to 18 decks in height and accommodate 3600 passengers and 1400 crew.

Consider for a moment the amount of waste that 5000 people generate each day.

Smaller cruise ships with 600 crew members and 1400 passengers have been shown to produce an average of 3.5 kilograms of garbage per person per day. That is several tonnes of waste every 24 hours which has to be stored.

Solid waste from passengers includes glass, paper, cardboard, aluminium and steel cans, incinerator ash, plastics and kitchen grease. Much of this non-hazardous waste is not easily biodegradable and some will end up on the ocean bed. Not surprisingly most of the regular cruise ship routes such as the Caribbean are among the most polluted waterways in the world.

The discharge of marine pollution through oily bilge water and garbage is a regular practice on a number of ships but the size of the fleets makes the monitoring of bad practice almost impossible, and it is costly to produce substantive evidence.

Despite this, in the past few years major cruise ship companies have been found guilty of polluting the waters, lying to courts and illegally storing hazardous waste. In one case, a company was fined $18 million.

Cruise ships produce a range of waste chemicals from such things as dry cleaning and printing photographs.

Some ships try to save costs by dumping large amounts of hazardous chemicals at sea. Others have used secret bypass pipes to dump oil, and such pollution caused by a cruise ship is unseen.

A single cruise ship's anchor and chain will weigh as much as five tonnes and can damage an area of the ocean floor half the size of a football field.

This litany of unmonitored potential hazards will explain why there must now be great fears for the future of Antarctica.

As one of its nearest neighbours, New Zealand must push the treaty nations to find some solution to protect this beautiful but fragile environment to our south.

The son of Robert Falcon Scott became an impassioned environmentalist. Reflecting on Antarctica, Sir Peter Scott said: "We should have the sense to leave just one place alone". It is a sentiment many of us will share as we see the Golden Princess sailing south next January.

* Rev Ron O'Grady has written several books on tourism issues. The latest, The Threat of Tourism, was published last month.