|
|
Ocean Conservation Reports
Search
•
RSS Feed
Executive Summary
In the thirty years since
the cruise ship business became a major industry, taking cruises has become
a vacation phenomenon. People seem to love the aspects of cruises that make
them different from other vacations—easy-going trips to exotic locations, constant
service, seclusion and famously good and plentiful food; since 1980, the number
of passengers cruising out of North America has increased from 1.4 million to
7 million in 2000. Around the globe, 12 million people took cruises in the year
2000.
The cruise industry’s popularity has made it a potent source of profits for
its owners and shareholders, and a significant source of jobs for the 100,000
plus cruise industry workers.
But below the decks of these glamorous floating resort hotels – floating cities
in scale – is a poor environmental record and disdain for environmental regulation.
Cruise ship traffic poses major threats to delicate Puget Sound ecosystems,
a region where biological health and diversity have enormous social, environmental,
and economic significance and are already threatened. In the United States,
six states have taken one of two approaches to protecting their waters from
cruise ship wastes: three, including Washington, have signed Memoranda of Understanding
(MOUs) with the cruise industry, and three have passed legislation. On the west
coast, California and Alaska have both enacted laws to protect their waters
from cruise ship wastes. While ships from both states regularly come to Seattle,
Washington has no laws binding cruise ships to clean environmental practices.
A comparison of MOUs and laws and a review of the experiences of states that
have implemented each reveal that an MOU is insufficient for protecting Washington’s
waters and that the Legislature needs to pass laws to protect our marine waters.
The Cruise Industry’s Environmental Record
The cruise industry’s environmental record is poor.
- Between 1993 and 1998, the cruise industry was cited for 87 illegal dumping
events in U.S. waters and incurred over $100 million in fines.
- When Alaska tested wastewater discharged by cruise ships into the ocean in
2000, concentrations of fecal coliform in the wastewater were as high as 100,000
times the federal standard.
- In 2003, the Norwegian Sun discharged 16,000 gallons of raw sewage into Puget
Sound between Whidbey Island and the Strait of Juan de Fuca.
Costs of Cruise Ship Wastes
In a day, a typical cruise ship of 3000 passengers and crew generates as much
waste as a small city:
- 11.5 tons of garbage from the passengers alone.
- 23 gallons of toxic waste, including silver nitrate (from photo labs), heavy
metals, and PERC (perchloroethylene, from dry-cleaning facilities).
- 30,000 gallons of sewage and additional tons of sewage sludge.
- 270,000 gallons of graywater, the wastewater from sinks, showers, dishwashing,
and laundry.
- 7,000 gallons of oily bilge water.
- Air pollution equivalent to that produced by more than 12,000 automobiles.
The enteric bacteria, fecal coliform, pathogens, diseases, viruses, intestinal
parasites, excessive nutrients, heavy metals, and toxic chemicals in cruise
ship wastes have a number of harmful effects on marine environments they enter.
Three of the most severe are:
1. The threat to human health through direct contact with pathogens, viruses,
other diseases, and parasites while swimming or otherwise enjoying the water.
According to the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, in 2002, more than 12,000
beach closings and swimming advisories were issued in the United States.
2. The threat to human health and the economy due to contamination of shellfish
such as oysters and clams. As of July 2004, 30,000 acres of Puget Sound’s 165,000
acres of shellfish beds were restricted from commercial and recreational harvest
due to bacterial contamination in the Sound’s water.
3. The eutrophication, or oxygen depletion, of marine environments due to excess
nutrients. The oxygen-depleted “dead zone” now expanding in Hood Canal is the
best-publicized example of this widespread process in the Puget Sound.
Puget Sound’s Economy in Jeopardy
The impacts of cruise ship wastes directly or indirectly affect millions of
people living in the Puget Sound region, and tens of thousands who make their
livings from
the Sound’s resources:
- Each year, Washington’s oysters, mussels, clams, and geoducks generate around
$77 million in sales, supporting 1,200 jobs in Mason and Pacific counties alone.15
The recreational harvest of shellfish is also culturally and economically very
significant. During the season, 30,000 people a day go out to dig razor clams
on Washington’s coast.
- Combined commercial landings and expenditures for recreational fishing in
Washington are worth around $1.2 billion annually, directly supporting 24,000
jobs.
- The opportunities to go boating, waterskiing, swimming, fishing, clam-digging,
and whale-watching; the ability to catch and eat wild
Puget Sound fish and shellfish; and corresponding tourism and property values
all contribute to the economy and social structure of the region and are adversely
impacted by marine pollution.
Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) Versus Regulations
Out of concern for their coastal resources, several states have taken one of
two approaches to regulating cruise ship wastes: binding statutory laws, and
voluntary
memoranda of understanding (MOUs). Alaska, California, and Maine have passed
laws to regulate cruise ships; Washington, Florida and Hawaii have signed
MOUs with the cruise industry. During the 2004 cruise season, Washington saw
three violations of its MOU, including one discharge of untreated gray water
that
contained high levels of fecal coliform, biochemical oxygen demand, and total
suspended solids. 18 And the contrasting experiences of Alaska and Hawaii clearly
illustrate the superiority of laws to MOUs in protecting marine waters.
The first year it was in effect, Hawaii’s MOU was violated 16 times. Violations
included mostly the discharge of graywater and blackwater in the protected fishing
ground known as Penguin Bank. Also cited were an instance of incinerating waste
while in port, the discharge of almost 20,000 gallons of galley waste and graywater
in marine areas, and reporting errors. In Alaska, wastewater discharge violations
by cruise ships since the passage of regulations have been nearly nonexistent,
and air emissions violations have gone from 39 between 1999 and 2001 to just
one in 2002 and 2003.
Policy Recommendations
To protect its marine waters
from the threats posed by cruise ship wastes, Washington State needs measures
stronger than an MOU. Washington lawmakers should pass legislation that will:
1. Ban the discharge of blackwater, graywater, oily bilge water, ballast water,
and hazardous wastes in state waters.
2. Establish clear penalties for violating regulations. Penalties should provide
an economic deterrent to violation and cover the damage to state ecosystems.
3. Create a per-passenger fee system to pay for a state monitoring program.
A graduated fee scale could provide economic incentives for cruise lines to
be environmentally responsible. An average fee of $1-2 per passenger would pay
the major part of the expenses of cruise ship monitoring.
|
