GBRMPA urged to press for compensation

HE Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority is being urged to seek legislation to enable a demand for compensation for the pollution and damage caused when ships run aground on reefs in the Marine Park.

Marine biologist Len Zell, an expert in coral taxonomy who worked for GBRMPA, James Cook University and the Australian Institute of Marine Science for 15 years, became concerned about anti-fouling pollution when the refrigerated cargo vessel Peacock went aground on Piper Reef in July, 1996.

Mr Zell estimated that about a tonne of the anti-fouling agent tributyl tin (TBT) was scraped off the hull of the Peacock when it cut a 30x10m strip into the reef after its pilot fell asleep on the bridge.

He said the surface area of coral reef was ground into a concrete-like consistency, killing not only the coral but other animals including a number of giant clams.

"These ships cause significant pollution but they are allowed to sail on without paying for the costs of repairing the reef site; not only have they left toxic chemicals on the reef but they have also flattened an area of reef edge, which is usually the most spectacular and dynamic part of any reef," he said.

"Propeller wash and other activities associated with getting the ship off strip a lot of tissue from nearby colonies. If the ship sits there for more than two or three days, as the Peacock did, the anti-foulant and stagnation of the water under the hull kills a lot more coral."

Mr Zell said Australian authorities should follow the example of some overseas countries which demand compensation payments from the shipping companies before their vessels are allowed to sail on after damaging reefs.

"There is plenty of information about how to repair coral reefs, including re-seeding them," he said.

"The Peacock site was like a concrete surface after the grounding, with crushed coral anything up to a metre deep. At least the top 20–30cm should have been scraped off until no anti-fouling agent was left and then some of the colonies should have been re-seeded.

"Australia should have legislation whereby the shipping company is charged for the damage and the insurers pay for it."

David Haynes, GBRMPA’s co-ordinator of water quality, research and monitoring, said he doubted whether reseeding would have been practicable following the Peacock incident, if only because the remoteness of the location would have made such action prohibitively expensive.

"You are better off not running into a reef in the first place, than relying on remedial action after the event," he said.

However, Mr Haynes agreed that massive pollution from TBT occurs when large ships run aground in the Great Barrier Reef.

Samples taken from the site of the New Reach grounding on Heath Reef in 1999 indicated that TBT concentrations scraped from the ship’s hull were very high. Mr Haynes said TBT was a very toxic chemical which had a profound effect on coral reef communities when such incidents occurred.

"The TBT left on a reef will last for some time, depending on environ-mental conditions such as wave action, and it will kill anything that comes into contact with it," he said.

"Basically, nothing will be able to settle on that stretch of coral reef while TBT is still present. After all, an anti-settlement property has been transferred from the ship’s hull to the hard substrate."

Mr Haynes said that substitutes for TBT included copper and diuron-based agents which were currently being used on small boats. However, alternatives resulted in a Catch-22 situation, because an anti-foulant which was lost too quickly would have to be reapplied too frequently to be economically viable.

"At the end of the day the best solution to the problem is that ships maintain accurate navigational procedures and do not experience a ‘temporary loss of situational awareness’ (sic)," he added.

The Peacock aground... some nations demand compensation before ships are allowed to leave