Shipping Australia has today filed our submission to the Commonwealth Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water on it’s draft Anti-Fouling and In-Water Cleaning Guidelines (2024).
The Australian draft guidelines discuss approaches for the application, maintenance, removal and disposal of anti-fouling coatings and the cleaning of biofouling on vessels. The guidelines aim to minimise contamination and biosecurity risks associated with shore-based and in-water maintenance of vessels while helping to manage biosecurity and chemical contamination risks.
The guide is based on the following principles:
- Biofouling should be removed in the location where it was acquired before the vessel departs to a new location
- The risks posed by biofouling management measures should be balanced against the risks of failing to manage biofouling
- There is an operational need to manage biofouling on vessels and movable structures
- The accumulation of biofouling on vessels and movable structures should be minimised
- The risk of releasing potentially toxic chemicals and invasive aquatic species into the environment should be minimised
- Where operationally practicable, vessels and movable structures should be removed from the water for cleaning and maintenance
Among the many matters discussed in the guidelines are anti-fouling coating issues, shore-based maintenance facilities, disposal of residues, emergency response, and assessment of in-water cleaning activities.
In our submission, Shipping Australia emphasised the economic importance of shipping to Australia and to ordinary everyday Australian families (directly or indirectly, many of our jobs depend on shipping and, essentially, our whole economy is built on the fact that it is economical and readily available).
We also emphasised that Australia has voluntarily signed up to the international governance of shipping via the International Maritime Organization and has agreed to work towards international co-operation on technical matters and to work towards the removal of unnecessary restrictions affecting shipping engaged in international trade. The primacy of the IMO policy over international and national policy in the regulation of global commercial maritime traffic is an internationally accepted principle (and it’s an Australia-accepted principal) and it is therefore wholly inappropriate for national- and sub-national governments to follow policy in this area which conflict with international maritime policy and law.
We are always keen to emphasise that all activities, rules, policies, regulations, legislation, etc should be wholly consistent and aligned with International Maritime Organization (IMO) treaties, rules, regulations and guidance.
Because there are numerous governments and regulatory bodies in Australia, there have been examples of policies conflicting with each other, and not being in line with international policy. For example, there have been instances where ships have received Federal biosecurity clearance to enter Australian waters only to be turned away by State authorities.
Accordingly, we urge that rules, policies, guidance, laws, and the like, should be in harmony with each other and with international policy. We should not have situations in which different rulesets, interpretations of rules, or compliance methodologies, conflict with each other in respect of the same situation. This absolutely should apply in relation to anti-fouling and in-water cleaning.
Allowance should be made when the substantive requirements are met even if there has been deviation from the official protocols.
In such circumstances, it is imperative that a commercial and practical solutions-based approach (as opposed to a protocol- or process-based approach) be adopted to manage, mitigate, or remediate, any given situation without sending ships away from the Australian coast. The Commonwealth Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry’s management of Brown Marmorated Stink Bug incursions is a reasonable example of a solutions-based approach.
If we don’t have sensible and pragmatic policy, then ships could be turned away from the coast at huge cost.
Ultimately, that makes shipping more expensive.
And, as our economy is fundamentally dependent on ocean shipping, that pushes up the cost of living for ordinary everyday Australian families.
