Near-fatal accident spurs first-time maritime industry action

A Tauranga stevedore company has been subjected to the maritime industry’s first-ever enforceable undertaking because of a near-fatal accident nearly three years ago.Logs

An enforceable undertaking is an alternative to a court-imposed sanction, for a breach of health and safety rules. It means the issues that led to the breach must be addressed, harm caused to the victim remedied, and health and safety legislation promoted.

In December 2017, a stevedore trying to get down from logs stacked above a ship’s deck fell eight metres onto a concrete wharf at Port of Tauranga.

Maritime New Zealand, which filed charges against ISO Limited, has accepted the alternative action which will cost ISO $425,000 plus financial remedies to the worker.

The company that operated the ship where the incident occurred, China Navigation Company PTE Limited, was sentenced in July this year after a prosecution by Maritime NZ under the Maritime Transport Act.

The company was fined $24,000 and ordered to pay $30,000 in reparations.

Maritime New Zealand’s central region compliance manager Michael-Paul Abbott said the enforceable undertakings were legally enforceable agreements, and were not an easy option.

“Their aim is to improve health and safety at a workplace and across an industry, and to remedy harm caused to workers and their families.

“We took into account the significant commitment made by ISO to raising health and safety standards in the industry and the fact that the company had committed to provide ongoing support for the injured worker and his family.”

ISO consulted with the Amalgamated Stevedores Union, the injured man and his family, the Port Industry Association, Port of Tauranga, and ship charterers when it was drafting the EU.

Abbott said the outcome would help stevedores in ports around the country.

Among ISO’s pledges was a commitment to developing and delivering a national training program for management personnel on working at heights in stevedoring operations.

It would also continue to provide the injured worker with ongoing support.

Covid-19 rules for ship crew: ‘It’s worse than being in prison’

A ship’s captain is describing the way crew are being treated during Covid-19 as inhumane and like being in prison.Wayne Turner is the Master of Capitaine Tasman

Captain Wayne Turner on board Capitaine Tasman. Photo: Supplied

Crews on ships coming into New Zealand ports are not allowed ashore and must wear PPE gear every time they are on deck.

This also applies to New Zealand crew.

Wayne Turner is the master of Capitaine Tasman, a container ship that sails between Mount Maunganui, Auckland, Noumea, Suva and Lautoka – making a 17-day round trip.

New Zealand, Noumea and Fiji are all countries without community transmission of the virus.

Turner said effectively the crew were in constant isolation.

“You’ve got people that are basically in prison. They can’t depart the vessel, they can’t go for a walk, get fresh air, they can’t get off the vessel.

“It needs to be managed so that people can have those basic human rights, provided that [they] take appropriate action, they need to be able to get off the vessel, stretch their legs, [get] fresh air, change of scene.

“Just the normal stuff you need for psychological wellbeing, it is worse than being in prison,” he said.

Crew were also not allowed ashore in Fiji or Noumea, so they were trapped on board, Turner said.

“We don’t get any leave at all and no visits.

“It is pretty inhumane what seafarers are having to face and for no real reason. It’s a lack of understanding on the part of the powers-that-be as to the real risks that exist, which are negligible, if at all.”

Turner said while crew must wear PPE gear at all times while on the deck in port and can be fined if they do not, stevedores coming on board to load or discharge cargo, do not have to.

“If I go on deck while in port in New Zealand, if Customs see me [not wearing PPE gear] I can be liable for a fine of up to $2000.”

He said all of the 18 crew, including himself, have their temperatures taken twice a day and it is logged.

“We have no contact with the external world effectively.”

Turner said as a New Zealander he had been Covid tested and isolated for the past two months. He was not able to leave the ship nor visit his Mount Maunganui home, family or friends and they could not visit him.

“Home is basically 2-3 kilometres away.”

‘The government is just not interested’

Some other crew members have not been ashore since March.

“It’s pretty inhumane to have been on board from March without having been able to step off the vessel at any stage.”

He said the most crew could do was walk around the deck while at sea and weather allowing, which was frustrating for them.

Turner is concerned about the mental health of his crew and the many others at sea.

“The kind of people that are going to survive this kind of role are well used to that, but not to this degree and I suppose that is the part that is unfair and unreasonable that we are used to being away from our families for months, but you do have the social aspects of being onboard which is walks ashore and time ashore in various ports and all of that, but not having that, it is not good for you.”

When he finally comes to sign-off the ship Turner will need to go into mandatory 14-day isolation, minus the four days at sea sailing from Lautoka, after having effectively been isolated for four months.

Turner said the plight of seafarers during Covid-19 has been ignored by the government mainly because of the small number of people and for the most part foreigners.

“The government is just not interested.”

He is also a solo yachtie and is worried about hundreds of yachts that have been refused permission to sail to New Zealand to avoid the upcoming tropical cyclone season in the Pacific.

“They are as isolated from Covid as we are and they are in areas with no Covid and yet they to cannot come down to New Zealand unless you are on a luxury yacht and you can go alongside at Queens Wharf in Auckland, which is happening currently and so it is one rule for one and a completely different rule for others,” he said.

A spokesperson for Customs says while it enforces Covid-19 restrictions on seafarers, it has no control over changing the rules, which have been set by the Ministry of Health.

The Ministry of Health said due to the ongoing global Covid-19 pandemic New Zealand’s maritime border requires the testing, isolation and quarantining of all ship’s crew on arrival into the country.

These requirements for cargo and shipping vessels are similar to many other parts of the world and the master of any ship intending to arrive in New Zealand should, before the ship arrives in New Zealand, take reasonable steps to ensure that every person on board the ship is aware of the isolation or quarantine requirements.

Due to these current Maritime Border requirements which much of the world is operating under, the Ministry of Health encourages shipping companies to review their schedules – which are often on high rotation from port to port – to allow sufficient time for crew to have time on shore once they have achieved a negative result.

Under normal circumstances, a person who arrives in New Zealand on board a ship must remain in isolation or quarantine for at least 14 days on board the ship on which they arrived in New Zealand but this includes time at sea and many cargo ships arriving into New Zealand are long-haul and therefore crew would not be required to sit at port for 14 days.

It said all crew members do need to meet the low risk indicators, including a negative test, before disembarking.

In response to the Ministry of Health, Captain Turner said the guidelines assume vessels are at sea for 14-days or more to achieve isolation. Many ships are on rotations that do not have 14-days between international ports.

Capitaine Tasman calls at Noumea, Suva, Lautoka, Tauranga and Auckland. There are no community Covid cases in New Caledonia or Fiji.

He said no crew member on Capitaine Tasman has had shore leave since March and maximum time at sea is four days so they cannot meet isolation requirements.

Captain Turner said no Covid testing is available to crew members in port except for those at the end of their contract and going home. Crew members wanting to go ashore require 14-days isolation, a Covid test and written MoH approval.

”Maximum time in port is two days, so meeting the requirements is not possible.”

”The Vessel’s crew do not go ashore at any port, so difficult to see how infection can occur,” he said.

Can green shipping scheme lick ‘herding cats’ dilemma?

in International Shipping News 12/10/2020

Momentum to decarbonize ocean shipping emissions is building. Consequences for future newbuilding orders and freight rates could be game-changing.

First came the landmark 2018 decision by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) to halve greenhouse-gas emissions by 2050. Then came the Poseidon Principles from shipping banks in 2019, with lenders vowing to publicly disclose portfolio carbon emissions.

Now, some of the world’s largest bulk cargo shippers have launched Sea Cargo Charter (SCC), which will publish emissions data on chartered ships.

“A global mutual understanding that reporting emissions is a must — that’s a big first step,” affirmed Rasmus Bach Nielsen, global head of fuel decarbonization at trading giant Trafigura, during Wednesday’s SCC launch event.

A big first step, but still just the first step.

Ocean shipping faces a classic “herding cats” dilemma. When it comes to greenhouse gases, different stakeholders want to go in different directions. The challenge is to corral them behind a single common plan.

The industry wants a global regulatory regime under the IMO. But the EU is moving ahead with a regional regime. And not all IMO member countries may be on board with a global scheme. Some shipowners favor carbon taxes and speed limits. Others don’t. The banks will use one way to measure emissions, the charterers another. Container shipping is pursuing a different path than bulk shipping. The banks and charterers that are signatories to the Poseidon Principles and SCC are overwhelmingly Western. Yet ship finance and chartering are increasingly Eastern.

What do charterer, bank schemes change?

Neither the SCC nor the Poseidon Principles require signatories to do business with owners of more fuel-efficient ships — although they can opt to do so unilaterally. The agreements merely require participants to publicly disclose, on an annual basis, how the carbon intensity of their portfolios aligns with the IMO target trajectory. The SCC will report each June, the Poseidon Principles each December.

Annual self-reporting by charterers and banks should compel signatories to improve their public scores over time. What investors want to know is: How will this change vessel supply and rates?

Among the possible consequences: higher charter premiums earned by eco-design ships over non-eco-design ships; higher charter costs for SCC signatories, offset by better access to ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance)-centric investors and lenders; lower capital access for buyers of older secondhand ships leading to higher scrapping; increased ordering of newbuilds with alternate fuel such as liquefied natural gas, with these orders backed by long-term charters from SCC signatories and debt from Poseidon Principles signatories; and consequently, a higher mix of long-term charters versus spot employment in the future.

‘Rebirth of 21st century ship finance’

The grand plan is to ultimately replace the entire world fleet with lower-carbon-emitting or zero-emission ships.

According to Michael Parker, global head of shipping at Citigroup (NYSE: C) and Poseidon Principles chairman, “Modern shipping finance was born after the war. Aristotle Onassis needed to build new ships. He got Texaco to agree to a 10-year time charter. He took that document to Citi and Chase and said, ‘Will you finance the ships if I have them chartered to Texaco?’

“After that we went from crisis to crisis,” Parker recounted, pointing to “unnecessary capacity” ordered on spec without long-term-charter backing.

He predicted that the SCC and Poseidon Principles will precipitate “what I call the rebirth of 21st century shipping finance.”

“This is going to come through responsible charterers helping to finance responsible shipowners who will borrow from responsible lenders to build the new ships. The [new] ships that charterers will charter will be low-emission and ultimately zero-emission ships.

“This will produce the capacity we need for growth but will prevent the building of unnecessary vessels,” opined Parker. That, in turn, will lead to a future in which capital markets feel confident that “investing in shipping is investing in a clean part of the supply chain and not speculating and taking the unnecessary risks that society will no longer tolerate.”

Charterers, banks hunt for more allies

The 17 founding SCC signatories include dry bulk chartering majors such as ADM (NYSE: ADM), Anglo-American, Bunge (NYSE: BG), Cargill and COFCO; major trading houses Guvnor and Trafigura; and tanker shippers including Occidental (NYSE: OXY), Shell and Total.

The signatories’ share of oceangoing cargo appears much higher on the dry than wet bulk side. Poten & Partners’ rankings of the top 10 dirty cargo charterers of the first half of 2020 include only two signatories (Shell in third, Total in ninth).

“The next step is clearly to get the group bigger. There are still a lot of people chewing on it,” said Cargill Ocean Transportation President Jan Dieleman, chairman of SCC.

The banking footprint of the Poseidon Principles is similar to the SCC’s in that it is material, but not yet big enough.

In June 2019, the 11 founding signatories of the Poseidon Principles — including ABN AMRO, Citi, Crédit Agricole, DNB, Société Générale and Nordea — provided just over 20% of the industry’s senior debt. Three banks have since joined, bringing signatories to 14. The all-important Chinese lenders and leasing houses have yet to come into the fold.

‘Like twins born 16 months apart’

“We did start together and the banks, charterers and others tried to come up with something together,” recalled Parker.

The charterers ultimately went their own way under a plan with the code name “The Charterer’s Charter” because they thought “the banks were going to be too prescriptive and impinge on [the charterers’] commercial freedom,” he said.

“We’re sort of like twins born 16 months apart,” said Parker of the Poseidon Principles and SCC. “Our mother, the Global Maritime Forum, can now feel more comfortable than it has for the last 16 months.”

But the twins have opted for different ways to measure emissions. The Poseidon Principles uses the Annual Efficiency Ratio (AER), even though it concedes that other measures such as the Energy Efficiency Operational Indicator (EEOI) provide a more accurate estimate of carbon intensity.

The SCC platform is using EEOI. It will be more time-consuming for shipowners to give the charterers what they need versus the banks. The AER information sought by the banks is already provided through the IMO Data Collection System. For SCC signatories to get the EEOI data, owners of chartered ships must agree to provide voyage-level fuel consumption data within seven days of the end of each voyage.

Operational versus technical efficiency

“The key element for me is that the Sea Sea Cargo Charter goes down to the granularities of individual vessels and individual voyages,” said Tristan Smith, a researcher and lecturer at the UCL Energy Institute.

“Because of that, you have a tool to diagnose what drove one voyage to have a particular cargo intensity relative to another.

“Was it operational decisions? The fact that they demanded utmost dispatch at 15 knots? Was it that they hired a ship with a technical efficiency that was inferior to other ships on the market? All of that is now in a common language with a common ability to monitor it and make decisions differently [for SCC signatories and owner counterparties].

“We’ve had IMO negotiations in the last couple of days where the level of ambition was not as high as it needs to be,” revealed Smith.

“I asked in that forum, ‘Why can’t we regulate the operational carbon intensity of shipping [i.e., the SCC model using EEOI]? Why do you believe the only tool is technical efficiency, which is about the design of the vessel and not the operation of the vessel?’

“And the answer I received, both from a leading government and from a leading shipowner NGO [nongovernmental organization], is that it would be unfair for us to regulate [shipowners] on something that is about luck. What those answers embody for me is the concern that they [owners] are out of control of the ships’ carbon intensity because it is driven by factors beyond what they can manage: It is driven by the charterers.”

In other words, shipowners don’t want to pay the regulatory price for the operational decisions of the charterers. And the SCC initiative, should it gain more traction, can help resolve that concern.

Bulk shipping versus container shipping

Yet another example of the “herding cats” dilemma involves the different segments of ocean shipping. Container shipping is a major contributor to industry carbon emissions but has a totally different business model than bulk shipping.

“The container sector currently has a scheme called the Clean Cargo Working Group,” said Smith. “The Sea Cargo Charter does not cover container vessels. And there’s a crucial difference. The level of transparency, the accountability to a target system and the granularity of Sea Cargo Charter — none of those features are represented in the Clean Cargo Working Group.”

According to Smith, “The container sector is now behind the bulk sector in having a private-sector initiative that is effective, and hopefully this [SCC] can inspire that group or spawn a new group that can push the container sector to the much higher standard that it needs to be at. They’re not there today.”

Global versus regional regulation

And then there’s the pivotal conflict between global and regional regulation.

“It is urgent to have an IMO-led comprehensive shipping decarbonization program,” said Nielsen of Trafigura. “We embrace global measures, but not regional measures. If regional measures are implemented, it becomes a lot harder for the IMO to implement a global system.”

One major regional measure is already in motion. In September, the European Parliament voted to include ocean shipping under the EU Emission Trading System (ETS). The next step — which is far from guaranteed — is to secure approval of EU member states.

A decade ago, the EU tried to force international airlines to buy carbon permits for portions of their flights outside of EU territory. It didn’t work. The ETS only covers intra-European flights.

The World Bank working paper, “Regional Carbon Pricing for International Transport,” published in January 2018, addressed the challenges of an EU-only carbon-pricing system for shipping.

That paper noted that a regional levy would have to be implemented port states and would seek to charge for emissions beyond the port state’s territorial waters. “The scope of port-state jurisdiction with regard to activities that take place beyond the state’s territorial waters is a debated issue,” said the paper.

Assuming the EU could win the legal jurisdictional argument, the next challenge would be to prevent shipping interests from gaming the system. If the carbon pricing applied to the time at sea between the arrival of the cargo and its departure from the previous port, shippers could use transshipment at a nearby hub to minimize the time covered by EU carbon pricing.

Shipping carbon tax

A global solution via the IMO could take the form of a global carbon tax.

Global Maritime Forum members have voiced support for a tax for several years. Last December, leading shipping industry associations submitted an IMO proposal for a $2-per-ton-of-fuel tax to support research and development. The proposal seemed designed to lay the groundwork for a future collection system for a much higher tax. This September, Trafigura proposed a carbon tax of $250-$300 per ton of CO2 equivalent.

The challenge will be corralling the support of countries whose economies depend on imports and exports. They could view a global shipping carbon tax as a levy on their economies.

“Don’t expect the IMO to ever set numbers at levels that are as high as they need to be,” warned Smith. “That is a multilateral process. A lot of governments have concerns that their economic development will be negatively impacted.”
Source: Freight Waves by Greg Miller, https://www.freightwaves.com/news/can-green-shipping-scheme-lick-herding-cats-dilemma

KiwiRail wants its ferry terminal in the central city, without its competitor

September 3, 2020 – Report from RNZ by Catherine Hutton


Plans to build a multi-use ferry terminal in Wellington are in jeopardy, following KiwiRail’s insistence it wants to move into the central city beside rival Bluebridge, but won’t share facilities with them.

An estimated billion-dollar investment for new wharves in both Wellington and Picton is needed to allow KiwiRail to switch its Interislander operation to two new larger rail ferries by 2024.

Two years ago, the Future Ports Forum, comprising representatives from the Wellington Regional Council, the Wellington City Council, Centreport, the Transport Agency, KiwiRail, and Bluebridge was set up to look at where to best situate the capital’s new Cook Strait ferry terminal.

It was agreed the new site would be shared by the Interislander, which KiwiRail owns, and rival Bluebridge.

The latest report from interested stakeholders, released in April, recommended Kaiwharawhara where the Interislander ferries currently dock.

Regional Council (GWRC) chairperson Daran Ponter said KiwiRail left the forum before the final report was released because they did not agree with the location.

“Because they were on the working group they had an understanding of where that report was going to land in terms of its recommendation, they clearly didn’t agree with Kaiwharawhara as the preferred recommendation and they pulled out in advance. Not helpful, but it’s an interesting way of doing business.”

KiwiRail chief executive Greg Miller denied leaving the forum, and said releasing the report did not make sense.

“What you are talking about is, ‘did we agree in the forum?’ and the fact is we didn’t agree in the forum, so we’d said no we don’t think that’s the best outcome and we made that very clear,” Miller said.

“Then you’d have to ask yourself, what was the benefit of the Future Ports Forum that couldn’t agree, when the two customers – Bluebridge and KiwiRail – couldn’t agree with the provider, that’s more the point.”

tructural engineers say the Kaiwharawhara site can be built to cope with earthquakes but geotech scientists are less sure.

Miller said it was the geotech report that made KiwiRail stop and think.

“Is this the best location on the port to put new ferries and a new terminal that is rail served? There’s also the motorway upgrade and the location on the port for future transport, which has always been a challenge at Kaiwharawhara, with road and rail location and for the passengers arriving from overseas and domestically, getting access to the Kaiwharawhara site,” he said.

Estimates for building new ferry terminals in both Picton and Wellington are vague – ranging somewhere between half a billion and a billion dollars.

Miller said the huge costs of having to remediate the site could not be ignored. “You can engineer your way out of many things, but what we’re told by the engineers is that the cost of mitigation is extremely high, so there is a cost component to this that you cannot ignore.”

KiwiRail prefers its new terminal to be at Kings Wharf, beside Bluebridge’s existing spot, and closer to downtown Wellington.

But GWRC chairperson Daran Ponter said while KiwiRail had zeroed in on the seismic issues at Kaiwharawhara, Kings Wharf also had problems.

Ponter said the 2016 Kaikōura earthquake showed how fragile the port was. The port received more than $600 million – the second biggest insurance payout in New Zealand’s history – for the damage suffered in that quake.

“Kings Wharf sits midway between the container terminal and the new BNZ centre, both of which were taken out in the November 2016 Kaikōura earthquake. So it would appear wherever you locate yourself around the Centreport site, you are potentially still open to being challenged by an earthquake.”

And documents suggest the lengths KiwiRail is prepared to go to get the site. An email seen by RNZ from their group general counsel, Jonathan Earl, to KiwRail managers in May raised the possibility of using the Public Works Act to secure it.

Ponter said that would be unprecedented and would effectively mean seizing land from regional ratepayers.

“Clearly KiwiRail are an acquiring authority under the Public Works Act, but Centreport itself is a public works. Because you can’t just use the Public Works Act because you like an option more than you like another. You’ve got to give good grounds for the option or for your preference.”

Miller denied that was an option they were pursuing.

“Well the Public Works Act is there to be used to acquire if we need to, and as I said to you we haven’t put in any time, effort into that because I do believe the relationship commercially long term is better to be resolved that way and that’s the way we’re going.”

Centreport is now preparing a third assessment report for a new site, but Miller said he was not keen to share a facility with Bluebridge at Kings Wharf because KiwiRail needed a single-use terminal.

“We needed a rail link span. We have far greater volumes of trucks and cars and passengers that we move, so we probably needed a greater area and how do you divvy up the cost in a single user terminal for that with a competitor?”

Ponter said regardless of KiwiRail’s preferences, ultimately the port company had to accommodate both operators.

In a statement, Bluebridge said it was aware of KiwiRail’s recent proposal to build another wharf adjacent to its site at Kings Wharf, and had provided feedback.

The report is due in the next two months.

In June, the State Owned Enterprises Minister Winston Peters told regional councils he wanted the forum to reconvene and find a solution.

Ports of Auckland tragedy: Maritime New Zealand leading investigation into worker’s death

Maritime NZ is heading an investigation into the death of a worker at the Ports of Auckland in the early hours of yesterday morning. Photo / Michael Craig
Maritime NZ is heading an investigation into the death of a worker at the Ports of Auckland Photo / Michael Craig

NZ Herald 31/8/20

Maritime authorities are now leading the investigation into the death of a worker at the Ports of Auckland over the weekend.

Emergency services were called to the Fergusson Container Terminal, in Parnell, about 2am yesterday.

WorkSafe was notified of the death, but has since released a statement saying Maritime New Zealand will be leading the investigation into the incident.

A spokesman for Maritime NZ confirmed it was looking after the investigation. Police are also involved.

The investigation comes as a workers’ union vows to fight for the health and safety of all people in the workplace – no matter what line of work they do.

First Union NZ took to social media site Twitter to express their views as well as pay tribute to yesterday’s victim.

“Everyone should be able to return home at the end of their shift, whatever work they do,” a post said today.

“Solidarity to the friends, whānau and workmates of the Ports of Auckland worker.

“Unions will continue to relentlessly champion health and safety in the workplace.”

Concern for merchant sailors stranded in NZ waters

An estimated 300,000 crew on merchant ships have been left stranded at sea around the world by the coronavirus pandemic unable to go onshore – including thousands in New Zealand waters – in what advocates say it’s a ‘humanitarian crisis’.  Crew members from the cruise ship Ruby Princess wave as they depart from Port Kembla, some 80 kilometres south of Sydney, on April 23, 2020, after a few hundred virus-free crew members disembarked to begin the process of repatriation to their home countries. -

Crew on board a cruise ship in May (file photo)

Listen

The Ministry of Transport has now allocated $295,000 to help those stuck in New Zealand ports through the Mission to Seafarers’ organisation. Wellington-based chaplain Reverend Lance Lukin is the Oceania Regional Director for the organisation, he talked to Kim Hill on RNZ’s Saturday Morning about the situation.

Lukin says seafarers are one of the most vulnerable and isolated groups in our society.

“There’s thousands of ships coming in and out of New Zealand ports a year. There’s about 1.5 million seafarers at work at any one time in the world.

“And typically for the lower paid – the able bodied seafarer their contracts are around 9 months long. So at the end of that nine months they will be crew changed in and out. So in any month one twelfth of that 1.5 million seafarers are going through crew changes.”

Those at sea now don’t know when they will be able to get home.

He says the International Transportation Federation has called on all seafarers to go on strike at the end of their contracts if they’re not given shore leave and a crew change.

“If that happens, New Zealand’s economy stops overnight – 120 billion of export comes by ship, 99 percent of trade comes by ship.”

Lukin says seafarer centres operate at each port, manned by volunteers – many who are retirees. The money from the Ministry of Transport will be used to employ more workers so fewer volunteers are needed.

“In this time of pandemic we want to limit the number of people who have acess to ships, but we want to continue to provide that much-needed welfare and support.”

He says many sailors are from China, Philippines and India. But both the Philippines and India have tightened border rules, making it harder for crews from those countries to get home.

[They’re] “desperately wanting to go home, desperately wanting to communicate with their families. We had a ship come into Wellington last week with 18 crew on, 12 of whom are 5 months over the expiration of their contract.

“They should be being paid, but we know globally non-payment of wages is one of the key concerns of seafarers.

“And we’re talking about a pretty low paid workforce anyway. The minimum wage in New Zealand is $18 an hour, for a Filipino sailor the average wage is 90 cents an hour – it’s incredibly dangerous, isolated, high risk environment at the best of times – let alone adding in a pandemic.”No caption

Port of Wellington (file photo). Photo: Mission to Seafarers

Many are still working, but can no longer go ashore.

“There’s about 40 or 50 thousand crew trapped on cruise ships off the coast of the US, and in parts of Indonesia and the Philippines, that can’t get off the ships, won’t be allowed to get off the ships.”

In New Zealand, crews who have been symptom-free for 28 days can go into 14 days of managed isolation if they want to go onshore.

“Given the fact that a ship will enter to the Port of Welllington here today, it will be in port for 8 hours, and it will not be in NZ territorial waters for 14 days – so the likelihood of a seafarer actually being able to get off is next to impossible.

“The reality is apart from the cruise ships right at the beginning and there are no cruise ships now – not one case of Covid has come on a container ship or a logging ship, so we don’t want them to come across our borders and bring Covid – but the reality is they don’t want to come across our borders typically because they don’t want to catch Covid, because they’re going to then get back on that ship and spend 28 days going back to China with no medical facilities on board.”

Most countries test seafarers for Covid-19 when they arrive the border. New Zealand does not, but the Mission to Seafarers is pushing to have it introduced.

Lukin says it could mean seafarers calling at multiple ports would get their results from the test while they still had the opportunity to go onshore.  

“I talked to a seafarer here in Wellington last week who has not physically touched ground for 183 days – you’ve got to think of the mental health implications of that. We know at the best of times that working at sea is a highly risky environment, and the mental health implications are huge. This is a low paid workforce who have limited resources available on board ships.

“Most ships don’t have gyms or recreational facilities, you’re on board for 9 months, and when you come into a port all you want to do is get off, get some fresh air, and most importantly you want to get access to some wifi so you can Facetime and chat with your family back home who you haven’t seen in 9 months – [wifi] is not available on board ships.”Port of Tauranga.

The Port of Tauranga. Photo: Supplied / Port of Tauranga

The Seafarer Centres provid free wifi, and while they’re closed during the Covid pandemic, the organisations’ workers are donning full Protective Personal Equipment and taking portable wifi units onto the ships.

“So that at least for that eight hour period [while they’re in port] seafarers can hotspot and talk to their families.”
 
Lukin says while self-harm and suicide statistics are hard to monitor, there’s anecdotal indications these have increased during the pandemic.

“The best outcome really is that New Zealand honours its obligations under the Maritime Labour Convention – the international bill of rights of seafarers – that they have shore leave, that they have access to welfare facilities that are funded and have competent staff to provide the mental health needs they have right now.

“That’s the basic things they want – firstly to have wifi access, and then they want to be able to talk about all the stuff that’s going on in their own lives that they can’t talk to the shipping agent about – because that’s their employer; they can’t talk to the captain about, because he’s their boss on board; they won’t talk to the government authorities about, because they come from countries where governments are feared, so they want to talk to someone independent – which is why we exist.”

Firth of Thames best home for a new port for 100-plus years: Auckland Business Chamber (and Cubic agrees)

The suggestion of the Firth of Thames is a
The suggestion of the Firth of Thames is a “brave, big call”. Photo/ Google

By: Andrea Fox Herald business writer andrea.fox@nzme.co.nz

Just when you thought not another report could be wrung out of Auckland’s port future debate, the Auckland Business Chamber is urging all Kiwis to completely “re-imagine” a port for 100-150 years – and it’s pick is in the Firth of Thames.

After staying pretty quiet during a flurry of reports over shifting the Auckland port, the chamber is launching its own take, “A Port for the Future”, which invites the community to use an accepted timeline that the existing port will do for another 25 or so years, to carefully plan another to last more than another century.

And for port observers feeling reported-out, Chamber chief executive Michael Barnett assures “this is not another report”.

“It is an effort by the chamber to get people to re-imagine where a port might be and what would be the best for New Zealand and New Zealand business – not a competition between Auckland and North or Tauranga but an informed discussion of what could be.”

Barnett said the chamber represents the voice of Auckland business without bias, and in this neutral position has stepped back to analyse all the discussion around the relocation of the port from Waitemata Harbour.

“The chamber … now realises that the issue is not just an Auckland problem, but is one that, if done correctly, will bring benefits right across New Zealand.”

The chamber had concluded the existing port was fully sustainable for another 25 to 30 years and that a solution is required beyond that. To provide a port solution beyond the generation after next required vision and a willingness to go beyond the familiar.

Ports of Auckland has 25-30 years of life left in it, says Auckland Business Chamber. Photo / Michael Craig
Ports of Auckland has 25-30 years of life left in it, says Auckland Business Chamber. Photo / Michael Craig

The chamber’s offering makes a case for a man-made island ship exchange terminal in the Firth of Thames, connected by broad gauge rail to a container terminal facility in the vicinity of Pokeno/Meremere.

The island terminal would be “a whole-of-New Zealand” terminal servicing large foreign trade ships handling all import and export containers. The report does not discuss costs but points to several overseas examples to underline there is nothing in the paper that is not tried and proven elsewhere in the world.

“What is running out (for the existing port) is social licence and that’s what’s motivating us to try to accelerate the debate and re-imagine what a port could look like”, Barnett told the Herald.

“What’s been uncomfortable has been the apparent political nature of the discussion so far, it tends to have been personality-driven from the north – almost an anti-Auckland thing. Yet this isn’t about either of those things, it’s about a nation down in the South Pacific dependent on its ability to import and export.

“We need something for the next 100 years and the people of New Zealand should make that choice. It’s not up to a politician or a government.

“(So far) we have re-imagined the port simply by saying ‘let’s pick up Auckland port and take it north (to Northport)’. I’m saying we can do it another way.”

The chamber will widely distribute its paper within the freight, transport and shipping sector and invite comment and discussion directly to the chamber.

The chamber’s analysis concluded there would always be a need for a port in Auckland – “just not as we know it”.

Auckland Business Chamber chief executive Michael Barnett.
Auckland Business Chamber chief executive Michael Barnett.

Social licence issues arising at New Zealand ports were “but the tip of the iceberg and demonstrate that the focus being purely on relocation of the Port of Auckland is extremely narrow and has the potential to lead to a flawed conclusion”, said the paper.

“Ports of Auckland is clearly approaching a sunset phase, however, it is the chamber’s view that the present facility will be capable of handling existing throughput plus growth for several years to come … (but) it is inevitable and acknowledged by the chamber, that the port’s container facilities will be shifted from the present location to another site.”

The paper said volume growth and investment required at the Port of Tauranga, along with “other issues starting to emerge” made it “pretty safe to assume that the Tauranga terminal will also be looking for a new location in future”. In four weeks the Tauranga port handled as many containers as Wellington’s port in a year.

Current modelling showed that with the construction of the future city of Drury South, the Auckland-Hamilton-Tauranga triangle would encompass four of New Zealand’s six largest cities.

Over the next 30 years the population in the area between greater Auckland and Taupo was forecast to grow by 7.8 per cent a year. During this time the rest of New Zealand’s population was predicted to grow by 2 per cent a year and by 3.6 per cent north of Auckland.

The option of developing a new port at Manukau Harbour raised in earlier reports was indeed an option when considered just in the context of Auckland, the paper said.

“However it is not compatible with the chamber’s objective of providing a future solution that will benefit NZ Inc. Throughout … the chamber has avoided introducing untested or yet to be implemented technology as will be required to overcome the hazardous conditions presented by the Manukau Harbour entrance.”

The Firth of Thames had been looked at in studies over the past 25 years.

“Unfortunately the concept appears to be too far out of the mainstream for people to understand, especially as it has only been viewed as a solution solely for Auckland and suggest constructions methods based on the traditional.”

The paper details modern construction methods used overseas.

Barnett concedes the chamber’s suggestion of the Firth of Thames is a “brave, big call” given the environmental, wildlife and iwi concerns that are likely to be raised against it.

But with time on New Zealand’s side for consultation, research, innovation and planning, problems could be properly addressed and hopefully overcome.

Barnett, a veteran of port group discussions over the years, worked with ports consultant Tony Boyle to produce the paper. The project cost did not exceed $10,000, he said.

“But I like to think it is rich in intention.”

Disabled Bulker Towed to Dock in Tauranga

disabled bulker towed to the dock in New Zealand
Funing under tow – courtesy Maritime New Zealand

The Singapore-flagged bulker Funing has been brought safely alongside at the Port of Tauranga on the north island of New Zealand. The vessel experienced a power failure while in the main shipping channel and for a time threatened navigation to New Zealand’s largest port.

The 40,000 DWT bulk carrier was departing New Zealand bound for China with a load of timber on July 6 when it lost engine power at approximately 12:30 am local time while in the main shipping channel. There was a pilot aboard at the time but Maritime New Zealand reported that the weather conditions were considered poor with a 30 knot wind and significant swell.

After losing power the Funing was unable to steer and began drifting due to the high winds and tides in the area. The vessel snagged the chains holding one of the buoys marking the shipping channel. The tides and currents then pushed the Funing across the channel before the ship was able to anchor and hold position.

At the time of the incident, there were 20 crew members aboard. None of the crew was injured and Maritime New Zealand said that there were no reports of oil or other pollution from the vessel.

Funing disabled at anchorage – courtesy Maritime New Zealand

New Zealand dispatched two tugs to the vessel’s assistance and they were later able to tow the Funing to deeper water and a safe anchorage. An inspection of the propeller and rudder was conducted by divers because it was believed that the vessel had made contact with a marker buoy at the harbor entrance. 

After having remained at anchorage for the past week, the offshore tug Pacific Runner arrived in Tauranga to assist the Funing. They completed a towage trial this morning and later in the day towed the vessel to the dock in Tauranga

A further investigation of the incident will be conducted. Repairs are also commencing and expected to last up to 14 days before the Funing can resume its voyage to China.

MSC Continues To Invest In Decarbonising Shipping

in International Shipping News 08/07/2020

MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company, a global leader in shipping and logistics, is heavily investing in its fleet and low-carbon technology to support the industry’s transition towards zero carbon future.

Shipping can be accurately described as the most environmentally sustainable form of cargo mass transportation. Nonetheless, MSC is acutely aware that international shipping has an impact on the climate and our decision to invest in low-carbon technology is complementary to the company’s broader strategic approach to sustainability. The company operates a modern fleet and is running the biggest fleet investment programme in the industry to further reduce emissions.

MSC fully supports the IMO’s policy goals to decarbonise shipping and is actively exploring and trialling a range of alternative fuels and technologies – pioneering large scale usage of up to 30% biofuel blends for container ships, for example – on top of some significant energy efficiency improvements across its fleet.

Around 90% of the world’s trade is transported by sea. To meet the market demand while minimising emissions, MSC was the first shipping company to deploy 23K+ TEU, ultra-efficient vessels on some of the world’s busiest trade lanes (incl. the Mediterranean). In 2019, MSC set a new standard for sustainable container shipping, by introducing the MSC Gülsün with one of the lowest carbon footprints by design, at 7.49 grams of CO2 emissions to move 1 ton of cargo 1 nautical mile.

In addition, to help bridge the gap between shipping today and the zero-carbon future, MSC was the first major shipping line in 2019 to offer clients an option to fully compensate the remaining currently unavoidable carbon emissions caused by the transport of their cargo through participating in MSC’s Carbon Neutral Programme.

Inaccurate analysis of CO2 emissions from shipping

In addition to our massive investment in reducing emissions, MSC fully supports reporting CO2 emissions transparently and precisely in the European Union (EU) Monitoring, Reporting and Verification (MRV) system, as mandated by EU legislation. As said in an earlier statement in December, it is vital that the raw data reported in the system are analysed accurately and take operational realities fully into account, to give a realistic picture of the related emissions.

Another recent analysis by Transport & Environment on shipping emissions in the EU, fails yet again to take a number of operational aspects of MSC’s services fully into account, and thus does not offer a complete assessment of our role and impact in terms of emissions. Nor does it support a constructive dialogue around decarbonising shipping.

To provide a comprehensive and accurate conclusion, CO2 emissions should be compared on an equal basis. An analysis focusing on shipping emissions in the EU should only take into account emissions which actually occurred in the geographical area of the EU, if it is going to be compared to other sources limited to the same area. This is particularly relevant for a global company such as MSC, which operates in all the world’s major shipping lanes. A complete analysis would show that only 40-45% of the emissions reported by MSC in the MRV were actually in the EU. In addition, a correct analysis would also show that MSC has achieved 2.5% YOY reduction in absolute emissions under the MRV scheme in a single year.

Further to the company’s own efforts to minimise environmental impact, MSC contributes to the work of industry groups and associations to accelerate decarbonising the shipping industry.
Source: MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company SA

Manukau Harbour ‘wouldn’t work’ as new Auckland port

Manukau Harbour would never work as a new location for Auckland’s port, transport company director Chris Carr says.Manukau Harbour

Manukau Harbour. Photo: RNZ / Jessie Chiang

A report by economic consultancy Sapere published yesterday ranked Manukau Harbour as the best option. It considered Northport, Manukau, the Firth of Thames, the Port of Tauranga and a shared increase in capacity at both Northport and the Port of Tauranga.

An earlier report, backed by New Zealand First, identified Northport at Marsden Point as the best option. The report was completed by a government working group led by former Far North mayor Wayne Brown.

Auckland Mayor Phil Goff called the previous Northport work ‘shoddy’ and Transport Minister Phil Twyford said it “had a clearly pre-determined outcome” in favour of moving the port to Marsden Point.

New Zealand First still backs Northport as a new location, with MP Shane Jones saying Manukau was the most treacherous harbour in the country and unfit as an alternative site for Ports of Auckland.

Carr and Haslam director Chris Carr said he didn’t know how the Sapere report had come up with Manukau Harbour.

“It’s probably about the only time in the world I’ll ever agree with Shane Jones,” Carr told told Morning Report.

“The prevailing weather comes in on the western side of the country. Ports don’t exist in the west coast of New Zealand, they exist on the east coast.

“I’m no maritime person but all the shipping companies say that they won’t go to the west coast and that in itself would tend to make Manukau the first shipless port that we’d have in the country.

“It’s simply not suitable operationally and it wouldn’t work no matter how much we might try and make it fit.”

If port had to be moved from Auckland it should be to somewhere ships can get in and out safely, he said.

“You also want to go somewhere near the largest consumption area which is the Auckland-Tauranga-Hamilton-Waikato area.

“The only place you can do that is the Firth of Thames. It’s not ideal.”

He agreed with the Sapere report that Ports of Auckland could keep operating for more than 30 years before it ran out of space where it was.

“But New Zealand’s not good at doing this sort of stuff and we take so long to do it that we need to start working at it and looking at it.

“If you look at it from a logistical point of view the decisions become quite easy – it’s when you get politics involved it becomes quite hard.

“The shipping companies who in the end of the day determine where their vessels come would not choose Manukau, ever.”

Shane Jones told Morning Report he had come off second best to people opposed to a relocation to Northland.

“I had professionally and personally campaigned with my leader for the expansion of Northport and relocation of Ports of Auckland activity to Tauranga and Northland,” he said.

He invoked the sinking of the Orpheus in 1863, in which 189 people died, as reason to not build a port at Manukau Harbour.

“I will prophesy that a thousand years will pass before a new port will ever be located in Manukau Harbour.

“[The Sapere report] wants to take us over the bar of the most treacherous harbour in New Zealand and dredge to a level of spill that will rival Mt Cook somewhere in New Zealand or it’ll be dumped in the ocean.”

Jones said work on a new port needed to “get cracking” in 10 to 15 years.

“In New Zealand we leave too many infrastructure decisions to the last minute.”

No decision is to be made before the election, leaving it for political parties to campaign on.