Can We Afford the Minsk?
Artificial Reefs and Tourism
The creation of artificial reefs (ARs) has become a global phenomenon in the past few decades, and these days many ARs are decommissioned ships.
Japan has long maintained a practice of "marine enhancement" and artificial reefs have been created for over 30 years in European waters to protect the seagrass beds and enhance fishing opportunities. In the U.S., most states with
water resources have been encouraged to create an artificial
| The Minsk |
reef program over the past few decades, with over 100 ARs set up in Florida alone. Canada has recently sunk a Boeing 737 on its west coast, a decommissioned warship on its east coast, and will sink more ships in the Great Lakes in recognition of their economic benefits.
Hong Kong is no exception to this trend. Recognizing the threats of overfishing, development and pollution, Hong Kong set up its AR program with $100 million, under the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD), and has deployed 386 ARs in Hoi Ha Wan and Yan Chau Tong Marine Parks since 1999 to enhance and protect marine resources and spawning grounds. By 2004 another 155 ARs – specially designed and constructed steel boats, redundant pier materials and concrete modules – were sunk in the fish nursery grounds of Long Harbour and Outer Port Shelter.
On the other side of Hong Kong, in 2000, ARs were sunk in Sha Chau and Lung Kwu Chau Marine Park to draw fish into the territory of the fast diminishing Indo-Pacific Humpback, or pink, dolphins.
With the bankruptcy of the Shenzhen company that owns the decommissioned Soviet aircraft carrier Minsk, a proposal has been put forth for the ship to be turned into an artificial reef in Hong Kong. Charles Frew, of Sai Kung's Asiatic Marine, suggested this would be a boost to the local economy and an excellent way to promote eco-tourism. While he may
be right about the potential benefits, others suggest
| SK Coral Reef |
that there is no point to adding reefs if unrestricted fishing continues.
According to the AFCD, these ARs have been "an effective resource management device" and have increased the biodiversity and numbers of commercial fish in those areas. Though this is a common benefit cited in support of ARs, a University of Hong Kong research report, as quoted in the European Artificial Reef Research Network report, concluded that "no studies unequivocally demonstrate enhancement of fish resources by ARs alone." The report also stated that custom-built modules to target specific species may be needed to enhance fish stocks. Recent British research also concluded that for economic benefits of an AR to be maximized, property rights or harvesting rights would need to be clearly defined.
Besides the controversy over whether fish stocks are truly increased by ARs, there is the cost and the hazard potential of sinking an old warship that was constructed in 1975. Ships launched before 1979/80 generally are presumed to contain dioxins and asbestos, which are costly to remove, often running into the millions. Since dioxins can cause a multitude of serious harmful effects on health, including cancer, immune, reproductive, nervous and endocrine system toxicities, and increased blood pressure, and asbestos poisoning leads to serious respiratory problems and lung cancer, it's essential to ensure that the toxic materials have already been removed from the Minsk. Lee Yarnall of Aspec Consultants, a registered asbestos consultant, said, "It's a great idea to turn the Minsk into an artificial reef as long as the toxic materials have been removed properly and responsibly."
The costs involved in scuttling the 32,000 ton, 268 meter U.S. aircraft carrier, Oriskany, are nothing to sneeze at. Removal of all the oil, fuel, asbestos, paint and loose debris along with other costs such as permits, towing, the sinking operation, navigational markers, and management, consulting and engineering fees amounted to a total of US$13.29 million, much higher than the original estimate of US$2.8 million. The Minsk is comparable in weight, 38,000 ton, and size, 273 meters, and if its levels of
| Oriskany |
hazardous materials were similar, then it's quite possible the scuttling costs would be as astronomical.
Since the bankrupt Shenzhen company is trying to sell the Minsk, it is unlikely they'd put any money into assuring its viability as an AR, so the money for detoxifying it and all the other processing needed to sink the ship would have to come from our government or private enterprises in Hong Kong. Somehow, Explore is a bit cynical about the Minsk's chances of finding a home in Hong Kong waters.
Marine Specialist Mr. Frew, however, suggests that the value in sinking the world's biggest aircraft carrier would be creation of a unique marine attraction with great potential for tourism, local job creation and possibly a Minsk spin-off industry. The potential cost compares favourably with the considerable sums the government has already spent on its artificial reef program, the HK$2.3 billion for Disneyland and the HK$500 million for the Wetland Park. "The long term benefits of such a project are surely worth exploring," he said. Following assessment by the AFCD and a detailed cost analysis of the decommissioning process carried out in conjunction with the Russian naval architects (who originally built it), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (who are overseeing the Oriskany) and the consultants responsible for the deployment of the Oriskany, Mr. Frew believes that the Minsk could, if zoned and managed properly, become a successful underwater marine park and attraction.