Plan to move ship lane to protect whales
WHEN the feeding grounds of blue whales overlap with busy shipping lanes, business interests generally supersede those of the endangered marine mammals.
But in Sri Lanka, an unusual alliance has been forged: conservationists and shipping companies have aligned in a bid to move a heavily trafficked lane about 28km away to avoid collisions between whales and freighters.
The authorities have yet to approve the proposal.
The hundreds of blue whales in Sri Lankan waters – marine biologists estimate there are 600 to 1500 – feed on tiny shrimp in the shipping lane, and are also believed to mate and give birth nearby.
Shipping executives say they would gladly relocate the traffic corridor, recognising that their ships would be safer in waters not already clogged with fishing vessels, whale-watching boats and the whales themselves, which can grow to more than 33m.
Bryan Wood-Thomas, the vice-president of the World Shipping Council, said the group wrote to the Sri Lankan prime minister in 2017, affirming that all major international shipping organisations believed Sri Lanka should work with the UN to move its traffic lane.
“This is one of the few cases in the world where we can physically separate ships from where the whales are,” Wood-Thomas said. “Yes, it adds a little distance, fuel and money to shipping costs, but the extra cost is really minor.”
He said it was no small feat to get the majority of the world’s shipping companies to agree to move the shipping lane in Sri Lanka.
For a shipping lane to be moved, the country whose waters are most affected must submit a formal proposal to the International Maritime Organisation, the UN agency that regulates shipping. Despite numerous meetings between scientists, the shipping industry and UN officials, Sri Lankan officials have demurred from supporting the shipping lane shift.
Rear Admiral Rohana Perera of Sri Lanka’s Marine Environment Protection Authority said the government was concerned about the economic impact of the proposed shipping lane move on its ports, fearing passing ships might not be as inclined to stop in Sri Lanka. He said a decision would “hopefully” be made in March. LEADING what is expected to be a national battle over the issue, California is suing the Trump administration, seeking to block a new regulation that restricts access to abortion and other family planning services.
The lawsuit, which was filed on Monday in federal court in northern California against the US Department of Health and Human Services, is the first volley of what is expected to be a barrage of litigation by states, family planning groups and others challenging restrictions prohibiting clinics that receive federal family planning money from offering abortions or referring women to abortion services.
Washington officials said last week that they planned to sue.
The filing seeks an injunction against the rules adopted for Title X of the Public Health Service Act, the federally funded programme devoted to family planning.
“The Trump-Pence administration has doubled down on its attacks on women’s health,” California Attorney-General Xavier Becerra said. “This illegal Title X rule denies patients access to critical healthcare services and prevents doctors from providing comprehensive and accurate information about medical care.”
The rule affects 4 million mostly low-income people, Becerra said.
California has the nation’s largest Title X programme, serving a million patients a year – more than a quarter of all Title X patients nationwide.
The lawsuit says the new rule will affect programmes funded through Essential Access Health, including services provided by Planned Parenthood affiliates.
In seeking an injunction, the state argues that the federal agency has exceeded the scope of its statutory authority and acted in a manner that is arbitrary and a violation of the federal Administrative Procedure Act and the US constitution. “The rule undermines clinically established standards of care, interferes with the patient-provider relationship, and contradicts a core purpose of the Title X programme,” the lawsuit says. “This rule will deprive Californians of access to needed reproductive care and cause harm to public health in California.”
The Title X programme helped women in California avoid an estimated 822 000 unplanned pregnancies in 2015, which would have resulted in 387 000 unplanned births and 278 000 abortions, the lawsuit says.