Address by Lars Carlsson Chairman of INTERTANKO at a lunch for diplomats 25 th November 2003 Shippingklubben, Oslo The International Association of Independent Tanker Owners FOR SAFE TRANSPORT, CLEANER SEAS AND FREE COMPETITION
Your excellencies, ladies and gentlemen. I am very happy to welcome so many of you here to Shippingklubben. The primary purpose today, as it has been on all the ten previous similar occasions, is to talk about tanker shipping and the way it is regulated. However, I will also touch briefly on the bulk carrier side of the business, for reasons which will become apparent. My main message will be to emphasise the international nature of shipping and the need for international as opposed to regional or national regulation. In other words, to underline the importance of supporting the decision-making in the International Maritime Organisation in London, the IMO. It follows therefore that I will also urge swift ratification of some international instruments agreed in IMO, in order to bring about efficient, uniform implementation and enforcement of those instruments already in force. INTERTANKO is the International Association of Independent Tanker Owners. By independent we mean non-oil company and non-state owned. INTERTANKO represents more than 240 members whose combined fleet comprises more than 2,160 tankers totalling over 160 million dwt 70% of the world s independent tanker fleet. In addition, the Association has 270 associate members, including oil companies, shipyards, maritime lawyers and classification societies. If I may, I would also like to introduce INTERCARGO to you. INTERCARGO is represented here today by Roger Holt, Secretary General, and I am pleased to be able to tell you that a joint secretariat is in the process of being developed by the two organisations. The first step has been to occupy the same office accommodation and that has now been accomplished in London. INTERCARGO is the International Association of Dry Cargo Shipowners and has 62 owner members and a further 49 associate members. It represents approx 850 ships over 10,000 dwt in size. Whilst its membership is less than that of INTERTANKO, nevertheless it similarly fulfils an important role in promoting safety and quality in a diversified sector of the industry. Tanker shipping is vital for the welfare of everyone. Our members perform a service that is essential to the world economy in a safe,
environmentally friendly and cost-effective manner. Tanker shipping is not without risks, but the industry s record is much better than generally perceived, as can be seen from these slides:
[
The industry is committed to quality and maintaining the improvement. Elimination of substandard shipping remains one of our main goals. Sadly, there have been accidents, some of these with substantial consequences. The loss of the tanker Prestige is regretted by everyone, particularly the many Spaniards who have seen their livelihoods threatened by the spill which polluted vast areas of the Galician and adjacent coasts. The spill has had an immediate impact upon the marine environment, fish, birds, beaches and tourism. Unfortunately, the accident has had another impact in the form of hasty additional regulation of shipping. The shipping industry is not against being regulated, indeed we are very much in favour of strict and efficient regulations uniformly and properly implemented world wide. But the shipping industry is international and needs international and not national or regional rules, however well intended these may be. Different rules in different places can lead to uncertainty and chaos. We are therefore fully supportive of rules being prepared in the UN body which exists for this purpose, namely the London-based International Maritime Organisation, IMO. The tanker industry has taken a very active role in IMO, giving constructive input to achieve sensible and international regulation of shipping. Compromises have been forged and agreements reached at IMO, and INTERTANKO promotes early ratification of these international instruments. Examples of these are the 1992 oil spill compensation Protocols, the Hazardous and Noxious Substances (HNS) and Bunker Conventions, Annex VI of MARPOL regarding air pollution, reception facilities, the HNS Protocol of 2000 to the Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Cooperation Convention etc. The industry has also taken initiatives in advance of legislation. Such proactive moves include ship recycling, VOCON procedures (restricting vapour releases), newbuilding standards (design margins), protection of bunker tanks, pilotage guidelines, Flag State Guidelines and life-saving equipment. However, despite achieving international concessions and agreement only last year on the accelerated phase-out of single-hull tankers, the European Union has produced its own Regulation on single-hull tankers, which took effect on 21 st October, before the measures in this Regulation had been fully considered in IMO. On the one hand, the
European Union states that it would like to see these rules adopted internationally in IMO, but on the other hand, the IMO member countries are faced with a situation in which one major block of countries has already decided what it wants and is now pressuring the rest of the world on the measures that need to be adopted by all in order to achieve an international harmonisation of the rules. This makes a mockery of the international negotiating process. You, as diplomats, will have no problems in recognising the kind of atmosphere negotiations such as this will create. Initiatives like this can lead to other countries or groups of countries deciding to introduce their own rules, starting a process of fragmented regulation. Furthermore, any one of you with some experience of UNCTAD in the 1980s will recognise the problem of groups of countries having their own protracted meetings, which then disrupt any common meeting schedule. The result is entrenched positions. That is why UNCTAD decided to abolish the Group system. The IMO has in comparison been refreshingly technical rather than political, but I must admit that I do fear that IMO may become far more political than we have seen so far. And that is not a constructive development. We need to ensure that IMO remains a forum for finding sensible, practical and feasible ways of ensuring safe shipping and protection of the marine environment. I have mentioned the support and prominence that the shipping industry gives to IMO, but I would also like to say a few words about what governments and government representatives can do to support IMO. The most obvious case is of course to ensure that what has been agreed in IMO enters into force, and is then properly and uniformly implemented and enforced. Frankly, the record on the ratification process is not impressive. I appreciate that there are formal procedures to be followed, but in many cases the ratification process has been painfully slow, holding up the entry into force of much-needed legislation. When I spoke to some of you and your predecessors here in this room only two years ago I made a special plea for one of these international instruments. I remember stating: Please rush to the support of the MARPOL convention through ratification of its Annex VI on air pollution. Although this set of regulations was adopted by IMO back in 1997, so far only Sweden, Norway, Singapore and the Bahamas have ratified it.
Well, two years down the line, and we have seen the added accessions by Bangladesh, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Liberia, Marshall Islands, Panama and Spain. I do not want to sound like a school teacher, but the remark could have done better is very close to the tip of my tongue. What is so particularly frustrating is that although countries representing the required 50% of the world fleet have signed up, the accessions of three more countries are still required for this instrument to enter into force. We have heard all sorts of well-intended statements, but action has been taken at a snail-like pace. The EU has complained that IMO is too slow. Well, I ask, who is too slow now? Next month there will be a very important meeting at the IMO. A specially convened session of the Marine Environmental Protection Committee (MEPC) will consider the EU s proposals for another accelerated phasing out schedule for single-hull tankers, as well as requirements for a tougher Condition Assessment Scheme (CAS) and a ban on the transport of heavy grades of oil in single-hull tankers. INTERTANKO will take an active and constructive part in these negotiations. I have already pointed out the possible consequences of the European Union s unilateral regulation. However, I would like to leave the representatives of the European Union Member States with one plea: once IMO has reached agreement, then please make sure that the European Regulation is amended to reflect this agreement. I know that there is only a limited degree of leeway for adjustment in the Regulation itself. But this leeway can be interpreted in a restrictive or in a broad manner, with the additional possibility of adopting a new Regulation amending the old one. My point is: when there is a will, there is always a way. Apart from weakening the respect and authority of IMO, I also fear that what we have seen in Europe has been in contravention of many countries international obligations as parties to existing conventions like UNCLOS and MARPOL. May I now briefly touch upon some of the issues which colleagues in INTERCARGO. concern our The main issue on the dry bulk regulatory agenda has been the safety of bulk carriers. It is a fact that in the early 1990s, the bulk carrier sector had an appalling reputation for major casualties, many of which were caused by structural failure. When the structure of a bulk carrier fails, the result is a catastrophe with an attendant high level of loss of life. Unlike a tanker, a bulk carrier has little or no reserve buoyancy to keep the ship
afloat once the hull has been breached. The high density of many bulk cargoes simply serves to cause very rapid sinking. The IMO set about examining the bulk carrier situation and after much technical investigation by a number of flag states, the results of a Formal Safety Assessment were produced. The result of that work has now been translated into new regulations and there is a strong possibility that new buildings in excess of 150m length will be required to be constructed with a double hull. Many in the industry, including INTERCARGO, would have preferred to see enhanced design standards for single-hull bulk carriers as well as double-hull designs. In other words, they would have preferred both designs to have been declared fit for the purpose with the final decision to be made on commercial grounds. In addition to these new regulations emanating from IMO, the dry bulk industry has also to absorb many new rules from IAC S, the International Association of Classification Societies, for both new and existing ships. Overall there is a feeling in the industry that we are becoming submerged in new rules and regulations when what was actually required was an effective implementation of existing legislation. There are several other issues that I also would have liked to comment on, many of which are common to tankers and bulk carriers. These include the need for places of refuge, the appalling lack of ballast and slop reception facilities, piracy, corruption as well as physical threats in many ports, Port State Control, policies regarding flags and ship registration, recycling of ships, criminal sanctions against masters, crews and shipping companies etc. etc. The list could be very long. But I think that you probably do not want to hear too much more just now. We should rather go next door and eat, during which time I hope that we can have a good dialogue. But let me end by repeating what all my predecessors have also underlined, namely that we do appreciate the cooperation we have received when we have approached embassies here in Oslo. We thank you for that and hope that we may come and knock on your doors again whenever we believe you could assist us. 11 November 2003 Our Ref.: KRF-11079/11014