The Connecticut Maritime Association 23 March 2009 Has industry lost the International versus Unilateral argument ? Peter M. Swift.

The Connecticut Maritime Association 23 March 2009

Has industry lost the “International versus Unilateral”

argument ?  

Peter M. Swift

What does the shipping industry seek ?

Global Governance Structures for a Global Industry

• A consistent framework of rules, regulations and standards, implemented uniformly and applied in the same time frame.

Why ?

• To ensure a level playing field• To avoid uncertainty, confusion and complications• To facilitate trade

Consistency – The ideal world

• International Regulations (via IMO, ILO, UNCLOS)

• Flag State – requirements, interpretation and application

• Port State Control

• Classification Societies – rules and interpretations

• Liability Regimes

• Civil and Criminal Penalties

• Commercial Inspection Practices

• Operating procedures and manuals – especially for safety critical items

Consistency – The real world

Countervailing forces – local, national, regional

• National interests• Environmental impact locally• Frustration with effectiveness of international

regimes• Inconsistency / conflict with national law• Societal expectations / political ambitions• Commercial pressures• ………..

Accommodating “local” pressures

InternationallyIMO• MARPOL – opt-out for flag and port states on tanker

phase-out deadlines• Emission control areas (SECAs and ECAs)• “Voluntary” member state audit• Port State Control – regional regimesIOPC• Voluntary supplementary fundUNFCC• Common but differentiated responsibilities

Reactions to “local” pressures

Nationally / RegionallyEUCommission and Parliament keen to drive regional

solutions and legislation – environmental, class, liability, compensation…..

USFederal programmes historically not fully aligned to

IMO conventions, and with individual states prepared to pre-empt Federal legislation………..

ElsewhereAustralasia, Norway introduce local laws –

principally environmental Port State Control regimes not harmonised

Living with “local” pressures - it ain’t all bad news !!

Leading by example

Port State ControlParis MoU – “Beacon Regime”

Classification SocietiesIACS Unified Requirements and Interpretations

CommercialOCIMF’s SIRE Programme

Particular EU problems – not always helpful

EU • Competition law challenges to Class and Common

Structural Rule

• Mutual Recognition within Class Regulations / Marine Equipment Directive

• Potential for RO (Recognised Organisation) Code not consistent with IMO

• Criminalisation legislation not consistent with international law

What can we do ?

The BASICS:

• Support the IMO with active participation• Encourage ratification of IMO (and ILO)

Conventions ( Including those already Entered / Entering into Force )

• Discourage unilateral local, national and regional legislation

• Maintain “open” dialogue in regional centres, e.g. Europe (Brussels), US (Washington) and elsewhere (incl. Asia)

• but also advocate faster / easier Entry into

Force criteria ??

Encourage Ratification by States of International Conventions

IMO Conventions including:

• International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-fouling Systems on Ships (AFS), 2001 (*)

• International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments, 2004

• Annex VI: Prevention of  Air Pollution from Ships, 1996: International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 relating thereto (MARPOL 73/78) (*)

• !996 Protocol to Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims (LLMC), 1976

(*)Even though Entered/Entering into Force

Encourage Ratification by States of International Conventions

• International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage (CLC), 1969

• International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage (FUND), 1971

• International Convention on Liability and Compensation for Damage in Connection with the Carriage of Hazardous and Noxious Substances by Sea (HNS), 1996

• International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage, 2001 (*)

ILO Convention(s):• Seafarers' Identity Documents Convention (Revised),

(C185), 2003• Maritime Labour Convention, (MLC) 2006

(*) Even though Entered/Entering into Force

Encourage Ratification by States of International Conventions

and

UNCLOS !

Support IMO Member State Audit scheme

Encourage full transparency in findings

Stress responsibilities for undertaking casualty investigations *

Remind Coastal States of their obligations, - ensuring fair and consistent processes **

* RT Guidelines on Flag State Performance** BIMCO Quality Coastal State programme

Champion Consistency in International Standards

Joint Industry Programmes

CLASSIFICATION SOCIETIES• Support IACS on uniform requirements and uniform

interpretations, as well as survey procedures, etc.

CLASSIFICATION SOCIETIES AND SHIPBUILDERS

• Maintain Tripartite dialogue between international shipbuilders, classification societies and shipowners

• Seek uniformity of standards, e.g. coating performance; lifeboats and lifesaving equipment, construction survey plans; operating manuals, provision of cadet berths, etc.

What else can we do ?

Be alert to local / national issues

Speak out - with a strong united voice:No matter be it:• Equipment not fit for purpose• Failure to adhere to IMO/ILO Guidelines• Political interference• Industry failings or shortcomings • Or other…..

While ALWAYS championing High Standards and Best Practices as a Responsible Industry

THANK YOUFor more information, please visit:

www.intertanko.com www.poseidonchallenge.com

www.shippingfacts.comwww.maritimefoundation.com