The International Chamber of Shipping and the International Shipping Federation have commented on the EU's maritime transport policy until 2018.
ICS is the principal international trade association for the shipping industry, and ISF is the leading international employer's organisation for shipowners.
ICS and ISF represent all sectors and trades, and about 75 percent of the world's merchant tonnage. ICS and ISF membership comprises national shipowners' associations from some 36 countries, including members of the European Community Shipowners' Associations (ECSA).
It was emphasised that ICS and ISF supported the comments already made by ECSA ; however, the ICS and ISF have released additional comments to provide an international perspective on some of those issues covered by the strategy.
The great majority of the strategy is welcome and has the support of the international industry.
The following remarks issued by the ICS and ISF concern those points in the strategy about which the international shipping industry has questions.
While the desire of the commission to promote European industry is legitimate, the ICS and ISF do not agree that the relocation of shipping head offices "overseas" would have the effect of "undermining the EU's efforts to ensure quality shipping around the world".
This would suggest an unreasonable presumption that companies located in the EU are automatically of higher quality than those located elsewhere.
The ICS has welcomed the adoption by the European Commission of its new Block Exemption Regulation revising the current exemption for shipping consortia from the EC Treaty's ban on restrictive business practices. It is important to stress the benefits of these arrangements and our hope that they will be permitted to continue after the current Block Exemption expires in 2015.
It is stated that, "the Commission will take the lead to promote alignment of substantive competition laws globally".
In the opinion of ICS, following the prohibition of liner conferences, in October 2008, it is in fact the EU which is now out of alignment with the tried and tested maritime competition law regimes that apply in other countries around the world, and which are supported by the international shipping industry.
"The industry was of course unsuccessful in persuading the commission of the advantages of conferences.
"But it is regrettable that shipping lines trading to Europe must respond to the economic downturn without the benefit of the particular form of co-operation which conferences provide. However, they continue to exist elsewhere, and it is interesting that, in view of the downturn, the US Federal Maritime Commission has indicated it has no immediate plans to review the US Ocean Shipping Reform Act," said the statement issued by the ICS and ISF.
In the remarks concerning the balance between rights and responsibilities of flag, port and costal states, it is stated that, "the principle of the 'genuine link' as set out in UNCLOS should be a key instrument … to support sustainable development goals". The international industry would require clarification of what might be intended.
"Should there be any future intention to do so, we believe the commission should think very carefully before proposing any adjustment of the current balance between flag state and coastal state rights," said the statement.
"Other coastal states around the world could potentially use any new entitlement to override current flag state rights for motives unconnected with safety and environmental protection, especially where evolving geo-political circumstances may lead to new perspectives."
The organisations noted the intention of, "establishing 'maritime certificates of excellence'…that may well go further than STCW requirements".
From an international perspective, the ICS and ISF said that it was vital that the training and certification of EU seafarers continued to be compatible, and conducted in accordance, with the IMO STCW Convention.
"Thought might be given to increasing the flexibility allowed by Member States for the on board training component required to qualify as an EU officer to be conducted on a ship registered in a different country (including third countries) to that where the shore based training takes place and where the STCW certificate will be issued," said the statement.
" This might help to overcome the shortage of training berths that exists in some EU Member States."
The ISF and ICS noted the absence of any reference to promoting the ratification of the ILO Seafarers' Identity Documents Convention (ILO 185).
"As well as addressing the security concerns of port states, wide ratification of the Convention should materially assist the welfare of seafarers who are increasingly deprived of shore leave in certain countries," stated the ICS and ISF.
On another note, the commission proposes "formalising the EU co-ordination mechanism and granting formal observer status, if not full membership, to the EU" at IMO.
"In the interest of maintaining the quality of technical decision making at IMO, the industry does not believe that increasing the status of the EU at IMO will actually contribute to the improvement of this institution or its impact on issues such as safety and environmental protection," the statement pointed out.
The 27 EU Member States are already under the influence at IMO, since the majority of EU States are traditional maritime countries with considerable expertise within their maritime administrations, which they are able to utilise and communicate articulately during international regulatory discussions.
IMO has a complex specialist committee structure which normally seeks to develop consensus across the international community rather then resorting to votes or imposing the will of the majority.
The spectrum of technical expertise available to the 27 EU IMO Members means that the different emphasis they can bring to particular issues in turn means that they are actually far more influential in contributing to an international consensus than would be the case if they were to speak with a single EU voice.
ICS and ISF said the organisations feared that excessive co-ordination of EU Member States' views at IMO would be to "politicise" discussions on complex safety and environmental issues which are best decided on the basis of informed technical and scientific arguments.
"When the EU decides to co-ordinate the votes of EU Member States, the result can be to undermine the well known 'IMO spirit' of consensus," emphasised the statement. "Many third countries, including those with large fleets, might then feel they no longer have strong 'ownership' of what is decided at IMO, with the result that international agreements may be less likely to be ratified after adoption or implemented on a truly global basis."
At a practical level, the relative speed with which IMO is able to develop and amend new regulations and recommendations requires the imposition of strict deadlines for the submission of comments on proposals made by other IMO Members.
This can sometimes mean that governments may only have a month or so in which to comment on complex technical issues. If there is a requirement for EU States to have comments co-ordinated and approved in Brussels before they are submitted to IMO, this is likely to mean that IMO discussions may be deprived of valuable input from individual EU States, which may have a negative impact on the quality of the debate in committee.
At a different level, the same problem would apply with regard to the contributions of EU States in working groups established during IMO Committee meetings and in specialist intersessional correspondence groups that are established between IMO meetings on particular issues.
"While there is always room for improvement, IMO has actually proved to be a model of efficiency compared to similar intergovernmental regulatory organisations, and the vast majority of the regulations which it adopts are applied on a genuinely global basis with the full support of governments and industry," the statement conceded.
"The commission and member states should think very carefully about the pursuit of objectives which could do very serious damage to the long term authority and effectiveness of IMO, which is so vital for maintaining a safe and efficient shipping industry."
Furthermore, the statement suggested that the industry was confused by the suggestion of examining, "replacing ratification by flag by ratification based on the fleet as defined by the country of residence".
As well as being seemingly incompatible with current understandings about the concept of national sovereignty, the statement said that this would seem to entail a complete revision of UNCLOS and the IMO Convention, and would be very unlikely to be acceptable to either EU Member States or third countries that belong to IMO.
To reiterate, the ICS and ISF supported the commission for its efforts in affording due recognition to the vital importance of shipping, and for developing a comprehensive strategy to promote the future development of the industry.
However, the ICS and ISF hoped that their comment issued would be helpful to the development of the strategy.
