Do the European Commission proposals bring any good news for the shipping industry? Or is this a package of add-ons to a maritime safety regime that is better at establishing more procedures, paperwork and governing bodies than targeting the increasing problem of sub-standard shipping?
The principle of polluter pays is reflected in the regulatory framework now developed or under development. How do you look upon the reality of this principle and to what extent do you think it can be enforced? Can it be enforced in the maritime industry if not in other modes of transportation?
Sustainable development is a priority for the EU, and the environmental performance of modes of transportation is clearly of major importance to the environmental aspects of this. So, in the future, the EU will do what it takes to facilitate sustainable transportation and as such promote transport on rail and by sea. Railways are fine, but due to capacity problems, there are limits for development. Short sea trading, on the other hand, has potential, but suffers from administrative problems, inadequate port services and high port costs. These problems must be solved and at the same time we must establish other incentives, making short sea trading a more competitive mode of transport.
Naturally, this will be part of a greater scheme where all modes of transportation will be priced in accordance with their marginal cost to the environment. For example, SO2 emissions from congested road traffic will be more expensive than for sea trade, which uses the free seas.
Will this not have a negative impact on the shipping industry?
The package that will come from EU proposing charging for the use of infrastructure will not be disadvantageous for shipping. On the contrary, it will benefit shipping, especially short sea trade. Compared to any other mode of transportation, shipping is the most environmentally friendly. The problem is the risk of pollution caused by grounding and spills of chemicals and oil. Therefore, we will take special action on this. Already our proposal for a supplementary fund for oil pollution, following the Erika accident, addresses this problem. We hope that an international solution will be agreed early next year.
Driving forces
Since the Erika accident, through initiatives launched by the Commission, the EU has spearheaded new legislation that will improve safety at sea and prevent maritime pollution.
What is the driving force behind these initiatives? Is it a reaction to the public demand for the politicians and the Commission to act? Or are these steps launched by the Commission as part of a strategy to meet the objectives of the EU to harmonise and unify legislation within the EU?
The driving forces of the new legislation are based on both a reaction to the Erika disaster with the need to improve maritime safety as the old system had failed and a strategy to meet the Unions objectives to harmonise and unify legislation. The one does not exclude the other. The strategy also includes action aimed at improving the competitiveness of quality shipping. This in turn, is part of an overall strategy that eventually will make shipping a preferred mode of transportation within the EU.
According to Karamitsos, maritime safety legislation in many areas is already in place, but its implementation and enforcement must be stronger and more effective. He thinks that the IMO to some extent is too slow, but he emphasises the importance of unified international legislation when addressing global problems. Nevertheless, the EU can and must act on its own in some cases.
How do the EU and the Commission intend to take this into consideration when formulating new legislation which will affect not only European shipping interests, but also the global shipping community?
I believe it is good that if the EU introduces new legislation to protect the environment, this affects shipping globally. This means that the EU can have a positive effect worldwide by raising standards in the EU area. Ships from other areas of the world will have to comply with EU regulations when they come into EU waters. This way we also avoid creating disadvantages for European shipping, as the indirect effect will be the same for the entire international shipping industry.
We will try to go through IMO to update legislation and bring it up to modern requirements, as we did after the Erika sinking. This has been a positive experience and we have a preference for this model; however if it will not work we will have to consider what the EUs interests are and proceed accordingly.
EU speaks with one voice
One objective of the EU is to promote an ever-closer union among its member states. The Commissions recent initiative for the EU in its own right to become a member of IMO is a step in that direction. If so, how do you see the future regime for international maritime safety regulations?
With our forthcoming enlargement there will be more than 25% of global tonnage under EU flags. So we must be able to influence international legislation. We must protect EU interests and use to the maximum international processes to do so. We know that our accession to IMO will take some years to happen, with the current set-up of the IMO organisation.
As to the voting argument, our member states will continue to have the votes they already have nothing will change, as we are not asking for an extra vote for the EU. But it will be whenever there is a community competence a coherent position. Please note that decisions are taken by consensus in IMO and there is almost never any real voting taking place. This is one of the reasons why it takes time for IMO to decide on international standards and regulations. However, it is important for us that the EU member states speak with one voice in international forums. This way the EU can use its voting power in accordance with the power of its current 15 and later 25 or more member states.
As to the future of international maritime safety regulations, I can say that there are areas needing further development. These will be addressed as a result of the EUs organisational presence in international organisations.