Peter M. Swift

1. The Connecticut Maritime Association23 March 2009Has industry lost the “International versus Unilateral”argument ? Peter M. Swift

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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 • ………..

5. Accommodating “local” pressures Internationally IMO • 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 regimes IOPC • Voluntary supplementary fund UNFCC • Common but differentiated responsibilities

6. Reactions to “local” pressures Nationally / Regionally EU Commission and Parliament keen to drive regional solutions and legislation – environmental, class, liability, compensation….. US Federal programmes historically not fully aligned to IMO conventions, and with individual states prepared to pre-empt Federal legislation……….. Elsewhere Australasia, Norway introduce local laws – principally environmental Port State Control regimes not harmonised

7. Living with “local” pressures- it ain’t all bad news !! Leading by example Port State Control Paris MoU – “Beacon Regime” Classification Societies IACS Unified Requirements and Interpretations Commercial OCIMF’s SIRE Programme

8. 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

9. 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 ??

10. 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

11. 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 BunkerOil Pollution Damage, 2001 (*) ILO Convention(s): • Seafarers' Identity Documents Convention (Revised), (C185), 2003 • Maritime Labour Convention, (MLC) 2006 (*) Even though Entered/Entering into Force

12. Encourage Ratification by States of International Conventions and UNCLOS !

13. Support IMO Member State Audit scheme Encourage full transparency in findings Stressresponsibilities 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

14. 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.

15. 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

16. THANK YOU For more information, please visit: www.intertanko.com www.poseidonchallenge.com www.shippingfacts.com www.maritimefoundation.com