|
Conference:
MARE FORUM
2003
-Ménage à Trois-
Restoring
Trust
in the Triangular Relationship between
Shipowners
- Regulators - Charterers / Shippers / Cargo Owners,
and its Effect on Quality in Shipping Today.
November 17 &18, 2003
Grand Hotel Krasnapolsky
Amsterdam-The Netherlands
This Mare Forum Conference was the official Conference of "Europort
2003" International Maritime Exhibition...
CONFERENCE CONCLUSIONS
from the
Conference Chairman
Michael Grey
This conference might be thought of as the first
step in a process of “conciliation” between parties who have
learned to view each other with some suspicion. The concept was
arrived at as a result of a brusque intervention by a major
charterer, who declared at an earlier Mare Forum that he was
unable, to enter into a contractual relationship with a shipowner
he trusted. It seemed a sad reflection of the times, that such was
his focus on the bottom line that he was only able to do business
with those who could just about manage to carry his cargo at the
derisory rates he was prepared to pay.
The lack of trust has become all-pervasive. Regulators regularly
pass catch-all legislation predicated on the worst-case scenario,
designed for the substandard, but with the accuracy of the
blunderbuss, hitting everyone else in range. The owner groans
under the regulatory burden, believing that the regulators are
incompetent, or politically driven , dancing to the tunes of
knee-jerking politicians who don’t understand the realities of
modern commercial shipping. Nobody trusts anyone else, shipowners
and shipbuilders believe the one is cheating the other, while
neither have a kind word to say about class.
The object of the Menage a Trois was to attempt to see where
common ground and a greater understanding between the parties
might promote a better and more constructive relationship between
them. Throughout the meeting there was the clearly expressed
desire for a far greater measure of trust throughout the various
links in the transport chain. But trust has to be earned and good
governance demonstrated, as part of the social responsibilities
which apply equally to all parties; the regulators and the
regulated, the auditors and the audited.
Mistrust often, and it is pretty obvious, comes from
misunderstanding , not assisted by the opacity in the industry and
the fact that each interest tends to operate in the closed circuit
of its own dimension . We have our own priorities, not vouchsafed
to other interests. Greater transparency, and a willingness to
share information, would appear to be a sensible path towards
greater mutual understanding and a gradual lowering of the
barriers.
There are certain clear threads which have communicated themselves
out of the conference proceedings. The issue of proactivity is one
that clearly emerged, notably with the sessions that brought out
political realities to the fore. The industry has tended to sit
supinely and react (usually negatively) to the action of
regulators who themselves were reacting to events. A culture of
complaining and grudging compliance has emerged , not
surprisingly, from a sector which always sees itself on the
receiving end. Always the target, never the marksman. Political
sentiment, it was asserted, drives regulations , but it is not
always well-informed . Whose fault is that? Is it not for the
industry to better inform the legislators about the realities of
the maritime world they inhabit. It may be the role of the
legislators to respond to the demands of society, but it must be
one of the functions of the maritime industry to better explain
what it is that it does.
Nowhere is this better illustrated than with the issues
surrounding classification societies and their different roles as
rule-developers and ROs with delegated powers of flag states,
auditors and custodians of much technical expertise. The fact that
even in the rarified atmosphere of a Mare Forum there was
confusion surfacing about the role of class demonstrates how
difficult this is to put across to a less specialised audience,
such as politicians, the media and the general public. But is it
not a function of class itself to emerge from the shadows and
“translate” its several functions for a generalist audience? Only
by the promotion of greater knowledge and awareness, will the
mistrust and mystery be dissipated. Good things clearly are
happening, with the harmonisation of class rules, better relations
with industry partners and a more cohesive relationship with IMO.
Telling people about this and what it might mean is part of the
process.
There was much that was discussed about the unequal burden of
regulation , which falls too heavily on the ship operator , while
other influential links in the chain of responsibility remain
untouched. Should not these other players be persuaded to take up
some of their regulatory burden? Cannot the overweening
bureaucracy which is such a feature of our age be reduced? Here
too there were signs at least that the industry complaints were
registering at the right levels. It was, to say the least of it,
inspiring to hear that the Dutch government is working to a
declared target to reduce “red tape” by 25% in the short term ,
and that this will apply to maritime elements in government, as
with every other. Now here was a development ripe for
internationalisation in our global village! Here was a real
incentive that would reward the best practitioners, with the long
arm of regulation applied less stringently to their activities,
with the focus instead upon those elements which jolly well needed
stricter supervision.
Could the lion lie down with the lamb, and the charterer forge
positive links with ship operators? One learns most by example and
it was interesting to hear of a positive long-term partnership in
the short sea container trades where to the mutual benefit of
each, a major shipper and a significant ship operator were
developing a strong logistic relationship. Important, too to learn
of a sort of tripartite deal between a shipowner and designer,
class and shipbuilders that would result in the construction of
good ships, which will get better, as the series develops through
operational feedback.
Here is the very antithesis of the short term, often bad-tempered
relationship which sees all parties end up dissatisfied and the
shipbuilder washing his hands of a ship as the one-year guarantee
period runs out. Worth hearing, in this vein, of longer term
relationships being developed between major oil companies and
owners (whom they clearly have learned to trust) to build quality
ships for time charter. Interesting too to hear oil companies
suggesting that the trends towards greater control (if not direct
ownership of ships) is clearly strengthening. Cargo owners, after
all, have their name blackened when the oil on the beach is
identified as theirs. Do oil traders care ? Probably not as much ,
but wouldn’t it be better if they did? But the problem of
“bog-standard” ships built primarily for an all-too pervasive spot
market, by people who primarily see them as commodities to be
traded remains.
What of the incentives that might reward the best practitioners
and encourage them to build and operate ships of higher
specifications with due excellence? “Not regulating them so
fiercely” seems a curiously negative response to all that extra
steel and system redundancy. A better rate? More employment?
Public recognition along the lines of a Super Green Award or a
Five Star Michelin rating? There is a need for something positive.
Ideas , on a postcard , please to
Mare Forum!
Was there much achieved at this meeting, compelling though it was?
There was no shortage of frank speaking and as a result, the
various sides of the triangle certainly understand each other
rather better. People explained, rather than defended, their
position, which was a postitive sign. We heard the strong case for
internationalism, rather than regionalism or unilateralism, but as
a counterblast we heard a well-argued case of the use of a
regional regulator as an accellerator of change and spur to
national implementation of international prescriptions.
There were some good ideas which emerged, from people prepared to
think “outside the box”. A far stronger emphasis on the human
element ,as none but humans can be blamed for most casualties and
notably those involving collision and grounding. Sea Traffic
Control to take the danger out of shipping choke-points. The
extraordinary work being done by the class committees as they
harmonise rules. The need for incident reporting schemes, which
can be kept out of the hands of the lawyers. Better means of
explaining what it is actually going on in the industry . Means of
engaging the unengaged , such as underwriters, oil traders and
others who “commodify” shipping and persuading them of the
societal virtues that are apparent to some and which drive their
business lives. Things that are “do-able” , not merely abstract
hopes are much to be preferred.
Bullet points can be used to summarise much of the
deliberations and there were perhaps eight which come to mind.
1. Collaboration; which illustrates the importance of
moving together to solve problems. Collaborative ventures such as
the Round Table of shipping organisations, and USCG-industry
partnerships really work.
2. Perception: It is what people think that matters as much
as the reality of the situation. The need to communicate clearly
thus might be emphasised.
3. Internationalism: A strong demand for international
solutions for international problems , along with the pre-eminence
of international organisations.
4. Information: This is the fuel of transparency and needs
to be pumped with more pressure, in order for better decisions to
made.
5. Expertise: There is no substitute for professionalism in
every field, contrasting strongly with the confused practices of
the substandard.
6. Fairness: might be thought of as the lubricant to good
practice, but is manifestly needed if regulation is to be capable
of willing implementation, and burdens evenly spread.
7. Human factors: The essential element which permeates
every other and which needs the strongest possible emphasis, if
trust is to be cultivated.
8. Positive thinking: In an industry where the image of
marine disasters is far too pervasive and so much thinking is
defensive there is a clear need to be prouder, and more positive
of the contribution it makes. It is clear that there is a great
deal of pride in the industry’s achievements, and interest in its
promotion.
Any, or all of these could do much to promote trust between the
participants in our triangular relationship.
THE
conference
committee
 Michael
Grey
Lloyds List
Conference Chairman
Jannis
Kostoulas
Managing Director
Mare Forum
Ger
Nieuwpoort
Head Shipping
Dutch Ministry of Transport
Chris
Horrocks
Secretary General
International Chamber of Shipping
Peter
Swift
Managing Director
Intertanko
Joseph
J. Cox
President
American Chamber of Shipping
Roger
Holt
Managing Director
Intercargo
Nicolette
van der Jagt
Secretary General
European Shippers' Council
Alphons
Guinier
Secretary General
European Community Shipowners' Association
Marianne
Lie
Managing Director
Norwegian Shipowners
Association
Pieter
van Agtmaal
Managing Director
Royal Association of Netherlands Shipowners
Bob
North
President
North Star Maritime
Nikolaos
Mikelis
Director
Lyras Shipping Ltd
Clay
Maitland
Managing
Partner
International Registries, Inc.
The
Marshall Islands
Ship Registry
Arthur
Bowring
Managing Director
Hong Kong Shipowners Association
Harilaos
Psaraftis
Professor
National Technical University
of Athens
THE PROGRAMME
INFORMATION:
Jannis
Kostoulas
Managing Director
MARE FORUM
Beurs - World Trade Center
P.O. Box 30027
3001 DA Rotterdam
The Netherlands
|
