BRUSSELS' recent sabre-rattling over emissions controls for shipping has been an unwelcome reminder of the power politics of the recent past.
The apparent ceasefire between the International Maritime Organization and the European Commission has held, at least publicly, for some time but with threats now not even bothering to appear with the requisite veil of diplomacy, it is unclear how long any gentlemen’s agreement can last.
The commission's arguments are well rehearsed, if not entirely popular. By holding the regional action gun to the head of the IMO, it is effectively ensuring progress is made. The ends justify the means and swift progress is ushered in where procrastination and horse trading would otherwise sit, or so the reasoning goes.
Unfortunately, the same leverage does not apply in reverse. The question of how to force governments that so eagerly force through global rules but then fail to ratify them has not been adequately answered.
Like Brussels, the US has been thumping the table for improved environmental regulation and is not averse to throwing its weight around to get it. Yet Marpol VI is still "lumbering through the sausage machine of US legislation", as one industry official so eloquently put it recently.
The idea of joined-up government thinking is an attractive one. But too often it remains just an idea. Global regulation for a global industry is the antidote to the chaos and inefficiency of local regulations.
Comments (1)
Comment by
Captain Doctor Ivica Tijardovic, PhD
- Tuesday 11 March 2008
We appreciate IMO, we appreciate the EU, we appreciate national laws, but who should we listen to? Do we follow the IMO's conventions or EU directives or national laws? The Erika case accepted national law, not IMO regulations. The European Marine Fuel Directive, which sets lower levels for sulphur emissions, came into force three months before the area became a new SECA under IMO regulations. Those at sea are very confused as there are too many regulations from different parties; so for them the only judge is a coast guard. Whatever the coast guard says that is the law. It is still not clear whether EU is represented with one voice or 27 voices. There are too many dilemmas for professionals so they expect better co-operation between politicians wherever they are.
Post your comment
Comments are limited to 2000 characters and will be approved before display.
