Ics Annual Review 2017
Ics Annual Review 2017
Ics Annual Review 2017
Annual Review
1
We acknowledge with thanks the use
of photos from the following associations
and their member shipping companies:
Chamber of Shipping of British Columbia
Cyprus Shipping Chamber
Danish Shipowners’ Association
Filipino Shipowners’ Association
German Shipowners’ Association
Indian National Shipowners’ Association
Irish Chamber of Shipping
Italian Shipowners’ Association
Maritime Industry Australia Limited
Norwegian Shipowners’ Association
Portuguese Shipowners’ Association
Royal Association of Netherlands Shipowners
Russian Chamber of Shipping
Singapore Shipping Association
Swedish Shipowners’ Association
Turkish Chamber of Shipping
Union of Brazilian Shipowners
Union of Greek Shipowners
2
International Chamber of Shipping
Annual Review
4
Representing the Global Shipping Industry
5
Chairman’s
Overview
ICS Chairman
Esben Poulsson (Singapore)
This Annual Review explores a broad cross- But I am extremely pleased that, in
section of the many important matters in conjunction with other international
which ICS is engaged with regulators and shipping associations, ICS has succeeded in
other intergovernmental bodies that impact persuading IMO Member States to develop a
upon the global shipping industry. comprehensive Road Map for CO2 reduction,
with an initial strategy to be agreed in 2018.
Following my election as ICS Chairman last
year, this is the first occasion when I have Sticking with environmental regulation, there
been responsible for presenting the foreword. were two other very important developments
And it has certainly been an interesting year in the past 12 months: the decision by IMO
in which to assume the Chairmanship of the Member States to implement the global
industry’s principal global trade association. sulphur in fuel cap in 2020, and the deposit
of the necessary number of government
A large amount of effort within ICS is
ratifications of the IMO Ballast Water
currently being focused on persuading
Management Convention to trigger its
the International Maritime Organization
worldwide entry into force in September 2017.
(IMO) to develop some suitably ambitious
The economic and operational implications of
CO2 reduction objectives, on behalf of the
both will be profound indeed. I am confident
sector as a whole, in response to the Paris
that these major changes will eventually
Agreement on climate change.
achieve their intended objectives, but only
The long term future of the industry – like the provided that governments are willing to
rest of the world economy – must eventually think carefully about implementation and the
be fossil fuel free. The trajectory for getting transition to the new requirements.
there, not least the development of alternative
While much of ICS’s work is about preparing
fuels, could well take several decades, and
for the future, we must always be cognizant of
probably presents a far greater challenge for
lessons from the past. I greatly enjoyed visiting
shipping than for most land based sectors.
the exhibition, at the IMO headquarters in
London, showing the impressive progress that
Esben Poulsson, with IMO Secretary-General, Kitack Lim, has been made, through a combination of
at The Economist World Ocean Summit, Bali, February 2017 regulation and industry measures, to reduce oil
pollution from ships since the ‘Torrey Canyon’
incident 50 years ago.
In the wider world, the election of President
Trump has focused new attention on free
trade principles which can too easily be taken
for granted. ICS has long been involved in
quiet diplomatic work with governments
behind the scenes in support of free trade in
shipping. Now this work has suddenly become
a subject of enhanced importance.
6
Representing the Global Shipping Industry
Esben Poulsson
7
Key Issues in 2017
Reducing CO2
An Initial IMO Strategy for 2018
IMO needs to come Shipping is by far the most carbon efficient form of
commercial transport, and has a good story to tell when
forward with it comes to reducing CO2 emissions and playing its part in
the prevention of dangerous climate change. Fuel is by far
some ambitious a ship operator’s greatest cost, so cutting CO2 emissions is
enlightened self interest.
CO2 reduction As a result of fuel efficiency measures, the total CO2 emissions
from the sector are considerably lower than they were in
objectives on behalf 2008, despite increased maritime trade, while CO2 emissions
from the rest of the world economy are projected to continue
of the international increasing until the 2030s. However, the industry recognises
that shipping needs to do even more and is determined to
shipping sector step up to the challenge, notwithstanding the considerable
technical and political difficulties.
In June 2017, IMO Member States will begin the development
of a Road Map to reduce CO2 emissions from the international
shipping sector, in line with the ambitious spirit of the
Paris Agreement, adopted by Parties to the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in
2015. The intention is for IMO to agree an initial strategy for
this Road Map in 2018.
This important decision by the IMO Marine Environment
Protection Committee (MEPC) in October 2016 was at
the direct request of ICS and other international shipping
associations, which called on IMO to act as soon as possible
in order to prevent the serious threat of unilateral or regional
action by governments.
ICS participated at an IMO side event at the As reported elsewhere in this Annual Review, the European
UNFCCC climate change conference in Marrakech Union is currently giving consideration to a recommendation
in November 2016 from its Parliament that international shipping – including
non-EU flag ships – should be incorporated in the EU Emissions
Trading System. This would destroy the level playing in
shipping and greatly damage the authority of IMO, while doing
little to help further reduce shipping’s CO2 emissions which
can only be achieved meaningfully with a global solution. But
the danger of unilateral action also exists elsewhere, including
Canada and California – and even China – which have already
introduced carbon pricing at local level and could potentially
decide to extend this to shipping.
8
Representing the Global Shipping Industry
9
Reducing CO2
An Initial IMO Strategy for 2018
10
Representing the Global Shipping Industry
11
Reducing CO2
An Initial IMO Strategy for 2018
12
Representing the Global Shipping Industry
13
Key Issues in 2017
Ballast Convention
Making it a success
In September 2017, Thirteen years after its original adoption by IMO Member
States, the Ballast Water Management (BWM) Convention will
the IMO Ballast enter into force in September 2017. It has already proved to be
one of the most complex and controversial pieces of technical
Water Management regulation ever agreed by IMO. However, there may now be
light in sight at the end of a very long tunnel.
Convention will ICS fully supports the intention of the BWM Convention,
which is to address the problem of invasive marine organisms
enter into force. having damaging impacts on local ecosystems through their
unwitting transportation in ships’ ballast tanks. However, it
ICS is committed to was adopted under huge political pressure back in 2004, when
the technology required for ships to treat millions of gallons
making it a success. of ballast water simply did not exist outside of a laboratory. As
a consequence, the enormous costs of installing completely
unproven systems were dramatically underestimated, first by
the manufacturers, and then by governments who believed
what they wanted to hear.
In 2017, the total cost of ensuring compliance across the entire
world fleet is estimated to be about US$100 billion. But after
so many years of delay, the entry into force of the Convention
should at least give shipowners some of the certainty needed
to make important decisions about whether to retrofit the new
equipment or, because of the prohibitive cost (US$1- 5 million
per ship) send older ships for early recycling.
But the Convention’s imminent entry into force still presents ship
operators with a serious challenge because of the expected lack
of shipyard and manufacturing capacity needed to retrofit the
new treatment systems on around 40,000 vessels over a five
year period. The situation has been further complicated by the
United States which is not a Party to the BWM Convention. The
U.S. has unilaterally adopted its own ballast water regulations,
with which ships trading to the U.S. must already comply.
In October 2016, following a major industry campaign led by
ICS over several years, the IMO Marine Environment Protection
Committee (MEPC) finally adopted revised and more robust
type-approval standards to be included in what will soon
become a mandatory Code for Approval of Ballast Water
Management Systems – the previous ‘G8’ Guidelines having
been found by shipowners to be inadequate in a number of
key areas. IMO has recommended that administrations apply
14
Representing the Global Shipping Industry
15
Ballast convention
Making it a success
16
Representing the Global Shipping Industry
17
Key Issues in 2017
18
Representing the Global Shipping Industry
19
Global Sulphur Cap
Preparing for 2020
Now that the 2020 date has been decided, ship operators and oil refiners need
to prepare for implementation. The oil refining industry in particular will need
to take important decisions to ensure that sufficient quantities of compliant fuel
will indeed be produced. But governments need to monitor this carefully, since
it may be in the refiners’ commercial interest to keep the supply of compliant
fuel as tight as possible. It is important to remember that the IMO decision
focused completely on the likely availability of compliant fuel and took no
account of the possible purchase price.
It is anticipated that due to the massive scale and global nature of the switch,
oil refiners may be very hard pressed to supply sufficient quantities of 0.5%
sulphur fuel, produced specifically for marine use, to satisfy demand in all
regions from day one (i.e. 1 January 2020).
In some locations, it is possible that other more expensive fuels, such as 0.1%
sulphur distillate, will more likely be available, and that refiners and bunker
suppliers may focus on meeting increased demand for existing low sulphur
products in the knowledge that shipping companies will have no choice but to
pay for them regardless of the price. This is therefore what many ships may have
to use in order to comply. But even if significant quantities of 0.5% sulphur fuel
are widely available in 2020, it is possible that the price may not be substantially
cheaper than 0.1% fuel due to the major investment required to produce it.
As a consequence of these supply issues shipowners could take an alternative
route deciding to invest in other compliance mechanisms (which are permitted
by MARPOL) such as exhaust gas cleaning systems (‘scrubbers’) or the use of
low sulphur fuels such as LNG. The decision to implement the 0.5% sulphur
cap in 2020 may also affect decisions on
whether or not older and less fuel efficient
IMO agreement to reduce ships will be sent for early recycling.
atmospheric pollution from ships
Sulphur content of fuel permitted in Emission Control Areas As the implementation date for the global cap
approaches, it will be vital for IMO Member
1.5 1.5 States to start addressing issues associated
1.5% with compliance, in order to ensure fair
competition and the maintenance of a level
1.0 1.0
1.0% playing field.
Immediately after the MEPC decision in 2016,
0.5 0.5
BIMCO, ICS and other shipping associations
0.1% submitted a joint paper to IMO highlighting
those fuel availability and implementation
2005 2010 2015
issues that will need to be resolved before
2020. The industry paper was well received
20
Representing the Global Shipping Industry
21
Global Sulphur Cap
Preparing for 2020
22
Representing the Global Shipping Industry
LNG
As well as being sulphur free, liquefied natural gas
(LNG) has the attraction of producing slightly less
CO2 emissions (although this has to be set against
the potential dangers of methane slip, methane
being a worse GHG than CO2).
However, while many new ships are being fitted
with dual fuel systems, and others are being
constructed with the option to permit their
installation at some point in the future, for many
However, depending on the ship type, size and
existing vessels the engineering involved may be
voyage length, there are significant practical design
too costly to permit retrofitting.
issues to be addressed, not least those relating to the
The other major unknown is the extent to which the complexity and cost of LNG containment systems,
current lack of LNG infrastructure will be addressed together with size and location of bunker tanks and
before 2020. The European Commission was pressing their impact on cargo carrying capacity and/or the
for a law making it mandatory for EU ports to have operating range of the ship.
LNG bunkering facilities in place, but this was watered
Adding to the uncertainly about the comparative costs
down by EU Member States, possibly setting back
of LNG and low sulphur fuel, there are also questions
the widespread use of LNG by several years. That
about the US shale gas revolution and whether
said, LNG bunkering facilities are now starting to be
this will continue to deliver relatively cheap LNG, or
established in a growing number of ports worldwide
whether it will be halted by oil producers continuing
and – with some extra encouragement from
to fight back by increasing supply (one of the reasons
governments – LNG may become the fuel of choice
for lower fuel prices since 2015).
for more new ships in the 2020s.
Methanol
In the medium term, there is also the possibility of ships using other fuels such as methanol, which for some
ships might produce a clean and economically viable alternative. There have been concerns about safety but
ICS believes that, following favourable trials, use of such alternatives should be permitted, with risks being
identified and mitigation measures developed
as a future part of the new IMO Code for
Ships Using Gases or Other Low Flashpoint
Fuels (IGF Code). These measures would also
need to be supplemented with appropriate
training for seafarers given the potential
risks to ships’ crews and the need for a full
understanding of how these fuels should
be used.
23
Key Issues in 2017
Pollution Compensation
Global regime under threat
24
Representing the Global Shipping Industry
These developments include the controversial 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
decision of the Spanish Supreme Court,
in January 2016, relating to the ‘Prestige’ Source: Lloyd’s List Intelligence Casualty Statistics, Analysis: AGCS
incident of 2002, and the enactment of
a new domestic law in France, in August Reduction in Major Oil Spills
2016, providing for unlimited liability Average number of major oil spills per year (over 700 tonnes)
for environmental damage. This latter 30 30
development followed on from the decision 25 25
24.5
of the French Supreme Court in 2012 on the 20 20
‘Erika’ incident of 1999.
15 15
The court decisions in both cases are 10 9.4 10
7.7
inconsistent with the fundamental principles 5 1.7 5
3.2
of the IMO Civil Liability and FUND
1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010-16
Conventions and threaten to disturb the
balance of interests on which the international Source: ITOPF
oil spill compensation system is based.
25
Pollution Compensation
Global regime under threat
26
Representing the Global Shipping Industry
27
Key Issues in 2017
Constant Change
Continuing Crisis
Policy makers may Shipping has been enduring a serious economic downturn
since the 2008 financial crisis. 2016 was another dramatic year,
not fully appreciate witnessing the collapse of Hanjin, one of the world’s major
container lines. Following a spate of acquisitions and mergers,
the very challenging there will only be 14 major container lines by 2018 out of the
top 20 that existed last year. While, despite some consolidation,
circumstances in there is far less market concentration in dry bulk and tanker
segments, fortunes in these trades are also still decidedly mixed.
which many shipping Freight rates still barely cover operating costs, let alone the
repayment of loans for the vessels themselves. The principal
companies are role of ICS is to represent the industry with governments on
regulatory matters. Policy makers, however, may not always
currently operating fully appreciate the very challenging economic conditions
in which shipping companies are currently operating. It is
nonetheless important to emphasise that there is no evidence
of any decline in the quality and safety of ship operations
worldwide, which continue to be impressive.
2017 looks set to be yet another very difficult year for most
sectors of the shipping industry. While global maritime trade
is projected to increase, this looks likely to be outstripped by
the quantity of new vessels that are scheduled to be delivered
from shipyards – many of which enjoy significant government
support – with the result that there may still be far too many
ships chasing too few cargoes.
More positively, the size of the world order book is in dramatic
decline. The danger, however, is that as shipyards cut their
prices in desperation, large numbers of investors, with little
experience of the risks involved, may be tempted to buy what
1,000 1,000
750 750
28
Representing the Global Shipping Industry
29
Constant Change
Continuing Crisis
But the fact remains that most shipping markets show little
sign of significant improvement. Global maritime trade has
largely continued to grow because of incredible demand from
China. But in recent years there has been a notable fall in the
rate of Chinese GDP growth. While this has averaged around
10% per annum since 1989, Chinese growth in 2016 was the
slowest recorded for 26 years.
As emerging economies like China increasingly come to
resemble OECD economies, a larger proportion of their GDP
growth is taken up by services and domestic consumption.
Services now account for the majority of Chinese GDP (although
this figure is typically around 75% in most OECD economies).
Unlike manufacturing and infrastructure development, this does
not generate the same demand for maritime trade.
As the industry seeks to ready itself for the prospect of an
eventual recovery, it is also about to be confronted with
massive increases to operating costs, primarily due to
important new environmental regulations. The collective
cost to the industry of implementing the IMO Ballast Water
Management Convention, which will enter into force in
September 2017, is expected to exceed US$100 billion. The
additional collective cost to the industry of complying with the
IMO global sulphur in fuel cap in 2020 could be a much as
US$100 billion per annum.
50 50 50
25 25 25
30
Representing the Global Shipping Industry
On the plus side, however, now that shipowners have more certainty about
the timing of these major regulatory changes, they can at last take decisions
about whether to accelerate the recycling of older tonnage, which should have
a positive impact on the supply/demand balance – provided of course these are
not immediately replaced with new builds.
To restore equilibrium in the market, it is clear that a large number of vessels
will need to be recycled before the end of their normal 25 year life. But while
early recycling might be good for the industry as a whole, this may not always
be in the best interests of many individual shipping companies, especially if
their ships are debt free, have been well maintained, and can still be operated
efficiently and profitably.
The position of ICS has always been to oppose the concept of a maximum
age for ships since this could act as a disincentive to the maintenance of older
vessels with implications for safety and pollution prevention. State support for
early ship recycling is also potentially counterproductive if it is conditional on
building more unwanted tonnage.
It is difficult to speak in terms of shipping being in crisis when this seems to be
never ending and appears to have become the ‘new normal’. However, in this
time of general political and economic uncertainty, there is at least a feeling
in 2017 that the industry is at the beginning of the end of this very difficult
period, which is now one of the longest shipping downturns that has ever
been recorded.
31
the year
in review
Ship Recycling
ICS fully accepts the responsibility of the made in encouraging important ship recycling
shipping industry to promote the safe and nations such as India towards ratification,
environmentally sustainable disposal of ships although there is a danger that these efforts
throughout the world’s ship recycling yards, could be undermined by regional action being
most of which are located in developing taken by the European Union.
nations. ICS is therefore committed to
Seven years after its adoption, it is
ensuring that governments ratify the IMO
disappointing that the Hong Kong Convention
Hong Kong Convention on ship recycling as
has still only been ratified by a handful of IMO
soon as possible.
Member States. It is especially disappointing
Momentum for ratification might at last that EU Member States, which originally
be starting to develop, with the world’s pushed hard for the Convention’s adoption,
largest flag state, Panama, having ratified have been so slow to ratify, instead focusing
the Convention in September 2016 joining their efforts on a unilateral EU Regulation on
Belgium, France and Norway; with Denmark, ship recycling which started to take effect in
Turkey and others expected to follow suit 2016. Governments need to make ratification
during 2017. Progress is also slowly being a far more urgent priority if they are serious
about improving conditions in recycling yards
on a global basis.
lines on
Shipping Industry Guide
ICS, with the support of a wide coalition of
Transitional Measures international shipping industry organisations,
g
for Shipowners Sellin
r Recycling continues to promote its expanded Transitional
Ships fo
In Preparation for the
entry into force of the
IMO Hong Measures for Shipowners Selling Ships for
ation
the EU Ship Recycling Regul
Kong Convention and
Recycling, which were published to assist the
Second Edition 2016
industry in 2016. Their purpose is to allow
shipowners to adhere to the Hong Kong
Convention’s requirements, as far as practicably
possible, in advance of the full implementation
of a legally binding global regime.
The industry’s Transitional Measures set
INTERNATIONAL
CHAMBER OF SHIPPING
International Association of Classifica
tion Societies
out detailed advice on the preparation and
BIMCO
International Association
International Parcel Tankers
of Dry Cargo Shipowners
Association
of Independent Tanker Owners
maintenance of inventories of hazardous
International Association
Oil Compan
Internat
ies
ional
Internat
Transpo rt
ional Marine Forum
Workers ’ Federation materials as required by the IMO Convention
Supported by
Asian Shipowners’ Forum
European Community Shipown
ers’ Associations (and by the separate new EU Regulation
which has already entered into force and
which also has implications for non-EU flag
32
Representing the Global Shipping Industry
ships calling at EU ports). The Guidelines also at promoting ship recycling yards located
address measures which shipping companies within the EU.
are strongly recommended to take now when
Meanwhile, in co-operation with ECSA, ICS
selling end of life ships. As well as serving as
is also firmly resisting proposals, developed
a sign of good faith by the shipping industry
by consultants for the European Commission,
prior to the entry into force of the IMO regime,
to compel ships to pay for EU ship recycling
these Transitional Measures should help
licences when calling at EU ports. Under these
companies avoid falling foul of the EU regime.
proposals, the money visiting ships would have
An important aspect of the EU Regulation is to pay into a proposed EU fund, including
the establishment of an EU List of approved those flying the flag of non-EU nations, would
ship recycling yards which EU shipowners only be returned at the end of the vessel’s
will be required to use when disposing of working life, many years later, when it will
redundant ships. However the first edition probably have a different owner, and only then
of the List, published by the European on condition that the ship is recycled at a yard
Commission in December 2016, only includes approved by the European Commission.
18 yards, all of which are located in Europe, If these draconian proposals to establish an
despite applications having been received EU ship recycling fund were taken forward,
from non-EU yards. they would cause serious problems with the
Unless the EU recognises facilities in non-EU EU’s trading partners. As well as being unduly
nations, including yards in southern Asia, it complex, wildly impractical and very difficult
seems unlikely that sufficient yard capacity will for the EU to administer, the establishment of
have been approved to meet the demand for such a fund would likely be perceived outside
recycling from EU shipping companies once the the EU as anti-competitive interference with
EU Regulation fully applies, probably at the end the conduct of international shipping, creating
of 2018. Of greater concern to ICS, however, the danger that other nations might apply
is the very negative signal which the omission retaliatory measures.
of non-EU yards presents to those developing ECSA and ICS have prepared a detailed
nations whose support will be needed to make commentary on the proposals for an EU fund,
the Hong Kong Convention a success. which they have shared with the European
A number of yards in India have recently Commission, as well as EU Member States
made dramatic efforts to improve conditions, and the European Parliament. Discussions will
several gaining certification from classification continue throughout 2017.
societies confirming that they comply with
Hong Kong Convention standards. It is
important that such efforts are acknowledged
by the European Commission as it expands
its list during 2017. Otherwise there is a
danger that the EU Regulation could actually
undermine the improvement of standards
worldwide if those yards which have
demonstrated compliance with the Hong
Kong Convention do not end up on the
official list of approved yards that can be
used by EU shipowners.
The European Commission needs to
demonstrate that the EU List genuinely exists
to promote the raising of recycling standards
globally, rather than being some kind of
protectionist vehicle which is aimed
33
EU Emissions Trading System
As explained elsewhere in this Annual Review,
ICS is working intensively with other industry
associations to encourage IMO to adopt
an ambitious strategy for CO2 emissions
reduction by the international shipping sector,
following its decision in October 2016 to
develop a Road Map, with an initial strategy
to be agreed in 2018. Unfortunately these
efforts to reach a global agreement continue
to be frustrated by developments in Europe.
In February 2017, the European Parliament
Brexit United Kingdom) in order to minimise
voted to propose that international shipping,
exposure to the EU system. Moreover, the
including non-EU flag ships, should be
unilateral application of the ETS to shipping
incorporated into the EU Emissions Trading
could generate trade disputes with China
System from 2023 (with the possible option
and other Asian nations, as happened several
of ships instead being able to pay a levy into
years ago when the EU tried unsuccessfully to
an EU fund). As a ‘compromise’, however, the
impose its ETS on international aviation.
Parliament has proposed that this regional
measure might only be implemented should But ICS is particularly concerned that this
IMO fail to agree an ‘acceptable’ package of vote for a unilateral, regional measure simply
alternative measures by 2021. In other words, risks polarising debate among IMO Member
the proposal is being presented as a threat. States which have already agreed to develop a
strategy for reducing shipping’s CO2 emissions
Emissions trading, which has been developed
in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement
primarily for industries such as power
on climate change.
generation, coal mining, and cement and
steel production, is completely inappropriate During the course of 2017, the Parliament’s
for international shipping which mostly proposal will have to be considered by the EU
comprises SMEs typically operating less than Member States and the European Commission
ten ships. Moreover, its unilateral application via the so called ‘trilogue’ process. Reducing
to global shipping would create serious CO2 from shipping is a global problem which
market distortion, as many ships would divert can only be addressed successfully at global
to non-EU ports (including potentially a post- level by IMO. EU Member States, which
34
Representing the Global Shipping Industry
35
However, ICS support for this IMO compromise The EU Regulation was adopted during 2015,
has been given with the understanding that and includes controversial provisions for the
the mechanism should be simple for ships submission of data by ships on so called
to administer and primarily be based on fuel ‘transport work’ using different metrics to
consumption. ICS and most non-EU IMO those now agreed at IMO, in addition to data
Member States remain strongly opposed to on fuel consumption. Moreover, discussions
the use of such a mechanism as a means for in which ICS has been participating, within
eventually establishing a mandatory system of the European Sustainable Shipping Forum,
operational efficiency indexing for application suggest that the verification and certification
to individual ships, the ultimate purpose of method being developed will be overly
which would be to penalise vessels on the basis complex and unfit for purpose. EU climate
of a theoretical and arbitrary operational rating. officials seemingly wish to ignore the tried
This is because of the potential inaccuracies of and tested processes for statutory certification
such a metric and thus the significant danger used in international shipping, instead
of market distortion. proposing an unjustifiably large administrative
burden for ship operators.
For example, the fuel consumed by two
identical ships during two similar voyages Of even greater concern is that commercially
will vary considerably due to factors such sensitive information will be published
as currents, ocean conditions and weather. annually by the European Commission, along
Similarly, fuel consumed by individual ships, with ship name and company identifiers. This
particularly those in tramp sectors, may vary is with the intention of facilitating comparison
considerably from one year to the next, being of the supposed operational efficiency of
dependent on trading patterns and the nature individual ships – which is very likely to be
of charters over which the ship operator has inaccurate and very different to the actual
little control. fuel efficiency or CO2 emitted in real life. In
short, the EU Regulation contains many of
In the interest of maintaining the primacy the elements which most IMO Member States
of IMO, ICS has argued throughout the have chosen to reject when adopting the
process that the question of additional CO2 global system.
reduction measures should be left open
until a mandatory CO2 emissions reporting
system has been agreed. It is with this broad
understanding that IMO has since pursued
its work, including the important decision
in 2016 to develop a Road Map for CO2
reduction in line with the Paris Agreement on
climate change.
ICS has therefore been most concerned by
the European Union’s decision to pre-empt
the IMO negotiations by unilaterally adopting
a regional Regulation on the Monitoring,
Reporting and Verification (MRV) of
individual ship emissions, in advance of IMO
completing its work on data collection. The
EU Regulation will also apply to non-EU flag
ships trading to Europe, with the apparent
intention of subsequently developing this into
a mandatory operational efficiency indexing
system, i.e. an unacceptable form of Market
Based Measure by stealth.
36
Representing the Global Shipping Industry
The EU Regulation is meant to be fully far as possible with the system now agreed
implemented in 2018 (one year before the by IMO. The industry emphasised its concern
IMO system) although it also contains text that, in addition to complying with the IMO
to the effect that the system can be amended system, all ships calling at EU ports – including
to reflect the final outcome of any agreement non-EU flag ships – will soon have to comply
at IMO. In practice, however, there is no and send data about their ships directly to
guarantee that the EU will be willing to
the European Commission. Some of the
fully align its rules with the agreed
requirements under the EU Regulation actually
international consensus.
have to be complied with during 2017.
In January 2017, ICS – in conjunction with
Apart from the need to have global
the European Community Shipowners’
Associations (ECSA), the Asian Shipowners’ regulatory uniformity and avoid dual systems,
Association (ASA) and other international ICS believes it will be important for the EU
associations – sent a letter to the three EU to send an early signal to other IMO Member
Commissioners for environment, climate States that it intends to help achieve a
change and transport, requesting them to single CO2 data collection system for
ensure that the EU regime will be aligned as international shipping.
37
With encouragement from the industry, A signal from the Commission confirming
non-EU Member States have been persuaded that it is taking the necessary steps to align
to accept the IMO ‘three step’ process and the EU regime with the IMO data collection
the adoption of the CO2 data collection regulation would therefore be most helpful
system, as a precursor to consideration to avoid polarisation during the next round
of additional measures, but with the of discussions in 2017 as work begins on the
understanding that this would help to IMO Road Map, stimulating further progress
prevent unilateral action. towards an ambitious global solution.
38
Representing the Global Shipping Industry
39
The conflicting IMO and U.S. requirements, being passed by the House of Representatives,
when combined with the small number the Vessel Incidental Discharge Act (VIDA)
of systems fully approved by the USCG, is stalled while in Conference Committee with
producing a very difficult situation for shipping the Senate during the final days of the Obama
companies that wish to trade in U.S. waters. Administration. However, a fresh bipartisan
effort to introduce a similar bill to Congress
The situation in the U.S is further complicated
was made in February 2017, and is fully
by the fact that the Environmental Protection
supported by ICS.
Agency (EPA) is responsible for vessel
discharges, including ballast water, that are In September 2016, during the biennial
regulated by the Clean Water Act, while United States dialogue meeting with the
individual U.S. states including California and Consultative Shipping Group (CSG) of
New York, have also sought to apply their maritime administrations, a delegation of ICS
own standards. member national associations impressed upon
USCG the great importance of coming to a
In 2016, efforts were made in Congress –
pragmatic solution on ballast water issues,
with the support of ICS national associations
in order to avoid chaos. In co-operation with
including the Chamber of Shipping of America
IMO Member States, ICS will continue these
– to make USCG solely responsible for
important efforts throughout 2017.
implementing a single U.S. standard. Despite
40
Representing the Global Shipping Industry
In view of the 1 January 2017 implementation accordance with STCW 2010 competence
date, maritime administrations should, where standards using the ICS books for cadets.
necessary, have approved any special updating Many maritime administrations have approved
courses for seafarers, and made any necessary these ICS books for use in conjunction with
arrangements for the issue and revalidation of their national certification regime including,
seafarers’ certificates in accordance with the significantly, the Philippines, which produces a
2010 amendments. In their capacity as flag special edition of the ICS books tailored for its
states, administrations have also needed to be own certification system.
ready to process a potentially large number of
During 2017, ICS will be publishing an updated
applications for flag state endorsements.
version of its Personal Training and Service
At the IMO Maritime Safety Committee Record Book for qualified seafarers, which has
in November 2016, ICS raised concerns been fully updated to take account of STCW
about the extent to which all maritime 2010 as well as relevant requirements under the
administrations were fully prepared for the ILO Maritime Labour Convention. The intention
end of the transition period and the possibility is to provide seafarers and their employers with
that, though no fault of their own, some ships a uniform means of recording the training and
and crews might be unfairly penalised for not drills which have been undertaken, for use
having all of the required certification. As a when transferring between ships or employers,
consequence, IMO issued guidance to Port or when seeking to revalidate certificates.
State Control inspection regimes requesting
that they apply a pragmatic approach until
1 July 2017, in the event that teething MEDICAL FITNESS STCW REGULATION I/9, MLC
REGULATION 1�2
10
problems persist.
Seafarers are required to hold
a valid medical certificate attesting
that they are medically fit to
Name of Issuing Authority perform their duties at sea.
Medical Certificate No. (if
any) Date of Examination
Date of Expiry Restrictions or Limitations
(if any)
federation
OF SHIPPING INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING
INTERNATIONAL CHAMBER
Type of Vaccination
Date of Vaccination
Expiry Date Type of Vaccination
Date of Vaccination
Expiry Date
41
Notes
Recording of personal medical
information in this section is
assistance in the event of an optional and at the discretion
emergency on board ship. of the seafarer, however the
summary record this section
Any certificates or documentatio provides could be of valuable
n related to vaccinations and
does not replace any applicable revaccinations should be kept
requirements for certification on board with the medical
or documentation related to certificate. The completion
vaccinations. of this section of the book
Personal Training and
Service Record Book
Global Supply of Seafarers
At the IMO Maritime Safety Committee in According to the latest ICS and BIMCO
May 2016, ICS and BIMCO launched the Report, the global supply of seafarers in
results of their latest five year Manpower 2015 was estimated at 1,647,500 of which
Report on the global supply and demand about 774,000 are officers and 873,500 are
for seafarers. This was a major project ratings. Encouragingly, the worldwide supply
conducted with assistance from DM of officers is estimated to have increased
Consulting and Dalian Maritime University, considerably since 2010, with the supply of
overseen by a steering committee of ratings increasing too.
industry representatives.
2,000,000 2,000,000
1,500,000 1,500,000
1,000,000 1,000,000
500,000 500,000
119,000 102,000
0 0
-16,500
1,000,000 1,000,000
750,000 750,000
500,000 500,000
250,000 250,000
0 0
-16,500
-92,000
-147,500
2015 2020 2025
42
Representing the Global Shipping Industry
ILO Developments
The purpose of the International Labour
Organization (ILO) Maritime Labour
Convention (MLC) is to establish a global
level playing field of employment standards
for seafarers, embracing the ILO concept
of ‘Decent Work’. Over 80 nations have so
far ratified the Convention which entered
into force in 2013. This now embraces all of
the major seafarer supply nations, including
China, India and the Philippines, and the
MLC’s provisions are now being fully enforced
worldwide through Port State Control.
Important matters covered by the MLC
include the obligations of employers with
respect to contractual arrangements with
seafarers, oversight of manning agencies,
health and safety, work hour limits, crew
accommodation, catering standards and
seafarers’ welfare.
43
Unlike IMO Conventions, the MLC was the maritime instruments. The
product of ILO’s unique tripartite process. STC also agreed amendments
ICS was the official ILO social partner that highlighting the importance
negotiated the text on behalf of maritime of health and safety on
employers with governments and ICS’s board ships and proposed
counterpart, the International Transport that account should be taken
Workers’ Federation (ITF) which represents of new voluntary Guidance
seafarers. ICS therefore has a special on Eliminating Shipboard
interest in ensuring that the MLC is being Harassment and Bullying,
properly implemented. which is now being jointly
Unlike many other ILO Conventions, the promoted by ICS and ITF following its launch
ILO MLC is an organic instrument that can last year. Following adoption by the ILO
be subject to continuous change and is International Labour Conference in June
now firmly established as the fourth pillar 2016, these MLC amendments will now enter
of globally enforced maritime legislation into force in late 2018.
(alongside the SOLAS, MARPOL and Preparations are beginning for the third
STCW Conventions). Special Tripartite Committee (STC) for the
In 2016, in Geneva, ICS co-ordinated MLC scheduled to be held Geneva in early
employers’ representatives from over 20 2018. The STC agenda will include the future
national shipowners’ associations at the process for the submission of amendments
second meeting of the Special Tripartite to the MLC, and the issue of how best to
Committee (STC). The STC was established approach the payment of wages during
to keep the working of the MLC under situations of piracy. ILO correspondence
continuous review and to consider proposals groups have been formed on these issues in
for further amendments. which ICS has participated actively. The work
of these groups was reviewed at an
The 2016 Tripartite meeting agreed to an ICS
ILO intersessional meeting in Geneva held
proposal to harmonise provisions related to
in April 2017, with ICS co-ordinating the
the renewal of Maritime Labour Certificates
Shipowner Group.
with similar certificate renewal provisions as
are contained in other international Other issues which are likely to be
discussed by the STC in 2018 include flag
state implementation problems; whether the
MLC amendments addressing abandonment
(which entered into force in January 2017)
have had a positive effect, and issues arising
from the reports submitted to the ILO
Committee of Experts.
Meanwhile, other MLC issues being
addressed by the ICS Labour Affairs
Committee during 2017 include: Australia’s
interpretation of the ILO MLC concerning
the maximum period of continuous seagoing
service before leave is required: the expiry
date of a seafarer’s contract (as stipulated
by the MLC) and potential PSC difficulties.
ICS is also working with ITF with the aim of
producing a new handbook on the provision
of welfare services to support the provisions
of the MLC.
44
Representing the Global Shipping Industry
45
Crew Repatriation
The ILO Maritime Labour Convention (MLC) This distinction might seem academic to
requires shipowners to demonstrate that seafarers. However, in many cases of reported
they have financial security in place to ensure abandonment the flag state has in fact made
that repatriation will occur in almost every arrangements to repatriate stranded crews
circumstance, including bankruptcy. Without who have decided to stay with their ship
such evidence, the shipowner will not be until they are sure that any unpaid wages
issued with a Maritime Labour Certificate and will be recovered.
will therefore be unable to trade.
The issues are complex because the provision of
In normal circumstances, it is always the financial security for potentially unpaid wages
responsibility of the shipping company to is a liability which is hard to quantify and thus
ensure that the seafarers it employs are complicated to insure. That is why the issue
repatriated to their home countries. In the was not fully resolved by the ILO Diplomatic
rare and unfortunate event that normal Conference which adopted the MLC ten years
arrangements fail, such as when a shipping ago. But the occasions when crews decide
company goes bankrupt, the flag state has to stay with their ships, despite an offer of
an obligation to repatriate the crew to their repatriation, should now reduce dramatically
countries of residence and at no cost to following an important amendment to the
the seafarer. MLC which entered into force in January 2017,
with the full support of maritime employers
Prior to the entry into force of the ILO MLC,
represented by ICS. This requires shipping
many flag states were reluctant to accept
companies, wishing to be issued with a
this responsibility. But the MLC now makes
Maritime Labour Certificate, to demonstrate
it easier for the costs to be recovered from
that they have the necessary financial security
shipping companies which must have financial
arrangements in place to address unpaid
guarantees in place via insurance companies
wages in the event of bankruptcy.
(normally P&I Clubs) to ensure that seafarers
repatriation costs will always be met, Meanwhile, whenever cases of possible crew
regardless of the seafarers’ nationality, even in abandonment are reported, ICS and ITF now
the event that a company is insolvent. have a mechanism in place, in conjunction
with ILO and IMO, to ensure that, in liaison
But protecting seafarers from being stranded,
with the vessel’s flag state, crews are
and the implementation of an international
repatriated as quickly as possible.
mechanism to ensure the payment of accrued
entitlements, are actually two separate issues.
46
Representing the Global Shipping Industry
47
Mediterranean Migrant Crisis
While no longer dominating headlines in the the merchant seafarers involved are civilians,
same way it did two years, the migrant rescue many of whom have been severely affected by
at sea crisis in Mediterranean is still far from the desperate situations which they have had
over. Shockingly, according to the office of to face.
the United Nations High Commissioner for
Following the agreement in March 2016
Refugees (UNHCR) more than 5,000 migrants
between the EU and Turkey, the large flows of
lost their lives during 2016 while attempting
migrants focused on eastern Mediterranean
to make the dangerous sea crossing in
routes, especially to Greece via Turkey, have
overcrowded and unseaworthy craft – the
reduced significantly. However, following a
highest loss of life yet. In the same period,
temporary respite in the numbers of people
according to the UN, over 350,000 migrants
attempting to make the sea crossing from
entered Europe by sea, most arriving in Italy
North Africa, the central Mediterranean route
and Greece.
has become attractive again. The situation
The main cause of the very large number of has been exacerbated by the lack of central
migrant deaths is the smugglers’ murderous government and ongoing civil conflict in
practice of sending hundreds of people off Libya, which has made it possible for criminal
to sea at the same time making it extremely gangs of people traffickers to operate with
difficult for rescuers to save them all. near impunity. Recent reports that EU funded
efforts by Libyan Coast Guards to intercept
If 2015 is remembered as the year in which
and detain migrants are being undermined by
the humanitarian crisis involving over a million
corruption, which then simply increases the
refugees and migrants seeking to enter Europe
began to spiral out of control, the danger is
that 2017 may be remembered as the year
in which the crisis became institutionalised.
But the concern of ICS and the industry it
represents is primarily humanitarian.
Due to efforts being made by the EU and
NATO navies, merchant shipping has not
been at the forefront of the crisis in quite
the same way it was 18 months ago, when
ships were involved in hundreds of rescue
operations and the rescue of over 60,000
people. The number of rescue operations in
which commercial ships have recently been
involved has decreased to some extent due to
the increase in resources now being provided
by EU Member States and the EU border
agency, FRONTEX, through its Triton and
Poseidon Sea operations. Search and Rescue
(SAR) operations were significantly expanded
following emergency Summits of EU leaders in
2015 in response to the shocking loss of life in
a series of appalling incidents.
However, large numbers of merchant ships are
still routinely diverted by Rescue Co-ordination
Centres to assist in large scale rescue
operations, and it has to be remembered that
48
Representing the Global Shipping Industry
49
Piracy
In March 2017, for the first time in five years, a the need to respond to the migrant crisis in
merchant ship – an oil tanker – was successfully the Mediterranean.
hijacked by Somali pirates, with its crew of
The mandate for the EU counter piracy
Sri Lankan seafarers taken hostage for ransom
operation, Operation Atalanta, has been
(although they were released very quickly
extended until the end of 2018. But its future
following a swift intervention by the authorities
thereafter remains uncertain. ICS, along with
in Puntland).
other industry partners, is in discussion with
It is still too early to tell if this signals the EUNAVFOR about the transition planning for
start of a major resurgence of the piracy 2019 onwards, including what elements of
that occurred in the Indian Ocean between the operation might be maintained, and what
2007 and 2012, when over 4.000 seafarers could be passed over to others such as the
were taken hostage in the most appalling NATO Combined Military Force (CMF) and
conditions. However this incident underlines other independent military deployers including
the vital importance of ships and their China, India, Japan and Russia.
crews remaining vigilant and to continue
applying the latest version of industry
Best Management Practices (BMP4) which
has played such an important part in the
prevention of successful attacks.
The reduction in Somali pirate attacks has
largely been attributed to the combined
success of self-protective measures taken by
shipping companies, including BMP4, the Best Management Practice
Protection against Somalia
s for
Based Piracy
50
Representing the Global Shipping Industry
At the moment ICS is keen to see the Disturbingly, maritime kidnappings showed a
continuation of the Maritime Security Centre threefold increase on 2015, with 62 people
– Horn of Africa (MSCHOA) operated by held for ransom in 15 separate incidents. Just
EUNAVFOR, possibly with an expanded role. ICS over half were captured off West Africa, while
is also exploring the possibility of a contingency 28 were kidnapped from tugs, barges, fishing
EU force that could be called upon quickly in the boats and – more recently – from merchant
event of sudden resurgence in pirate activity. ships, around Malaysia and Indonesia. Recent
kidnappings in the Sulu Sea between east
Elsewhere in the world, piracy and armed
Malaysia and the Philippines, including
robbery continue to be a major threat to
several brutal murders of fishermen and a
shipping, with the ICC International Maritime
yachtsman in early 2017, are a particularly
Bureau recording some 191 incidents in 2016,
serious concern.
many of them serious, with many others
probably going unrecorded.
Shipbuilding Issues
In October 2016, around 200 representatives structure has stimulated various streams of
of classification societies, shipbuilders work over the years and the 2016 meeting
and shipowners came together in Tokyo reflected on the significant work that has
for their annual ‘Tripartite Meeting’ on recently been undertaken, while also reviewing
shipbuilding and design issues of common current activities.
interest. The 2016 meeting, hosted
One of the milestones reviewed by the meeting
by Class NK, the Japanese Shipowners’
was the introduction of the IMO Goal Based
Association and the Shipbuilders’ Association
Standards (GBS) for bulk carriers and oil
of Japan, was organised by ICS – a task
tankers, which entered into force for ships
traditionally rotated among the international
contracted for construction from July 2016. In
shipowners’ associations.
particular, the Tripartite Meetings have helped,
The Tripartite Meeting has been held every over a five year period, to oversee inter-industry
year since 2002, and it was decided that it was agreement about the handling of the content
timely to take stock of the forum’s achievements of the Ship Construction File (SCF), as required
and to fine tune future aspirations. A working by the GBS. The purpose of the SCF is to
group has therefore been convened to make provide information related to the structural
recommendations for consideration at the next design and construction of a ship to those
Tripartite Meeting which will be convened in that need it, to help ensure safe operation
China during November 2017. The Tripartite throughout the vessel’s working life.
51
Among other Tripartite spin off groups, work Reflecting on requirements directly arising
is continuing on fuel data collection (as will be from regulation, the 2016 meeting also
required by mandatory IMO and EU CO2 data agreed that ICS should initiate the collection
collection systems), under the leadership of of experience with the fitting/retrofitting
the International Association of Classification and operation of ballast water treatment
Societies (IACS). There will also be further equipment, and that Intercargo would lead
work on cyber risks and security, also being work to develop appropriate designs for
led by IACS but assisted by BIMCO which incorporating on board storage/disposal
has led development of recent inter-industry facilities for HME (Hazardous to the Marine
guidance on the issue. Environment) cargo residues, and HME cargo
hold washing water. Meanwhile, the Active
During the meeting in October, ICS raised
Shipbuilding Experts’ Federation (ASEF) and
the importance of collating knowledge on
SEA Europe have initiated discussion on
likely ship efficiency improvements from
human element issues, in particular
shipbuilders so that better estimates can be
on training requirements arising out of
made of CO2 reduction performance, and will
innovative technologies.
lead work on this in the coming year.
52
Representing the Global Shipping Industry
53
Fully autonomous ships may be the final is ensuring that shipboard personnel are
level. But in reality, and based on the current equipped with the competence and skills
levels of ‘pull’ from shipowners, it is unlikely required to work effectively with the
the industry will leap from one end of the automated systems that they are expected
continuum to the other. What can be probably to use and manage. At the same time,
be anticipated is a stepwise progression manufacturers need to ensure that these
through increasing levels of automation and systems can work effectively with human
the evolution of smarter, safer ships. beings in a positively reinforcing combination.
But like digitisation, this incremental The message from ICS is a simple one. The
evolution offers both opportunities and risk. future holds many opportunities to enhance
International shipping can probably observe safety, efficiency and sustainability, but
and learn from the experience of counterparts while digitisation and automation may offer
in aviation who have been wrestling with the advantages over current approaches, neither is
opportunities and challenges of automation a magic bullet, and both come with their own
for some time. The single biggest challenge significant new challenges.
54
Representing the Global Shipping Industry
is essential to the future of addressing cyber marine hull and machinery (H&M) and war
risks in the shipping industry and will include an insurance policies, such as the London market
industry level risk assessment. Institute Cyber Attack Exclusion Clause,
Work on updating elements of the industry’s has led to uncertainty about the scope of
Guidelines for Cyber Security Onboard cyber risk cover. ICS discussions with London
Ships has also commenced, with a view to market underwriters have clarified that such
submitting a further edition to IMO during exclusions would only apply to malicious
2017. This update will include additional cyber-attacks intended to inflict harm and
sections on ship/shore interfaces, third not to accidental computer malfunction or
party service providers, cyber safety and breakdown that resulted in a loss that would
insurance considerations. There will also be fall within the H&M policy.
revised guidance on network design and
Apparently, the exclusion in the H&M policies
segmentation of critical systems.
was intended to shift the risk to the war
ICS will continue to participate in industry policies affording underwriters the opportunity
level work on cyber risk management and to cancel the policy and reinstate on more
cyber systems, with a view to ensuring appropriate terms when necessary. This
that shipping companies are provided with explanation, along with the London market’s
sufficient support from manufacturers and confirmation that the risk of a cyber-attack on
classification societies so as to be able to a ship which could lead to systemic loss was
manage cyber risks effectively. considered remote, has led ICS to renew its
Meanwhile, an important aspect of any risk advice to shipowners to continue to press for
management strategy is risk transfer. The the removal of cyber risk exclusions from their
application of exclusions to some commercial commercial marine insurance policies.
55
Pollution Liability and Compensation
Despite the serious threat to the principle An important consideration during the
of limitation of liability discussed elsewhere discussions that led to the adoption by
in this Annual Review, the IMO Civil Liability governments of the Supplementary Fund
(CLC) and FUND Conventions have been Protocol in 2003 was the need to maintain
remarkably effective in ensuring that those an equitable balance in the sharing of
effected by oil pollution from tankers are compensation costs between the shipping
provided with prompt compensation without and oil industries. To support the continuing
legal wrangling. The shipowner’s contribution success of the global regime, the shipping
is paid regardless of fault, and on the rare industry offered to make additional
occasions that valid claims exceed the contributions in certain circumstances and two
shipowner’s liability under the CLC, additional voluntary but binding industry agreements
compensation is provided by the International were adopted known as the Small Tanker Oil
Oil Pollution Compensation Fund (IOPCF) Pollution Indemnification Agreement (STOPIA)
financed by oil importers. and the Tanker Oil Pollution Indemnification
Agreement (TOPIA). While the mechanics of
Today, over US$1 billion is available in
these agreements are complicated, their main
countries that have joined the Supplementary
aim is to maintain an approximately equal
Fund to cover the cost of clean-up and to
apportionment of costs for pollution damage
compensate those affected by a single spill,
claims between the shipping industry and the
a feat which would be near impossible for a
oil importers.
single nation to support alone.
2016 marked ten years since STOPIA and
TOPIA were introduced and the first scheduled
review which was carried out by the IOPCF
and the International Group of P&I Clubs (IG).
The aim was to determine the approximate
proportions in which the overall costs of
pollution damage claims in the previous ten
years have been borne by the shipping and
oil industries. A clause in both agreements
provides that where either party has borne a
proportion exceeding 60% of the overall cost
then measures should be taken to adjust the
financial burden.
A snapshot review of ten years of claims
data from February 2006 to February 2016
in fact showed that shipowners, through
their P&I Clubs, had actually paid 86% of
claims during this period, reflecting that
there have recently been very few large scale
pollution incidents.
However, the shipping industry and the IG
have decided not to take measures to adjust
the financial burden at this review, recognising
that claims are cyclical and that while the
vast majority of tanker incidents continue to
be fully compensated by shipowners alone
without any recourse to the IOPCF, a single
56
Representing the Global Shipping Industry
57
EU Environmental Liability Directive
The EU Environmental Liability Directive
(ELD) was adopted in 2004 to establish a
common framework for the prevention
and remediation of environmental damage
within EU Member States. But environmental
damage resulting from shipping accidents
was excluded from the ELD as shipping
has its own, well-functioning regime for
compensating such damage via the IMO
liability and compensation Conventions.
The European Commission has recently ‘pure environmental damage’ and that the
undertaken a review of the application of the exclusions in the ELD applicable to shipping
ELD, with specific reference to the exceptions accidents should therefore be maintained.
for international shipping. Initially, it was Moreover, if damage exceeds the shipowner’s
feared that the maritime exceptions might limits of liability, compensation is further
be under threat as one study associated guaranteed by the International Oil Pollution
with the review identified that the absence Compensation Fund (IOPCF) whereas the ELD
of liability for ‘pure environmental damage’ regime does not provide similar benefits.
might override the reasons for retaining
These arguments were accepted in the
the exclusions. While the ELD does not
European Commission’s final report, published
define ‘pure environmental damage’, it is
in April 2016, which concluded that the
usually considered to mean damage to non-
exceptions should be maintained for the time
marketable or free resources of nature, such
being. Although the Commission considered
as seabirds.
that the standards of remediation are lower
ICS, ECSA and the International Group of P&I in the IMO Conventions than under the ELD,
Clubs strongly disagreed with this particular its report states that the Conventions have
study, arguing that the IMO Conventions a range of other advantages including their
already provide reasonable compensation for worldwide scope.
58
Representing the Global Shipping Industry
The Commission has proposed that it should The slow ratification of the HNS Convention is
explore whether its concerns regarding a concern which is shared by ICS, particularly
the standards of remediation could be as the adoption of the 2010 Protocol was
addressed through non-legislative means intended to overcome any impediments to
– through working towards a common ratification and governments should no longer
understanding of concepts at the IOPC Funds have any reason to delay. A concerted effort
or in other fora composed of Parties to the is currently underway, under the auspices of
Conventions. While the shipping industry IMO, to bring the HNS Convention into force.
does not share the concerns regarding the
In Europe, ongoing discussions on a Council
standards of remediation provided by the IMO
Decision authorising EU Member States to
Conventions, ICS agrees that this is the correct
ratify the HNS Convention look set to come
course to follow if the EU wishes to discuss
to a positive conclusion soon, and it is hoped
the types of environmental damage covered
that this will provide the impetus needed
by the Conventions.
for EU governments to begin ratifying this
In its report on the ELD, the Commission important Convention.
also expressed concern about the slow
uptake of the IMO HNS (liability) Convention The Commission’s report is still under
and recommended that it should be review by the European Parliament, and
considered for deletion from the list of the Commission itself is due to present
exceptions contained in the Directive ‘unless a multi-annual work programme on the
clear evidence of the EU Member States’ joint implementation of the ELD in 2017. But for
commitment to conclude this international now it seems likely that the status quo for
convention arises’. shipping will be maintained.
59
U.S. Energy Exports
ICS is concerned by recent developments that
may signal a more protectionist approach by
the United States with respect to the carriage
of its energy exports, which have continued
to increase as a result of the ‘shale revolution’
and the lifting of the 40 year prohibition on
the export of crude oil that was enacted by
Congress under the previous Administration. and defence to the growth in energy exports
being carried on non-U.S. ships. Because of
In February 2017, Congressman John
the significantly higher costs associated with
Garamendi introduced ‘The Energizing American
employing U.S. seafarers (which is a U.S. flag
Maritime Act’ proposing new legislation which
requirement) carrying energy exports on U.S.
would require 30% of all American exports of
flag tankers would of course be far more
crude oil and LNG to be transported on U.S.
expensive than using non-U.S. ships. However,
flag vessels by the year 2025, with 15% to be
the danger is that American oil companies
carried on U.S. flag ships by 2020.
might possibly see this as a price worth paying
Similar proposals have been made in recent if this was the cost of being able to continue
years which were subsequently watered exporting U.S. crude overseas.
down following interventions by the State
There are currently no U.S. flag LNG carriers
Department and the office of the U.S. Trade
Representative, which were conscious of the and virtually all U.S. crude tankers are confined
United States’ free trade commitments in the to protected Jones Act trades. Unlike ships
context of ongoing negotiations at the World in cabotage trades, there is no absolute
Trade Organization about maritime services. requirement for the few U.S. flag ships that
However, following the election of President operate internationally to have been built in the
Trump, this latest attempt at cargo reservation United States. But U.S. shipbuilding interests
could possibly gain more traction. may nevertheless hope to benefit from any
move towards a more protectionist agenda,
A central focus of the new U.S. Administration however unlikely the prospect of them building
is stimulating the economy and increasing economically viable ships in practice.
U.S. jobs, and in theory such a measure would
secure employment for many U.S. seafarers, More generally, ICS is very concerned that any
as it is mandatory to employ them on any discussion of cargo reservation in the United
U.S. flag ship. It is therefore not impossible States could give encouragement to other
that the new Republican Administration could nations that might be contemplating similarly
support such legislation, even though it has protectionist measures. This includes Russia,
been introduced by a Democrat Congressman. which is currently consulting on a law to restrict
the carriage of Russian hydrocarbons on non-
Energy security is a very sensitive political issue Russian flag ships (although it is understood
in the United States, and there are vested that this is primarily aimed at Russian owned
interests, especially in the U.S. shipbuilding ships which flag with open registers).
industry, as well as the seafarers’ unions,
which are seeking to link concerns about jobs In co-operation with the Consultative
Shipping Group of governments (which
represents those maritime administrations
which are committed to free trade principles
in shipping) and their transport attachés in
Washington, ICS members will be monitoring
this and any similar U.S. developments very
closely during 2017.
60
Representing the Global Shipping Industry
61
One question mark perhaps is whether China remembered that nothing has fundamentally
might try to fill the vacuum being left by changed. Trade negotiations are always long
the United States. But it seems unlikely that term projects, often involving two steps
the U.S. would permit its political allies to forward and then one step back. However,
participate in alternative agreements brokered in liaison with the Consultative Shipping
by China, such as the Free Trade Area for the Group of maritime administrations, which is
Asia Pacific promoted by China and Russia at committed to the maintenance of free trade
the APEC Summit in November 2016. principles, it will be important for the industry
to be vigilant against any further moves
Despite the change in atmosphere following
towards protectionism.
the election of President Trump, it has to be
Trade Facilitation
Despite the lack of progress towards a new paper work, simplifying
multilateral agreement on market access formalities, documentary
for maritime services at the World Trade requirements and
Organization (WTO), ICS has welcomed the procedures associated
entry into force, in February 2017, of the with the arrival, stay and departure of ships
WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA). engaged on international voyages.
This is an important global trade agreement FAL is perhaps an unusual IMO instrument as
which, according to the International Chamber it is intended to make life easier for ships and
of Commerce (ICC) – of which ICS is a member their crews by reducing reporting formalities and
– could provide a boost to global trade flows administrative burdens, rather than adding to
of over US$1 trillion. The TFA now becomes an them. A major challenge throughout the revision
process was to ensure that the Convention’s
official part of the multilateral trading system
provisions were not unwittingly watered down
which covers more than 96% of global GDP.
by Customs and immigration authorities.
By reducing unnecessary ‘red tape’ at borders,
One difficult issue that was satisfactorily
the TFA will hopefully have a significant
resolved, following an ICS submission made
effect on the ability of small and medium
jointly with the World Shipping Council and
size businesses in developing countries to
BIMCO, concerned the date by which time
have greater access to global markets, which
governments should establish systems for
should have a positive impact on demand for the electronic exchange of information. The
maritime services. The ICC estimates that the industry submission highlighted the many
TFA could increase SME exports by up to 80% cost and efficiency benefits of electronic data
in some developing nations’ economies. exchange, both to industry and government,
ICC is actively supporting the implementation with a view to encouraging adoption of the
of the TFA through the Global Alliance for earliest agreeable implementation date for
Trade Facilitation, an initiative which ICS also the mandatory use of electronic systems, in
fully supports. line with the recommendations of the World
Customs Organization.
Meanwhile, in 2016, IMO adopted some
substantial amendments to the IMO Facilitation It is important that governments focus
on the benefits that electronic exchange
Convention, following a comprehensive
of information will bring, rather than the
review in which ICS had been involved closely
initial cost of establishing the necessary
throughout a process lasting several years.
infrastructure. Within the European Union, for
The purpose of the IMO Convention on example, the successful implementation of the
Facilitation of International Maritime Traffic ‘single window concept’ by EU Member States
(FAL) is to assist maritime transport by reducing still remains disappointing slow.
62
Representing the Global Shipping Industry
PERFORMANCE PERFORMANCE
2016/2017
RECOGNIZED ORGANIZATIONS
SOLAS 74 (and 88 Protocol)
RECOGNIZED ORGANIZATIONS
SOLAS 74 (and 88 Protocol)
INDICATORS
LL 66 (and 88 Protocol)
INDICATORS
Completed ILO Reports
GREEN squares suggest positive performance indicators, with potentially negative performance highlighted by RED
STCW 95 ‘white list’
and non-inclusion is
USCG Qualship 21
USCG Qualship 21
squares (although individual indicators should be considered within the context of the Table as a whole).
CLC/FUND 92
Age of fleet
CLC/FUND 92
Age of fleet
For additional information about the criteria used see the footnotes overleaf.
STCW 78
STCW 78
ILO MLC
ILO MLC
therefore no longer
ships flying a particular flag.
Antigua & Barbuda n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n Malta n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n
Argentina n n n n n n n n n n n n N/S n n n n Marshall Islands n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n
The three principal Port State Control (PSC) authorities are the countries of the Paris Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), the Australia n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n Mauritius n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n
Tokyo MOU and the United States Coast Guard (USCG). All three authorities target particular flags on the basis of deficiencies and Bahamas n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n Mexico n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n
detentions recorded for ships flying that flag. The Table identifies flag states that feature on the Paris and Tokyo MOUs’ white lists Bahrain n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n Mongolia n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n
and that have fully qualified for the USCG’s Qualship 21 program, and those which do not appear on their respective black lists/ Bangladesh n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n Morocco n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n
target lists. Ships whose flag states do not appear on PSC ‘white lists’ tend to be subject to a greater likelihood of inspections.
Barbados n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n Myanmar n n n n n n n n n n n n N/S n n n n
The Table now also identifies those flags whose ships suffered no detentions within a particular PSC region over the previous three
viewed as being a
Belgium n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n Netherlands n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n
years, but did not meet the relevant minimum requirement of inspections or arrivals to be included in the MOU white lists/ Qualship 21 Belize n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n – Curacao n n n n n NL NL NL NL NL NL NL n n NL NL n
program. In order to be identified in this way with respect to the Paris and Tokyo MOU white lists, a flag must have undergone at least Bolivia n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n New Zealand n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n
one inspection in the previous three years. With respect to the Qualship 21 program, a flag must have made at least three distinct arrivals Brazil n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n Nigeria n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n
in each of the previous three years. This is in alignment with the way in which the three PSC authorities present this information. n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n
Bulgaria Norway n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n
NB: Flags which do not qualify for Qualship 21 have not been given red squares, as the list of flag states which qualify varies Cambodia n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n Pakistan n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n
considerably from year to year and non-inclusion is currently not regarded by ICS as an indicator of potentially negative performance. Canada n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n Panama n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n
The full criteria for PSC are explained in the footnotes to the Table. Chile n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n
sound indicator of
Papua New Guinea
China n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n Philippines n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n
Ratification of major international maritime treaties Colombia n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n Poland n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n
Ratification of international maritime Conventions does not necessarily confirm whether the provisions of these global instruments Comoros n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n Portugal n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n
are being properly enforced. However, a flag state should be able to provide good reason for not having ratified any of the Cook Islands n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n Qatar n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n
instruments referred to in the Table. Costa Rica n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n Republic of Korea n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n
The Table refers to those ‘core’ Conventions, relevant to flag state responsibilities, which already enjoy widespread ratification and
Cote d'Ivoire n n n n n n n n n n n n N/S n n n n Republic of Moldova n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n
enforcement. The full criteria for the Conventions listed are shown in the footnotes to the Table.
Croatia n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n Romania n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n
negative performance.
Cuba n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n Russian Federation n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n
Use of Recognized Organizations complying with A.739 Cyprus n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n St. Kitts & Nevis n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n
Dem. People's Rep. Korea n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n St. Vincent & Grenadines n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n
IMO Resolution A.739 requires flag states to establish controls over Recognized Organizations (ROs) conducting survey work on their
Dem. Rep. of the Congo n n n n n n n n n n n n N/S n n n n Sao Tome & Principe n n n n n n n n n n n N/S n n n n
behalf, and which determine that these bodies have adequate resources for the tasks assigned. The Resolution also requires flag
Denmark n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n Saudi Arabia n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n
states to submit data to IMO on the ROs authorised to act on their behalf.
Dominica n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n Sierra Leone n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n
The Paris and Tokyo MOUs on Port State Control now submit an annual assessment to IMO entitled ‘Performance of Flag Egypt n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n Singapore n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n
Administrations and Recognized Organizations’, which includes a list of flag states deemed by these PSC regimes to delegate survey
flags confirmed by IMO to have communicated information demonstrating that full and complete effect is given to the relevant Jamaica n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n – Bermuda n n n n n n n UK UK UK UK UK UK UK n UK UK n
Industry
Representing the Global Shipping
provisions of the STCW Convention (as amended in 2010) and included within the latest STCW ‘white list’, as approved by the IMO Japan n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n – British Virgin Islands n n n n n n UK UK UK UK UK UK UK n n UK UK n
Maritime Safety Committee. Jordan n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n – Cayman Islands n n n n n n UK UK UK UK UK UK UK n n UK UK n
Kenya n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n – Gibraltar n n n n n n UK UK UK UK UK UK UK n n UK UK n
Attendance at IMO meetings Kiribati n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n – Isle of Man n n n n n UK UK UK UK UK UK UK n n UK UK n
performance indicator.
authorities, to be included in an MOU white list or the Qualship 21 program. In order to be identified in this way with respect to the Paris and Tokyo MOU white lists, a flag must have undergone N/S – No data submitted to IMO - can be regarded as negative indicator.
at least one inspection in the previous three years. With the respect to the Qualship 21 program, a flag must have made at least three distinct arrivals in each of the previous three years. This is in N/A – Data not applicable - US not eligible for Qualship 21 or USCG target listing.
alignment with the way in which the PSC authorities present this information.
63
UNCLOS Implementing Agreement
The United Nations Convention on the Law of foreign affairs, environment and
the Sea (UNCLOS) provides the fundamental ocean ministries which are not
legal framework for protecting the oceans, necessarily closely engaged in the
and under the authority of UNCLOS the work of IMO.
shipping industry is comprehensively regulated
The negotiations are still at an
by IMO. But the regulation of other ocean
early stage and the issues are
activities, especially on the High Seas, is not
complex because, in addition to
so well developed.
IMO, the ocean is already regulated by a
In 2016, the United Nations, in New York, large number of different UN and regional
started some high level negotiations on a new agencies. But for the moment it appears that
UNCLOS implementing agreement concerning most of the key governments are broadly
conservation of Biodiversity in areas Beyond aware of the importance of ensuring that
National Jurisdiction (BBNJ) – in other words any new measures that could affect shipping
the High Seas. should not be taken forward without the full
involvement of IMO. None of the key players
While shipping is not the main focus of this UN
seem to have serious concerns about shipping
initiative, which is really aimed at strengthening
or question the ability of IMO to deal with
the regulation of deep sea fishing and new
MPAs should it be decided to apply them to
activities such as seabed mining, this work is
shipping on the High Seas.
likely to lead to the establishment of Marine
Protected Areas on the High Seas. It currently seems that there is little appetite
among governments to establish a new UN
In order to ensure that sectors such as fishing
Oceans agency. However, it is possible that
cannot argue for exclusion on the grounds
ocean issues – such as the designation of
that there are already other mechanisms in
High Seas MPAs – could be determined by
place to regulate them, the UN is keen for the
regular Conferences of Parties to the new
agreement to be as comprehensive as possible
agreement, administered by the UN Division
in scope. This means that it will probably
of Ocean Affairs. However, it is hoped that the
also apply to shipping, even though there
detail and appropriateness of any measures
is currently no suggestion that shipping is
that might apply in such MPAs – e.g. special
insufficiently regulated by IMO.
navigational measures to avoid harm to rare
Potentially therefore, there is a risk that this species of whales – would still be determined
UN work could adversely impact on shipping, by the relevant specialist agency, in this case
interfering with principles such as freedom of IMO. It is also hoped that such decisions
navigation, or otherwise cut across the work would have to be based on serious science,
of IMO. It could also potentially upset the e.g. with input from bodies such as GESAMP
current balance that exists between the rights (the Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific
and obligations of flag states, coastal states Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection).
and port states.
The broader interests of ocean industries
Alongside IMO, ICS has therefore attended continue to be represented at these UN
the first two sessions of the UN Preparatory meetings by the World Ocean Council
Committee that have taken place in New York. (WOC) of which ICS is a founder member.
At the second meeting, at the end of August Meanwhile, working closely with IMO, ICS
2016, ICS was invited to join IMO maritime will continue to follow the work of the next
administrations at an IMO side event, to help UN Preparatory Committee meetings during
explain to the UN negotiators how shipping is 2017, in advance of a Diplomatic Conference
comprehensively regulated by IMO. Most of which is scheduled to adopt a final text,
the national UN negotiators are drawn from possibly as early as 2018.
64
Representing the Global Shipping Industry
65
UN Sustainable Development Goals
In June 2017, the United Nations General of about 90% of trade in goods, energy and
Assembly will be holding a major conference raw materials.
in New York on the sustainability of the
The vital need to protect the environment
oceans and how the UN can best implement
and for ships to comply fully with all new
its Sustainable Development Goal (SDG 14)
environmental regulations is fully recognised
concerning the protection of the oceans
by ICS. But unless the industry is commercially
which was adopted at the UN Summit of
viable it will not be able to deliver the
world leaders held in Rio de Janeiro in 2012.
investments in environmental and social
ICS will make the case that the shipping improvements that are sought by regulators
industry is undoubtedly a driver of ‘green on behalf of society at large.
growth’ given its impressive environmental
The debate at the UN level about sustainability
performance. The UN Conference will provide
is also relevant to the IMO ‘better regulation’
an opportunity to present the progress which
agenda which, at the request of the industry,
the shipping industry is making to play its part
is now being taken forward by the IMO
in reducing environmental impacts on the
Council. Following the Rio Summit, it is
oceans, especially with regard to CO2, sulphur
hoped that IMO’s new focus on sustainable
emissions and ballast water management.
development will mean that all proposals for
However, the UN Summit in Rio agreed
any future IMO environmental regulation will
that there are three pillars to sustainability
be shown to meet existing IMO criteria for
including the economic and social as well as
‘compelling need’ and be subjected to a full
the environmental.
and proper cost benefit and impact analysis,
ICS believes that government regulators in a similar manner to proposals relating to
should give equal priority to each of the three the improvement of maritime safety.
pillars of sustainable development, including
ICS believes that the conduct by IMO of full
the economic. This is especially important
and proper cost benefit analysis of all new
in view of shipping’s role in the continuing
regulatory proposals will ensure the delivery
spread of global prosperity and the movement
of sustainable development, consistent with
the goals agreed by the United Nations,
including the best means of ensuring optimal
environmental protection.
While shipping’s regulators have a
responsibility to protect the environment and
the interests of wider society, they also need
to be practical and have an understanding
of the impact that their actions can have on
the industry’s own long term sustainability,
especially if the ‘compelling need’ for
potentially expensive proposals has not been
properly demonstrated.
The international shipping industry, as
represented by ICS, is committed to the
delivery of further environmental and social
improvements in the interests of sustainable
development. But sustainable development
requires a shipping industry that is
economically sustainable too.
66
Representing the Global Shipping Industry
Publications
In addition to representing the industry, the jointly with IT Energy. A major upgrade of
production of publications on regulatory ISF Watchkeeper was launched in early 2017
developments and best practices is an in order to ensure that the product remains
important part of ICS activity. Many ICS the best available to help ship operators
publications are used by ships throughout the demonstrate compliance with complex IMO
world fleet, and are often listed as carriage and ILO work hour regulations and record
requirements under national legislation. keeping requirements.
In 2016, ICS published a revised 5th edition In addition to publications for sale, which
of the ICS Bridge Procedures Guide. About are available from maritime booksellers
30,000 copies of the new edition have already worldwide, ICS also produces a large
been sold worldwide. number of free resources for ship operators
which can be downloaded from the ICS
ICS is also now making good progress on a
website – now also accessible via a phone
new edition of the ICS Tanker Safety Guide
friendly version.
(Liquefied Gas), with publication anticipated
during 2017, following the recent publication
of a new edition of the ICS Tanker Safety
Guide (Chemicals). BRIDGE
PROCEDURES
Another project that should be completed GUIDE
in 2017 is a new version of the Personal Fifth Edition
67
Internal Affairs
The ICS Annual General Meeting was
generously hosted by the Japanese
Shipowners’ Association in Toyko in June
2016, with the member national associations
electing a new ICS Chairman, Mr Esben Right to left: ICS Chairman, Esben Poulsson with
Poulsson (Singapore). outgoing Chairman, Masamichi Morooka, and one
of the ICS Vice Chairmen, Gerardo Borromeo
Mr Poulsson succeeds Mr Masamichi Morooka
(Japan) who had decided to stand down after
four years in office. Being at the helm of the During 2017, ICS is conducting a major
industry’s most influential international trade rebranding exercise in order to better reflect
association, Mr Poulsson now serves as a the organisation’s role in the 21st Century.
leading representative of the global shipping The exercise should be finalised in the second
industry, overseeing liaison with its regulators half of the year.
such as IMO and ILO. The Secretariat and staff of ICS continues to be
The new ICS Chairman has already visited provided by Maritime International Secretariat
more than 20 member national shipowners’ Services Limited which is wholly owned by ICS.
associations, in order to better understand their In March 2017, Mr Alistair Hull, one of the ICS
differing concerns and priorities, with plans to Technical Directors, left ICS after nine years of
visit others during the course of 2017. service. His contribution will be greatly missed.
Meanwhile, Mr Sunil Krishnakumar, a marine
In addition to the ICS Board, Mr Poulsson has
engineer with seagoing experience, joined
been supported during his first year in office
the ICS Marine Department in February 2017.
by the four ICS Vice Chairmen: Mr John C
In September 2016, ICS was also pleased to
Lyras (Greece), Mr Mark Martecchini (Liberia),
welcome Miss Jade Smith as the new Marine
Mrs Karin Orsel (Netherlands) and Mr Gerardo
Department Administrator.
Borromeo (Philippines).
In February 2017, ICS Secretary General, Peter
The membership of ICS remains unchanged
Hinchliffe, announced that he will be retiring
and includes national shipowners’ associations
in May 2018. The search for his successor will
from 37 countries and territories. ICS also
begin during 2017.
continues to work closely with its Regional
Partners, the Asian Shipowners’ Association The next ICS Annual General Meeting will be
(ASA) and the European Community hosted by the Turkish Chamber of Shipping in
Shipowners’ Assocations (ECSA). Istanbul, in May 2017.
68
Representing the Global Shipping Industry
ICS Board of Directors 2016 – 2017
* Vice Chairmen
69
ICS Committee Structure
Insurance Maritime Law Shipping Policy Labour Affairs
Committee Committee Committee Committee
Chairman Chairman Chairman Chairman
Mr Andreas Bisbas Mr Viggo Bondi Mr Ralf Nagel Mr Arthur Bowring
Greece Norway Germany Hong Kong
Construction
Canals Manning & Training Environment
& Equipment
Sub-Committee Sub-Committee Sub-Committee
Sub-Committee
Chairman Chairman Chairman
Chairman
Mr Kazuyuki Oda Mr Tjitso Westra Ms Kathy Metcalf
Mr Maurizio d’Amico
Japan Netherlands United States
Italy
70
ICS Membership
FULL MEMBERS ASSOCIATE MEMBERS
AUSTRALIA Maritime Industry Australia Limited Abu Dhabi National Tanker Co. §
BAHAMAS Bahamas Shipowners’ Association Chamber of Shipping of British Columbia §
BELGIUM Royal Belgian Shipowners’ Association Cruise Lines International Association
BRAZIL Union of Brazilian Shipowners ‡ European Dredging Association
CANADA Canadian Chamber of Marine Commerce Interferry §
CHILE Chilean Shipowners’ Association International Maritime Employers’ Council
CHINA China COSCO Shipping Corporation ‡ Monaco Chamber of Shipping
CYPRUS Cyprus Shipping Chamber Sail Training International
DENMARK Danish Shipowners’ Association Shipping Australia Limited §
Faroe Islands Faroese Merchant Shipowners’ Association World Shipping Council §
FINLAND Finnish Shipowners’ Association
FRANCE French Shipowners’ Association
GERMANY German Shipowners’ Association Regional Partners
GREECE Union of Greek Shipowners
Asian Shipowners’ Assocation
Hellenic Chamber of Shipping §
European Community Shipowners’ Associations
HONG KONG, China Hong Kong Shipowners’ Association
India Indian National Shipowners’ Association §
Trade Association Only
IRELAND Irish Chamber of Shipping ‡
Employers’ Organisation Only
ITALY Italian Shipowners’ Association
JAPAN Japanese Shipowners’ Association
KOREA Korea Shipowners’ Association
KUWAIT Kuwait Oil Tanker Co.
LIBERIA Liberian Shipowners’ Council
MEXICO Grupo TMM S.A.
NETHERLANDS Royal Association of Netherlands Shipowners
NORWAY Norwegian Shipowners’ Association
PHILIPPINES Filipino Shipowners’ Association
PORTUGAL Portuguese Shipowners’ Association
Russia Russian Chamber of Shipping
SINGAPORE Singapore Shipping Association
SPAIN Spanish Shipowners’ Association
SWEDEN Swedish Shipowners’ Association §
Swedish Shipowners’ Employer Association ‡
SWITZERLAND Swiss Shipowners’ Association §
TURKEY Turkish Chamber of Shipping
UNITED KINGDOM UK Chamber of Shipping
UNITED STATES Chamber of Shipping of America
71
Representing the Global Shipping Industry
72