European Commission (EC) plans which include “formalising the EU co-ordination mechanism and granting formal observer status, if not full membership, to the EU” at IMO could undermine the way the UN Agency works, according to the International Chamber of Shipping (ICS) and the International Shipping Federation (ISF)
The warning comes in detailed comments jointly submitted by the two organisations on the EC's draft paper on Strategic Goals and Recommendations for the EU’s Maritime Transport Policy until 2018.
The submission also takes issue with what it call the “extremely radical suggestion” of “'replacing ratification by flag by ratification based on the fleet as defined by the country of residence”. ICS and ISF note: “As well as being seemingly incompatible with current understandings about the concept of national sovereignty, this would seem to entail a complete revision of UNCLOS and the IMO Convention, and would be very unlikely to be acceptable to either EU Member States or third countries that belong to IMO.”
Regarding the EC's plan to achieve observer status or even full membership of IMO the industry bodies comment: “The long-standing ‘gentleman’s agreement’ between the Commission and Member States has acknowledged the advantages of allowing Member States to pursue independent positions at IMO. In the interest of maintaining the quality of technical decision making at IMO, the industry does not believe that increasing the status of the EU at IMO will actually contribute to the improvement of this institution or its impact on issues such as safety and environmental protection.”
The 27 EU Member States already enjoy substantial influence at IMO, claims ICS and ISF, since the majority of EU States are traditional maritime countries with considerable expertise within their maritime administrations, which they are able to utilise and communicate articulately during international regulatory discussions.
ICS and ISF say they fear that excessive co-ordination of EU Member States’ views at IMO - even falling short of full EU membership - would be to ‘politicise’ discussions on complex safety and environmental issues which are best decided on the basis of informed technical and scientific arguments.
They note: “IMO has a complex specialist committee structure which normally seeks to develop consensus across the international community rather then resorting to votes or imposing the will of the majority. The spectrum of technical expertise available to the 27 EU IMO Members means that the different emphasis they can bring to particular issues in turn means that they are actually far more influential in contributing to an international consensus than would be the case if they were to speak with a single EU voice.”
“When the EU decides to co-ordinate the votes of EU Member States, the result can be to undermine the well known ‘IMO spirit’ of consensus. Many third countries, including those with large fleets, might then feel they no longer have strong ‘ownership’ of what is decided at IMO, with the result that international agreements may be less likely to be ratified after adoption or implemented on a truly global basis,” ICS and ISF warn.
The warning comes in detailed comments jointly submitted by the two organisations on the EC's draft paper on Strategic Goals and Recommendations for the EU’s Maritime Transport Policy until 2018.
The submission also takes issue with what it call the “extremely radical suggestion” of “'replacing ratification by flag by ratification based on the fleet as defined by the country of residence”. ICS and ISF note: “As well as being seemingly incompatible with current understandings about the concept of national sovereignty, this would seem to entail a complete revision of UNCLOS and the IMO Convention, and would be very unlikely to be acceptable to either EU Member States or third countries that belong to IMO.”
Regarding the EC's plan to achieve observer status or even full membership of IMO the industry bodies comment: “The long-standing ‘gentleman’s agreement’ between the Commission and Member States has acknowledged the advantages of allowing Member States to pursue independent positions at IMO. In the interest of maintaining the quality of technical decision making at IMO, the industry does not believe that increasing the status of the EU at IMO will actually contribute to the improvement of this institution or its impact on issues such as safety and environmental protection.”
The 27 EU Member States already enjoy substantial influence at IMO, claims ICS and ISF, since the majority of EU States are traditional maritime countries with considerable expertise within their maritime administrations, which they are able to utilise and communicate articulately during international regulatory discussions.
ICS and ISF say they fear that excessive co-ordination of EU Member States’ views at IMO - even falling short of full EU membership - would be to ‘politicise’ discussions on complex safety and environmental issues which are best decided on the basis of informed technical and scientific arguments.
They note: “IMO has a complex specialist committee structure which normally seeks to develop consensus across the international community rather then resorting to votes or imposing the will of the majority. The spectrum of technical expertise available to the 27 EU IMO Members means that the different emphasis they can bring to particular issues in turn means that they are actually far more influential in contributing to an international consensus than would be the case if they were to speak with a single EU voice.”
“When the EU decides to co-ordinate the votes of EU Member States, the result can be to undermine the well known ‘IMO spirit’ of consensus. Many third countries, including those with large fleets, might then feel they no longer have strong ‘ownership’ of what is decided at IMO, with the result that international agreements may be less likely to be ratified after adoption or implemented on a truly global basis,” ICS and ISF warn.