EU should show some prudence to rebuild the credibility of its shipping policy

Ratified shipping conventions cannot be modified by the EU at will for local and regional expediency.

A most unholy row has developed in the European Community over the proposal to ban single-hull tankers in the aftermath of the “Prestige” incident. Greece is using her Presidency of the EU to full effect, closely supported by the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, to try to move the EU position closer to that of the IMO. Quite naturally Greece has taken exception to the scathing remarks from France by referring to the crew of the Greek owned Prestige as “pirates”. However, the Greek move is an important one in that she tries to prevent the EU to establish an agenda different from that of the IMO. The British and the Dutch have seen the wisdom and quite rightly supports the Greek position.
The EU proposal is not really credible even if serious shipping countries like Denmark and Sweden appears to be willing to go along with the completely half-cooked work on which the stance is based.
Owners in many EU countries appear to believe that the earlier the ban on single-hull tankers is introduced, the earlier those with double-hull tonnage will benefit. It may turn out quite different.
What is more likely to happen is the creation of a three-tier market for tankers, one for vessels to the EU, one for the US and one for the rest of the world. Chaotic market conditions may well ensue and the oil and dirty product trading environment will be more or less untenable. Traders are looking for flexibility of delivery. This is especially true for the heavier oils, where specifications are reasonably uniform in different parts of the world. For the lighter petroleum products the position is different. If a trader cannot book a single-hull vessel for a cargo with different delivery options, the exercise is a waste of time. The whole point is to deliver where the price is highest. In a three-tier market such an operation becomes hopeless.
It seems that EU may approve the new proposals, and they have found a way around the sticky problem with vessels under 5,000 DWT by redefining the double-hull concept. Although all the EU countries have ratified the IMO definition of a double-hull vessel, the EU Commission has tweaked the definition to include vessels under 5,000 DWT, which would otherwise be hit by the ban. The new definition is that for vessels below 5,000 DWT the requirements are for a double bottom and no cargo tanks over 700 cubic metres. Perfect! Problem solved.
We noted late last year that the EU acts on impulse and think of the consequences later. It now appears to have become a habit, at least in matters concerning shipping. When, as we have discussed in the comment column in this issue, the EU is committed to a community shipping policy with the declared aim to build the area into an even bigger super power, it ought to be important to exercise a trifle prudence to rebuild some credibility.
You cannot build a unified shipping policy purely by relying on spoiling actions, i.e. to undermine the efforts of the world’s shipping community. International conventions, most of which have been wholly underwritten and ratified by the EU countries, cannot be modified at will for local or regional political expediency. Spain made a blunder with the “Prestige” or has the rest of the EU forgotten, already.

//Petter Arentz

Back to SSG 4, 21 February

Latest update 18-10-2006 8:49

All material © Scandinavian Shipping Gazette.

Scandinavian Shipping Gazette | www.shipgaz.com | info@shipgaz.com | webmaster | Contact us | Cookie information