Editorial:

IMO running scared of the EU

It is all too easy to regard the “cordial” contact between the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) and the EU Commission as a natural process. But, when the IMO Secretary General Efthimios E. Mitropoulos shakes hands with the EU Transport Commissioner, Jacques Barrot, he would be wise to count his fingers. In reality; Mitropoulos is running scared of the EU. Mr Barrot’s message is that the EU wants one voice at the IMO on behalf of all 25 member countries. The excuse is that a common position from the 25 countries would “add value” to the IMO. Even Norway, which is not a member of the EU, is hanging on the Commission’s coattail.

The EU first really flexed its muscle after the “Erika” accident and the campaign gathers pace with the unfortunate events leading up to the foundering of the “Prestige”. They were both dreadful maritime accidents, but they were also used to the full to strengthen the Commission’s efforts to arrive at a common position in maritime matters, nearly exclusively politically founded, with some technical jargon tossed in.

As a result a number of directives were issued without proper technical support and the necessary knowledge of the shipping industry. It does not seem to matter if legislation is irrelevant to the seafarers and the operators of international shipping. Irrelevant regulations are often worse than no regulations at all.
It is a common view that the EU can do what they like inside their own area.

True, but when the EU muscles in on the IMO, it is an entirely different matter. What is worse; the IMO is becoming more and more like the Commission. They will deny it, but they cannot deny that their technical knowhow is fast being eroded, and a growing number of regulations have turned out to be technically unsound and has to be amended time and time again.

We believe the IMO should reject the EU approach on the grounds that the EU is not a flag state.

The IMO has nothing to gain by latching on to the Commission approach. Rather, it should continue to draw on the technical expertise from quality flag states within the EU, like Sweden, Denmark, Germany and even France. Until such time that all vessels registered in EU countries carry EU flag, the IMO should ignore EU’s argument of a common approach on behalf of all 25 member countries.
What the EU Commission wants is to dominate the IMO as part of a grander scheme of power play. They have seen the United States ignoring IMO’s traditional common sense approach, rooted in the real world of seaborne trade, and now they take a similar approach. The latest examples are the fuel directives. What they are now saying is that if the IMO does not agree with the Commission approch, the IMO has to change. This is a thinly veiled threat to a UN organisation. It is perhaps symtomatic that many EU member countries have failed to ratify important IMO conventions.

The IMO has seen the dangers but appears unable to reverse this dreadful development.

By dispensing with a fine technical capability in its approach to international shipping and a sound approach to safety at sea, the IMO is on a slippery slope. It could easily end up as a political talking shop with no real relevance.

Petter Arentz, Editor