There will be widespread approval within the industry for the 2014 theme for the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) World Maritime Day, which will be “IMO conventions – effective implementation”. A problem that is as old as IMO itself, the slow pace of implementation of IMO instruments has been regretted by successive IMO Secretary-Generals, so the emphasis put on this matter by Mr. Sekimizu in the current year is very welcome.
The sometimes extraordinary lapse between the adoption of an IMO instrument and its coming into force does nobody any favours. It exposes the organisation to criticism from those who have a limited knowledge of the process but who invariably blame the IMO for any delays. It also exposes the shipping industry to indecision and delay, as inevitably what is written in Lambeth will, in greater or lesser ways, affect shipping all over the world.
Not knowing when a convention or other instrument will “bite”, makes it impossible for the industry to plan, to buy the new equipment specified, or to elect to send a ship for recycling because the cost of implementation will not be economic. An owner without certainty over implementation dates is placed in an unenviable dilemma as such a hiatus may continue for years.
As has been emphasised for decades by frustrated industry people and regulators alike, the long delays between ratification and implementation may reflect badly on IMO, but it is the member states alone who have the ability to bring instruments into effect. The industry can attempt to put pressure on domestic legislators, but all too often, their failure to respond will say something about the priorities the lawmakers attach to marine transport. Domestic politics may all too often intrude, with the needs of the maritime industry going to the bottom of the queue for government time.
It is notable that in those flag states which clearly have a major interest in maritime industry, the enthusiasm of the authorities for making progress in international maritime affairs will be greatest. By contrast, those flag states which have seen their maritime industries decline, will see the amount of government interest in them evaporate accordingly.
So is anything likely to change because of the 2014 theme of implementation? It is worth pointing out that a number of conventions which need to be implemented, such as the Ballast Water Convention, or the Hong Kong Ship Recycling Convention, the Nairobi Wreck Removal Convention and the HNS Liability Protocol have an environmental emphasis. As such, there may be increased political interest in seeing them in force, attracting pressure from activists and media alike.
Perhaps rather more pressure to speed matters up might come from the mandatory provisions for the auditing of member states, which will encourage those states wishing to appear to be of the highest quality to hurry along their enabling legislation to implement all these important treaties. To be seen at or near the top of any “league table” is a powerful incentive for progress in the effectiveness of a maritime administration, as it is in sport!
The sometimes extraordinary lapse between the adoption of an IMO instrument and its coming into force does nobody any favours. It exposes the organisation to criticism from those who have a limited knowledge of the process but who invariably blame the IMO for any delays. It also exposes the shipping industry to indecision and delay, as inevitably what is written in Lambeth will, in greater or lesser ways, affect shipping all over the world.
Not knowing when a convention or other instrument will “bite”, makes it impossible for the industry to plan, to buy the new equipment specified, or to elect to send a ship for recycling because the cost of implementation will not be economic. An owner without certainty over implementation dates is placed in an unenviable dilemma as such a hiatus may continue for years.
As has been emphasised for decades by frustrated industry people and regulators alike, the long delays between ratification and implementation may reflect badly on IMO, but it is the member states alone who have the ability to bring instruments into effect. The industry can attempt to put pressure on domestic legislators, but all too often, their failure to respond will say something about the priorities the lawmakers attach to marine transport. Domestic politics may all too often intrude, with the needs of the maritime industry going to the bottom of the queue for government time.
It is notable that in those flag states which clearly have a major interest in maritime industry, the enthusiasm of the authorities for making progress in international maritime affairs will be greatest. By contrast, those flag states which have seen their maritime industries decline, will see the amount of government interest in them evaporate accordingly.
So is anything likely to change because of the 2014 theme of implementation? It is worth pointing out that a number of conventions which need to be implemented, such as the Ballast Water Convention, or the Hong Kong Ship Recycling Convention, the Nairobi Wreck Removal Convention and the HNS Liability Protocol have an environmental emphasis. As such, there may be increased political interest in seeing them in force, attracting pressure from activists and media alike.
Perhaps rather more pressure to speed matters up might come from the mandatory provisions for the auditing of member states, which will encourage those states wishing to appear to be of the highest quality to hurry along their enabling legislation to implement all these important treaties. To be seen at or near the top of any “league table” is a powerful incentive for progress in the effectiveness of a maritime administration, as it is in sport!