Towards a future EU Maritime Policy Brussels 8th June 2006 Kristian R. Fuglesang Assistant Director INTERTANKO Ladies and Gentlemen It is indeed good to be able to hold the Green Paper in my hand However, I have had it for too short a while to give it a proper analysis, but still I have far more to say about it than I can cram in during the 10 minutes at my disposal. The European Commission has started on a very ambitious project, and the first impression of the Green Paper is very positive.

Positive initial reaction Ambitious project Positive initial reaction Happy to see most of our suggestions addressed Happy to see that most of the issues we raised in the initial stages have been addressed in the Paper

Universally acceptable regulation International level playing field Stable regulatory environment required International regulation of shipping Many of the positive aspects of the Green Paper have already been mentioned by previous speakers, so, in view of the time available, I shall not do a repeat performance. However, I feel I need to repeat the need for universally applicable regulation and that it is necessary to provide an international level playing field for the industries involved in the maritime sector. Nor will you be surprised that I wish to emphasise that a stable regulatory environment is required. The conclusion we draw from this is a reaffirmation of the long held policy of the international shipping industry, namely that we need strict and efficient regulation of shipping, developed internationally, i.e. in the International Maritime Organisation in London.

Speedier ratification of international treaties We fully subscribe to the underlining in the Green Paper of the need for early ratification of the international conventions. The Paper mentions the anti-Fouling and the Ballast Water conventions. We can provide a much longer list, including the HNS and Bunker Conventions, the conventions on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Cooperation as well as the HNS protocol. Let me also remind you that Annex VI of MARPOL (which sets limits on sulphur oxide and nitrogen oxide emissions from ship exhaust) which took more than 7 years before the sufficient number of ratifications was reached. The average time from adoption in IMO to entry into force is just over 6 years. The problems associated with this tardiness warrants a separate lecture!

Efficient and uniform implementation of international rules These rules for shipping have to be efficiently and uniformly implemented and enforced. National or regional regulations that differ from international rules always have the potential of being counter productive because of confusion and incompatibility in operational standards for tanker companies which trade between various regions of the world, as well creating unfair competition. Unilateral regulation can have the effect of removing sub-standard shipping from that sector, but will not eradicate these ships as they will only move to a part of the world where they can continue to trade. Differing rules can by themselves, also contribute towards accidents. Consequently the International Maritime Organization, (IMO), must remain the lead body at an international level for maritime, environmental and safety rulemaking. The European Union Member States do, and must continue to play a vital and constructive role in this well recognised body. IMO has for a long time benefited greatly from technical expertise rather than political considerations, INTERTANKO is therefore concerned that greater participation by the European Commission within the IMO can unfortunately lead to a reduction of free technical considerations.

Dependence on an efficient and well-run tanker industry Europe is totally dependent on an efficient and well-run tanker industry. I have been told that more than 90% of Europe’s energy is delivered by tankers. And tankers perform this role efficiently and reliably. Despite some well known and regrettable accidents, the amount of pollution caused by tankers has, as can be seen from these slides, fallen drastically over the last decades – at a time when we also have seen an increase in the tonnage-miles. More than 99.9997 % is delivered without any mishaps. Even a small shortfall in deliveries would have a major impact on the way we live. Oil and gas are used in fuelling our cars and airplanes, is a vital ingredient in the chemical industry, pharmacy, heating, cooling, etc. etc. Tanker shipping is not only a vital component in the logistics chain, it has a major impact on our everyday life.

Penal sanctions do not enhance maritime safety There is one part of the green paper to which we do NOT subscribe, and that is the suggestion that the introduction of penal sanctions for ship source pollution is mentioned as a method to improve maritime safety in the EU. We fully support the investigation and prosecution of illegal discharges oil from ships, but strongly object to criminalising accidental oil pollution and to treating seafarers as criminals. We feel that the Directive will not contribute to these objectives but will have a counter-productive effect, notably on the retention and recruitment of quality crews, and the roles of classification societies, salvors and others concerned with ship safety and protection of the environment. There is today a hearing in the High Court in London on a case brought by a wide coalition which contends that the Directive is invalid on the grounds that it is in conflict with international law.

Clean Ships concept Let me refer to the concept of a clean ship, a ship which is designed and operated in an integrated manner to eliminate harmful operations discharges and emission. Shipowners face a continuous struggle to balance improvements with the ever increasing need to comply with a myriad of environmental and safety requirements. Sometimes it appears that some of these are developed in isolation of one another. Sometimes these are also developed regionally and not internationally. The consequence for the owner is a conflict of interest in the implementation of each requirement and in many instances resulting in a net environmental loss. Poor hull anti-fouling systems can result in dramatically increasing the risk of transporting invasive species as well as increasing fuel consumption and therefore air emissions. Likewise, many of the ballast water treatment systems currently under development rely on the introduction of so called active substances. These chemicals will have to be introduced into the ballast water with the intent to destroy all the organisms in the tanks. Naturally, the concern lies with the eventual discharge of the now 'tainted' ballast water becoming a new source of pollution.

Uneven responsibility: Integrated approach to legislative developments Reception facilities We need to get away from the rather single-minded focus on integrated design and operation. What is lacking is an integrated and holistic approach to legislative development. Developing legislation to combat one source of pollution on board at a time is counter productive. Further consideration must be given to a net environmental benefit approach to environmental legislation in shipping. A Clean Ship concept cannot be explored in its entirety without assessing the role and responsibility of all the players in the maritime industry, not least the European Union member states themselves. While continuous attention remains on improving surveillance of maritime traffic and increasingly targeting seafarers in events of accidental cases of pollution in an effort to eliminate ship source pollution, a fundamental element in this objective of zero-discharges is lacking: namely the obligation of coastal states to provide adequate facilities for the receipt of ship and cargo generated wastes. For over 30 years the industry has had to endure problems related to the discharge of waste ashore. To give one example, a voluntary initiative to reduce vessel air emissions in an INTERTANKO member's fleet by ceasing to burn plastics had to be stopped because of the realisation that the majority of port reception facilities were not prepared to accept plastic waste unless it was ash.

INTERTANKO looks forward to taking a constructive part in the further process INTERTANKO looks forward to taking a constructive part in the further process of Europe’s future maritime policy.

www.intertanko.com Thank you

Sources of European crude oil - mbd

European product import - mbd

European tanker trade by hull 93% of the tankers over 50,000 dwt in European trade is DH

All tanker incidents Most incidents cause no pollution or severe damage

Accidental oil pollution 99.99997% of the oil arrived safely in 1986-2005, when also including 20,000 tonnes of operational pollution

Accidental oil pollution 99.99997% of the oil arrived safely in 1986-2005, when also including 20,000 tonnes of operational pollution

Tanker total losses Number Source:Clarkson/INTERTANKO Erik Ranheim, Oslo 8 November, graph 19 of 26

Tanker incidents and age development % Source:LMIS/Informa/INTERTANKO

Tanker pollution and age development Years 000 ts Source:LMIS/Informa/INTERTANKO