RA BRS 2003 GB >pdf

And finally financially, shipping requires heavy
investment, which can only be entertained within
a well-defined general framework.
To cut short prematurely the life span of a ship, to
remove the ceilings of insured, and to eliminate
the trading in some economic zones would inevitably
lead to the insolvency of numerous owners.
What is necessary is neither a lax nor a lenient
attitude but rather a strict application of all the
controls, rules and regulations currently in place,
which all lead to the improvement in the quality
of the fleet and thus reduce the risk of accidents.
It is worth restating that shipping accounts for
over 90 % of the world transport needs and that
it remains the safest and the least polluting
means of transport. Over the last twenty years,
shipping pollution in the form of oil spills and
waste has been reduced tenfold. Whilst it is still
too much, the improvement should nonetheless
be recognised.
Let us not adopt a NIMBY attitude (“not in my
back yard”) which is a good illustration of the
paradox between the generous theorising and
the egotistical individualism, which permitted the
Spanish to send the ‘Prestige’ out to a raging sea
to sink at a depth of 3,500 meters, thus making
uncertain any pumping solution and consequently
causing the coastline of three countries to
become polluted for a prolonged period.
In the same vein, Europe, by closing off its ports
too quickly to the so-called dangerous ships is
simply displacing them to less developed or less
demanding economic areas.
The European Atlantic zone is unfortunately one
of the busiest shipping axes and as “zero risk”
does not exist at sea, it is necessary in addition to
preventive measures also to put in place efficient
remedial measures that in our opinion can only
be European.
We should have the courage to immediately assign
along the coastline certain ports or “refuge”
zones where any pollution can be properly
contained and pumping carried out. Such a decision
can only be taken at the highest national
level, or even European, as it is clearly not reasonable
to place such a responsibility on local or
regional representatives.
At the same time indemnities should be fairly and
quickly distributed. Why not form a European fund
complementary to FIPOL, which could be financed
through a tax on the consumption of oil products,
as it is not in holding the charterer, shipowner or
the owner of the cargo liable beyond all reasonable
and insurable limits, that such an amount
will be found ? If this were to be the case, all the
serious and financially solvent players would then
disappear from shipping and give their place to
irresponsible owners, both in the literal and figurative
sense. The ‘Prestige‘ is a case in point.
The ‘Erika’ tragedy has accelerated the rejuvenation
of the fleet. Let us hope that the ‘Prestige’
will only help accentuate the movement, and
whilst we can all be pleased with this trend it is
not enough in itself.
In France, the new government is to be thanked
for its efforts to listen and pay serious attention
to shipping problems, which had been ignored
for some time. The tonnage tax, which already
exists in several European countries, has been
passed at the end of 2002 and a think-tank is
currently looking at the question of French flag
and European short-sea developments. We hope
that this will prove fruitful with the assistance of
all concerned parties.
Players in the shipping world are by an overwhelming
majority serious, competent, and concerned
to preserve our maritime environment. Rantings
and ravings, and sterile theorising do not help to
advance one of the most wondrous of causes,
that of the sea. ■
2 BRS - Shipping and Shipbuilding Markets 2003