During the interview by Xinde Marine News, Simon Bennett, Deputy Secretary General, ICS, shares his views about  crew change crisis, decarbonisation and IMO 2020. He also highlights the importance of the cooperation with China.

 

Crew Change Crisis 

The ongoing response to COVID-19 is of course still the global shipping industry's greatest immediate priority. 
 

It is clear that the entire world is having to address increasing infection rates, complicated by the emergence of new COVID-19 variants, which is leading to the re-introduction of draconian travel restrictions by national health and immigration authorities, with countries again closing borders and the possibility that international flight availability might again be reduced.

 

At present ICS is particularly focused on continuing problems in the Philippines and Pacific Island States, but also in China with respect to crew changes for foreign nationals, including those bulk carrier crews who have been stranded outside Chinese ports due to the trade dispute with Australia. 
 

There are also still big issues with visas for seafarers, including Chinese nationals, being repatriated from Europe. 
 

A particular issue to highlight is the unwillingness of some charterers to allow ships to deviate to conduct crew changes from those ports where this is possible, to the extent of insisting on ‘no crew change clauses' or – as a response to the negative publicity that has been given to this practice – a refusal to fix charters if crew changes are likely to be scheduled.

 

ICS remains active at relevant global bodies, such as IMO, ILO and WHO – as well with the mainstream global media – to promote greater adherence by governments to the ICS-developed ‘Framework of Protocols' for conducting safe crew changes, to bring about the removal of continuing national restrictions on the movement of seafarers.  
 

With support from China, this' Framework of Protocols’ was endorsed by the IMO Maritime Safety Committee in November, but ICS is currently working on a revision to take account of how vaccinations fit to the landscape.
 

And although the crew change crisis continues – and in some countries may be becoming even more acute – the focus of ICS work is shifting to issues surrounding the roll out of vaccines.
 

ICS has now established an inter-industry Vaccine Task Force, with the objective of ensuring that, so far as possible, seafarers will be given priority for vaccinations and to address other related issues. These include: which types of vaccine have been approved or recognised by different national authorities; practical issues associated with vaccinating seafarers outside their home countries – including employers' liabilities and government requirements for seafarers to be given vaccines which may not have received general approval; and likely future requirements for seafarers to be issued with vaccination certificates or similar in order to travel.  

 

The issues are complex and, with other competing priorities that governments currently face, the consideration that most governments have so far given to issues associated with crew travel and vaccines are at a relatively early stage. Singapore, however, has already announced plans to prioritise the vaccination of maritime workers that come into contact with ships. 

 

Decarbonisation

 

The intention of what is now called the IMO Maritime Fund (IMRF) proposal – with the Fund providing core funding of about US$ 5 billion over a ten year period to an International Maritime Research and Development Board (IMRB) – is to accelerate R&D of zero-carbon technologies that can be applied to international shipping. This is to ensure that the GHG reduction targets agreed by IMO for 2050 will be achieved. 
 

The money will be raised by mandatory R&D contributions of US$ 2 per tonne of fuel consumed by all shipping companies globally, operating ships above 5,000 GT in international trades.  This is because the shipping industry has agreed there has to be a collaborative effort, because no company or government has the resources to solve the problem alone.
 

While the core funding of USD 5 billion will be provided by shipping companies, some of this money will be paid by those entities that ultimate pay for the cost of the fuel, and the large commodity companies such as iron ore producers and oil companies have not objected to this concept.
 

However additional R&D funding will be provided by other stakeholders including energy producers, engine manufacturers and ship builders, as well as governments on a voluntary basis though joint funding of many of the IMRB programmes.
 

For example, a Chinese company might wish to conduct an R&D project to develop new technology costing USS 50 million, but due to uncertainty about whether the outcome will be a success, the Chinese company might only have a budget of US$25 million. 
 

However, it could then make a project proposal to the IMRB and receive a grant of US$ 25 million. 
 

In return, the Chinese company would have to agree to share information with the rest of the world about the key results of its work and lessons learned.  In short this will be a way of collaboratively sharing the risks of R&D with the aim of increasing Technology Readiness Levels throughout the global shipping fleet as soon as possible. 
 

We recognize that Maersk – as well interests in China and elsewhere in the world –have set up similar programmes. But these are all much smaller in scale than the IMRB, and the monies currently being dedicated specifically to R&D of zero- carbon solutions are simply in adequate if IMO's 2050 target is going to be achieved.
 

The IMRB would be complementary to such programmes, facilitating co-operation between them.  Maersk is strong supporter of the IMRB proposal.
 

If the political will is there, we think the IMRB could be operational by 2023 or shortly after. With the support of a number of governments including Japan. Greece and Singapore, a mature regulatory proposal will be considered by IMO in June 2021 that could be agreed by IMO States very quickly.
 

However, the IMRB is not a market based measure. The money will only be used for R&D and is not intended to make shipping more expensive.  A US$ 2 R&D contribution will have no meaningful impact on freight rates or national economies. The purpose is to help ensure that all national economies will continue to have access to efficient and economically sustainable maritime transport.
 

The EU ETS is very different. Its primary purpose is to raise money from shipping, including Chinese ships calling in Europe, to support EU governments and their post pandemic recovery programmes. The EU ETS is a unilateral proposal that no one outside Europe supports, whereas the IMRB proposal is supported by the entire global industry as represented by its international trade associations.

 

IMO 2020

We don’t have too much to add on IMO 2020. While somewhat overshadowed by COVID-19, the global switchover to low sulphur fuel on 1 January 2020 was actually a great success.
 

The impressive effort by all industry stakeholders to make this monumental changeover a success has largely passed unremarked, but is testament to the effectiveness of IMO as a global regulator.

Engaging with China
 

The Government of China is an increasingly important player at IMO.  
 

This is why we have opened our new ICS Liaison Office in Hong Kong SAR.
 

There are a great number of major issues affecting the future of shipping on which we need to co-operate with the Chinese shipping industry. We are of course a global industry. And in our response to issues affecting the future regulation of shipping, it’s a case of united we stand and divided we fall.
 

Like ICS, the Government of China agrees that it is of great importance to all of us within shipping to maintain the authority of IMO as our global regulator. Otherwise we have chaos and inefficiency. 
 

But maintaining IMO's authority and its framework of maritime regulations depends on global consensus. And given the importance of China, the authority of IMO can only be sustained in the future with the full engagement of China.
 

China can best engage effectively at IMO if it is fully aware of global developments, including the reasons why other governments are taking certain positions at IMO meetings – as well as the views of the global industry, as represented by ICS.  
 

And due to our membership of national shipowners' associations, ICS is recognised by governments at IMO – and at the other many international bodies that impact shipping – as the legitimate voice of the global industry. This is why we hope very much that the China Shipowners’ Association will soon become a member of ICS, as it is conspicuous by its absence. 

Please Contact Us at：

media@xindemarine.com