IMO saves face and EU claims victory

Two days of intensive IMO negotiations and some heavy-handed back-room politics from the EU have resulted in an international compromise on the single-hull issue, writes Richard Meade
Against a backdrop of simmering regional tensions, the IMO managed to broker an impressive compromise deal last week, accelerating the phase-out of single-hull tankers and restricting the movement of heavy oil grades to double-hulls. However, even before the ink has dried, industry concerns are being raised about the practicalities of a deal that allows regional interests to impose significant exemptions.

Under the new Marpol phase-out schedule agreed at last week’s Marine Environment Protection Committee, the phase-out deadline for single-hull tankers has been brought forward to 2010. The inclusion of a significant caveat to the rules, however, allows certain ships to continue trading until 2015 or until they reach 25 years, whichever comes first. In a bid to appease those states opposed to the exemptions, a further measure has been included allowing a flag state to refuse entry to tankers granted such extensions.

While Intertanko has applauded the overall agreement, which, it argues, has gone some way towards averting the threat of regional rules, the organisation is concerned that the inclusion of provisions allowing states to deny vessels entry is likely to cause “considerable confusion in practice”. All 15 European Union states have announced their intention to make use of the ‘denial of entry’ options and will not be granting any waivers to extend the life of their ships past 2010. Cyprus and Malta, which join the EU next May, have followed suit and the European transport commissioner has publicly ‘urged’ all other EU accession countries to do the same.

Two-tier system
For many other non-EU countries, however, the compromise rests upon their ability to opt for the extensions, creating the possibility of a two-tier system under an international agreement. While the deal was eventually reached under the all-important international consensus, diplomatic bargaining over concessions to the original EU proposals were hotly contested and revealed clear divisions between Europe and its detractors in Latin America, Asia and Russia. Despite winning the battle over domestic exemptions and effectively shooting down a resolution calling for countries to implement the agreed rules by 1 January 2004, Europe was widely viewed as the victor, if only through political brute force and the threat of regionalism.

With all 15 EU member states speaking – and, more importantly, voting – as one, much of the politics was played out behind the scenes. “People have managed to tweak [the original EU proposals] round the edges, but they’ve got what they wanted,” one non-EU delegate told Fairplay. “Looking at what they wanted to achieve and what has been agreed, there isn’t that much difference.” Speaking on behalf of EU member states after the final deal had been struck, Italy’s delegation announced it was satisfied with the agreement and heralded the result as a major achievement that will help to better protect the world’s marine environment. Outgoing IMO secretary general Bill O’Neil branded the agreement a “balanced solution” and assured delegates that the compromise agreement re-affirmed the IMO’s authority as the only international maritime regulator.

Richard Made, Fair Play