Seatrade Maritime is part of the Informa Markets Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them. Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Leading shipowners have called for a regulatory 'level playing field'

Leading shipowners have called for a regulatory 'level playing field'
A “level playing field” must be implemented for regulating transportation if shipping is to meet with its environmental obligations, panel members at London International Shipping Week (LISW) have concluded.

Euronav ceo Paddy Rodgers indicated that public listing would be one way shipping companies could garner more understanding in governments.  “At the moment we’re not invested with any particular countries, so it’s very easy for shipping to become a whipping boy.”

“When environmental legislation is introduced, you have to look at who benefits from that legislation. When a reduction in china’s coal usage was announced, oil majors were rubbing their hands together.

“We’re all for environmental changes but they need to take place in a level playing field,” said Sabrina Chao, chairman of Wah Kwong Maritime Holdings. “There’s a disconnect between legislation and technology. For example the ballast water treatment– it’s unclear for shipowners operating in a very complicated environment. There needs to be a level playing field.”

Regional legislation came under fire once again in the second conference session, when UK Shipping and Ports Minister Robert Goodwill argued: “Shipping works best when it is allowed to work on its own terms, and when it prospers, it adds to the wealth of nations. Consider the sophistication of the modern shipping trade, with its complex supply chains and just-in-time logistics. The endless movements of millions of containers around the world. No government could design such a system, let alone manage it or improve it.”

Later in the session, United States Maritime Administration (MARAD) head Paul Jaenichen defended the Jones Act, arguing: “Every presidential administration for the last 90 years has supported the Jones Act and there’s a reason for that. We have to have a US merchant marine, and the Jones Act is one way to maintain that, but also make sure that we continue to have an indigenous shipbuilding capacity  and commercial base that supports not only commercial shipbuilding but also naval ships.

However, Goodwill retorted with a condemnation of the act: “My official position is to be very careful not to describe the Jones Act as a blatant piece of protectionism,” said Goodwill, to laughter form the audience. “But the way to protect your shipbuilding industry is to produce the best ships in the world and sell them round the world, as the Koreans and Chinese have been showing us. We demonstrated here in the UK in the ‘60s and ‘70s what happens if you don’t build the best ships in the world.”