But it seems to be perfectly reasonable in the 21st century for regulators to anticipate practical reality on the grounds that it is something that is to the public good and with which there can be no argument. The classic illustration of this “topsy-turvy” way of thinking is with much environmental legislation, where the regulator regulates and the industry, which is the object of the regulator’s aspirations, then has to move heaven and earth to achieve a level of acceptable compliance.
The shipping industry has found itself in the regulator’s sights in a worrying number of different areas in recent years. The matter of harmful emissions and their elimination might appear to be a simple matter for the enthusiastic environmentalist. These emissions are harmful, science is on his side, so therefore they must be regulated away, and what could be simpler than enshrining this determination in target dates, after which the industry must comply with such new limits as the regulators require?
Now this might be rather easier to implement if there were already proven and effective means whereby the harmful emissions from large diesel engines could be “neutralised”. But when the regulators were in action, there was no such equipment available, so the only option then available was to remove the harmful elements from marine fuel. Ten years later and there is still no range of scrubbers that a ship operator can install with every confidence that they will produce the desired results. In the matter of tackling nitrous oxides and reducing the dreaded carbon emissions, it is not that the industry has been dragging its feet – it is that the regulators have under-estimated the task they were setting the shipping industry, engine-makers and ship designers.
The dilemma is admirably illustrated once again when it comes to ballast water treatment systems. An international convention gives effect to the general desire to prevent alien species and pathogens from spreading around the world in ballast water, but as the distinguished delegates give their assent, there are years of work ahead for engineers to translate their specifications into practical machinery which can be installed aboard 45,000 ships. Several years on and the ship owner, hoping for clarity, still finds obfuscation and uncertainty as to whether the systems with which he is presented will satisfy the authorities in ports which his ships will visit.
Such examples constitute just a part of the “environmental siege” under which BIMCO President Mr. John Denholm considers the shipping industry is suffering. He emphasises the importance of BIMCO’s mission in trying not to stop this environmental bandwagon, but to ensure that legislation and regulations are “workable and affordable”. Some might suggest that if the issues of practicality and affordability had been considered as the regulators were considering regulations rather than leaving practical people to undertake this reconciliation, often years later, we might be in less of a fix.