Safety, security, the environment and shipping: The problem of making effective policies

Abstract

This paper examines where problems of shipping policy jurisdiction between international, supra-national and national levels have occurred. These range across the issues of public goods -safety, security and environment -and show up inadequacies in the current shipping policy-making processes. New frameworks -commonly termed "polycentric governance" and "multi-level governance" -sensitive to the complexities of the maritime industry and its associated political structure urgently need to be adopted. The paper is based upon research work recently carried out across the European Union supported by a number of publications and will include examples from Greece, the United King dom, Spain, France and also the new member states. Suggestions for improvements in policymaking structures will be made and recommendations put forward for consideration by policy-makers in the maritime sector at all jurisdictional levels IntroductionPublic involvement in shipping is directed into two main areas -that of economic support in the form of subsidies, promotion of the shipping sector with especial reference to the creation of employment, and market issues -essentially the maintenance of a competitive environment and protection from monopoly tendencies; and the protection of public goods which the market would otherwise neglect. The latter category includes three widely agreed major items -maintenance of safety in shipping and ports, ensuring security within the industry and protection of the environment from the harmful effects of air, water and noise pollution. Effective development of each of these public concerns is dependent upon a meaningful and sensitive process of policy-making within all political institutions that allows the development of policies at various jurisdictional levels, most appropriate to the issue in question. These policy-levels are exemplified by international (IMO), supra-national (EU), national (for example Greece and the UK), regional (for example Attica and Devon) and local (for example Piraeus and Plymouth) jurisdictions which in theory work most effectively in a nested hierarchy. Each needs to speak to the other and to agree cross-jurisdictional policies for safety, security and the environment in shipping and ports or else their implementation will be largely ineffectual and the impact may be even worse than having no policies at all.

Evaluation of maritime safety policy instruments

“…the United States) levels have taken steps to regulate the same issues as the IMO before the IMO has taken action, for example in case of double-hull tankers. (Roe 2008) Some maritime safety issues belong to the sphere of national regulation, for example piloting.…”

“…Most of these are interconnected, reflecting the fact that the problem ultimately lies in the foundations of the system and the shipping industry. Roe (2008; has criticised strongly the current maritime policy making. "It fails to have the desired effect (ships still sink; beaches get polluted; it is generated by inappropriate bodies (national governments rather than international authorities for an international industry; it is diffuse and partial (Port State Control and the failure to target high-risk ships and operators) and unclear from where it emerges, the motives behind it or the methodology for its application" (Roe 2008, 265).…”

Institutional Stakeholder-Driven Corporate Social Responsibility Understanding and Practices among Managers: The Case of Ghana’s High-Risk Industries

“…As a high-risk industry, shipping firms have strict regulatory regimes that have renewed their attention towards CSR commitments (European Commission Communication, 2004). As found by Roe (2008a), the CSR practices of the shipping industry are often geared towards their operational issues such as the environment, security, safety and probability. To meet these operational issues, most shippers provide appropriate working environment for employees, vessel and the environment in addition to medical and health insurance (McSweeney, Craig, & Tomlinson, 2013).…”

How can stakeholders promote environmental and social responsibility in the shipping industry?

“…Furthermore, the industry is characterized by the wide abuse of maritime policies with the use of flags of convenience to avoid national or regional regulation such as Flag State Control measures, tax evasion and the use of tax havens, and the inadequacies and abuse of Port State Control measures. All of these have further contributed to reduced safety levels of shipping activities, social problems such as poor working conditions, and high environmental impacts and risks (Kuronen and Tapaninen 2009;Roe 2008;Sampson and Bloor 2012).…”

“…Kuronen and Tapaninen (2009) projected a need to change the whole safety regime. Roe (2008Roe ( , 2013 proposed developing a maritime governance system towards multi-level or polycentric governance, and Haapasaari et al (2015) discussed the potential of a regional risk governance framework in enhancing safety.…”