While the robustness of that idea has yet to be fully tested, its tenets were examined by demolition brokers at Informa’s recent Ship Recycling event. Scrapping ships is a business swaddled in double-speak and obfuscation: sustainable recycling, end-of-life ships, sale for demolition. All of these suggest a hi-tech and closely-monitored approach to treating what amounts to hazardous waste.

The reality could not be further from the truth of course, with brokers working to secure margin, owners looking for one last profit and cash buyers taking the ships to (in almost all cases) beach them on shorelines in South Asia, where swarms of low paid workers will strip every last usable piece, along with a deal of toxic and hazardous materials.

Even when the IMO’s Hong Kong Convention convention is ratified, this is unlikely to change but the convention is designed to at least list the toxic materials onboard and seek to lever up standards by applying both the market and CSR to the yards located in recycling states.

Between that utopia and the reality of now lies a phalanx of shipbrokers. The broker is there to offer added value and so it proved during their session of the conference. With only one exception, they agreed that brokers could act as a source of knowledge and data on best practice, encouraging owners to make ‘the right’ choices.

This is pretty theoretical but if it works for Equasis, why not recycling yards? If owners could be encouraged to anonymously pool knowledge then brokers would be better placed to advise other owners on a yard’s compliance or otherwise with Hong Kong.

Some do this already of course but there is a role here for a third party to act as clearing house for the information and provide owners with at least one tool to help them recycle ships at yards which are trying to improve their standards.

Even this is a sticking plaster over a bullet wound. Scrapping is the industry’s last huge, dirty secret: a shameful nexus of greed and globalisation, justified with the spurious claim that the yard workers are grateful for the employment the practice brings.

No wonder that the industry is beginning to move towards scrapping in China where, at least the ships are docked, before being dismantled. As the conference heard, this is no guarantee by itself of better standards but it provides at least a glimmer of hope.

Owners cannot rely on media coverage either, because demonstrating ‘green recycling’ is perilously close to being a good news story and therefore of little interest to editors. No, recycling has become a CSR issue for shipping. What a shame then that large parts of the industry refuse to put any store by the concept and prefer to haggle for the last dollar.

Oh, and James Corbett, one of the academics whose research suggested that shipping’s SOx emissions were responsible for 60,000 deaths a year.

The work ethic was protestant though, and for an apparently disparate group, there was plenty of common ground, though not always agreement.

That the panel didn’t concern themselves much with market-based measures and the politics of climate change was a good idea since the former is mired in the swamp of the latter.

Instead as Corbett pointed out there was a wellhead of interest in green technology investment on technical and operational measures. Enough, perhaps to make the cost of compliance bearable. If the EEDI becomes ‘shipping policy’ then ‘national policy’ manufacturers can get the best technologies out into fleet and allow owners to generate return on investment.

Transocean’s Ian Hudson suggested that collaboration on energy efficient solutions could be improved almost immediately through collaboration. For all the hi-tech ideas out there, better would be a clearing house approach which promoted dialogue around efficiency and technology and enabled companies to make decisions without duplicating R&D effort.

Carbon Capture and Storage Association’s Judith Shapiro suggested the post-Copenhagen regulatory landscape could see the UNFCCC superseded, with a global solution traded for instruments tools which worked bilaterally or regionally between G8 countries. ICS’ Marine Director was heard to remark that he very much hoped she was wrong.

Food for thought then and proof that changing the mix can start to change thinking. Carbon is common to all the sectors and Corbett dangled an intriguing anecdote that I took, perhaps wrongly, as a reflection of the story so far. When running from an angry bull, he said it doesn’t matter how fast you can run when you are going in the wrong direction.

But there are plenty of take-homes: Rio Tinto, ExxonMobil, Torm USA and RightShip among others are signed up and taking part. If WOC can convince BP, Intertanko, ICS and more who attended but are on the fringes right now, then WOC has the potential to be a game changer.

There are challenges. The scope is so broad – environmental management in mining and commodities, energy and offshore, shipping and fisheries – that more than a few delegates could be heard to ponder what on earth this had to do with them.

I agreed but the streaming of the sessions was a clever blend of inputs around each topic – so much so that the desire to be in two places at once was common. And it soon became obvious that fishing could learn from shipping could learn from mining and so on. Common issues made for shared outputs whether it was Arctic navigation, training, ports and dredging or climate change.

Sitting at the back of the marine mammals session trying to file a story, I found myself drawn to the presentations. The combination of industry and academia, research and best practice made this a fascinating overview of current practice and future trends. It’s an issue for shipping and energy just as much as for tourism and ecology. Sharing this at lunch I had to remove the surprise from my voice.

To the extent that it’s my job to be cynical I would say that WOC’s programme is big – perhaps too unwieldy to achieve anything – unless it can find a way of linking up the sectors in the same way that it brought them together. It could have input into IMO but much of that expertise is already represented and with the Clean Shipping Coalition recently gaining observer status, is pretty much covered.

It is also easy to be optimistic when the sun is shining in Belfast as it does so rarely. But it is impossible to ignore the enthusiasm and the achievement in bringing together a diverse group of stakeholders. Much will depend on persuading its members to take ownership of the issues having identified with them. So perhaps there is a message for the shipping industry there after all.

Sadly, like him, I was unable to come up with anything concrete other than agreeing that a new strategy is needed.

Whether that should be – as Intertanko has advocated – a change in the rules of engagement I’m not sure, but I think that just like the issue of employing armed guards onboard ship, it risks increasing the body count in the short term while failing to provide that long term vision of a Gulf of Aden without pirates.

But a recent article in The Economist on the International Criminal Court in Africa  set me thinking, or rather recalling a conversation with Peter Hinchliffe of the International Chamber of Shipping at the recent IMO MSC meeting.

Hinchliffe confessed himself exasperated beyond measure with the situation, expressed through his organisation’s strategy of reminding the industry that Somali piracy is not ‘situation normal’.

What Hinchliffe advocated was an arrangement with the ICC to open a court for pirates and bring them to trial. This would be a lower court than the war crimes/genocide mandate that the ICC was set up for, but could still provide some efficient processing of pirates for trial and incarceration of the guilty.

There would be issues with this still – not least the likely media backlash about transporting pirates to Europe for trial, a location they are likely to see as a better bet than the streets of Xaradheere. What happens to them if acquitted and after the sentence is served, must all be decided.

But without punishment, there can be no deterrence and if Intertanko, ICS, BIMCO et al want to do something about piracy, they may have to admit that the game in the Gulf cannot be won so long as they cannot bring the weight of international institutions to bear.

Hinchliffe further remarked that although the IMO process continues in parallel with the UN, the chance for real change lies as much with the UN Contact Group as it does with MSC.

And as he glumly but accurately observed, pirates seem to make very good risk managers. Faced with the naval presence they have adapted, sailing further afield and employing motherships in the worst of weathers if they feel there is a prize for the taking.

This is a stark truth and one I doubt will endear me to the letter writers but it suggests that shipping could try and learn from the pirates about new strategies. Because if a global, highly efficient industry cannot either mobilise government support for its position or generate an innovative solution, then this situation will never end.

The Economist article attempted to cast the ICC not as an post-imperialist body but rather a partner for African nations keen to establish legal legitimacy and bring the most obvious criminals to trial. With Somalia in pieces, the ICC will not be opening an office there any time soon, but its neighbours should listen to Hinchliffe’s ideas and start trying to get the western economies – so dependent on cargo through Suez, to take a bigger stake in solving the problem of piracy by legal means.

It was an occasion when one didn’t know whether to laugh or cry. While the Maritime Safety Committee struggled to get through the plenary debate on piracy and security, a group of 13 shipping NGOs were preparing to release an online petition, calling for increased action on piracy by national governments.

‘All governments’ it demanded, should ‘commit the resources necessary to end the increasing problem of Somalia-based piracy’. The plan is to deliver at least half a million signatures to governments by IMO World Maritime Day on September 23^rd, 2010.

This idea, worthy though it is, faces the same challenges as every formal anti-piracy initiative: close to total apathy about the subject among the general public and a low priority among governments.

The idea that allowing people to ‘make their feelings about piracy known’ will interest the young and connected is a brave test of the power of social media and online ‘crowd-sourcing’ but as a measure in itself, it is largely symbolic.

The truth is that if the international community wanted to end piracy off Somalia it could have done so by now. The other, less convenient truth, is that to judge by the continued hijackings, ignorance of best management practices, many shipowners see it as a low priority too – or at least as a numbers game worth playing.

While they are prepared to put crews in harm’s way and let them take their chances, a petition simply adds insult to injury.

So why should we pay this idea any mind? Because it might be the very beginnings – many years too late – of Corporate Social Responsibility in shipping. I’ve long argued that piracy puts shipping in a moral dilemma because an industry which has spent so long avoiding attention will always struggle to make a case for aid when the time comes.

Despite the talking and the contact groups, shipowners have failed to provide firm evidence that they have done much more than plead victimhood and look to others to provide solutions. In one sense this is realistic. The long term solution lies far outside their sphere of influence.

But that is no excuse for doing so little, or for failing to take the minimum steps necessary to help themselves.

But we should sign the petition and encourage our friends and colleagues to do so too. Why? In part because at MSC, the process concerned draft guidelines on seaworthiness of released vessels and increased counselling for crews. To most people, this fiddling while the city is in flames is representative of the problem.  While the solution remains out of reach, marginal improvements are all that can be made.

During plenary by the way, delegates were reminded that the official term was ‘acts of piracy off the coast of Somalia’ rather than ‘Somali piracy’. Presumably to avoid risk of insult to the pirates themselves.

The first and most pressing concerns the fate of the hijacked ships and captive seafarers in the vicinity. It remains to be seen if the pirate clans can retain control of the four prizes they have moved away from the city before it fell.

The pirates appear to have left three ships behind and statements by the Hizbul Islam group on Tuesday pledged to free hostages, return hijacked ships and ‘free Somalia of piracy’.

When in power four years ago, the Islamic Courts Union suppressed piracy in the country. It was their ousting by US-backed Ethiopian troops in 2006 that led directly to the upsurge in piracy of the past few years.

Rolling back pirate activity would be consistent with the Islamists’ previous posture but it is unlikely to happen while power in the country remains fragmented.

What is more problematic about the fall of Xarardheere is that it could sharpen the focus on the role of the insurgency in Somalian piracy. It is already being widely suggested that the Islamists will find the rewards of piracy too great to ignore.

Were Hizbul Islam or Al-Shabaab to gain complete control of the country, it might be necessary to once again suppress piracy for political reasons but on a local basis, they might well reach an unofficial accommodation with the pirates in return for tribute.

Anyone expecting a quick end to Somali piracy is likely to be disappointed. If anything the reverse is likely.

Indeed, if the US moves to prop up the Transitional Federal Government (which has  been the beneficiary of aid shipments and regional capacity building) against the Islamists, it risks maintaining the climate that has allowed piracy to thrive.

The net effect would be that a country which has recently moved to make the payment of ransoms illegal would actually be taking steps to perpetuate hostage-taking.

And shipping continues to be caught in the crossfire.

It has so far been possible to state with some confidence that Somali piracy was profit-driven and non-political. Should the insurgency take to piracy, the risk is that these new pirates are viewed as combatants, potentially changing the rules of engagement.

And it will be the naval task force, military detachments, private armed guards and shipowners themselves who will be forced to make that judgement when they next see a skiff bearing down on them.

Just for an idea of how often they might need to make that call, Combined Maritime Forces Command, reports 25 ‘incidents’ off Somalia alone between April 1 and 24 this year.

People who are distracted and whose attention is wandering will tend to make assumptions. People who are over-loaded with work will struggle to manage detail. Those who cannot communicate risk their words and actions being misinterpreted.

These thoughts occurred to me as I sat at the back of the 60th Marine Environment Protection Committee of the International Maritime Organization a week or so ago.

Four days and five hours after it had begun – not counting the hours put in by working groups, scheduled and impromptu meetings – the committee was limping to a close having achieved – what? As it was after 5:30 and there was no translation, the proceedings had reverted to English but the process was going round in circles.

It struck me as perverse. If we are agreed that we wouldn’t ask seafarers to operate under the conditions noted above, then why would we ask our lawmakers to do precisely that when they are deciding the rules under which the same seafarers must operate?

To be as effective as it is, the IMO relies on the goodwill and enthusiasm of its member states. As certain flag states regularly remind the plenary session, the IMO asks a huge amount of its members – just as it does of its secretariat and staff – in terms of time, money and travel to attend committee and intercessional meetings, expert and correspondence groups.

The fact that the world’s biggest flags are located in developing and least developed countries is a function of the industry’s desire to cling to tradition over transparency, but it means – those countries say – sometimes having to make a choice between one budgetary cause or another.

If the IMO has been trying the patience of its members by asking ever more of them, it must be conscious of the risk that this presents. The risk can never be greater than when it is considering the vexed issue of climate change and greenhouse gas emissions from shipping. To a degree, this is not the IMO’s fault, since it must do something if it is not to be subject to outside interference.

It is this fear which keeps the IMO on course and keeps the pressure on member states and staff alike. But it leaves little or no time for reflection and analysis away from the day-to-day business which would allow the secretariat to connect, perhaps informally with its stakeholders internal and external.

And when discussing greenhouse gas emissions from shipping the debate needs to encompass a perspective far wider than the IMO delegates and some NGOs to have any meaning.

The outcome – or lack of it – from MEPC 60 asks several questions. The most important is whether the IMO can continue to convince the UNFCC that it is the correct and proper forum for deciding shipping’s response to climate change. To do that, it might have to accept that the concept of ‘no more favourable treatment’ for flag states is incompatible with the political reality of ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’ and that one will have to give way.

It might also consider whether, if it is really better at technical solutions than politics, then perhaps it should stick to what it is good at rather than do the other thing badly.

Trouble is, the era that followed the ‘three days of peace and music’ was far from sweetness and light and Ms Mitchell’s song now stands as something of a high water mark of idealism.

There is still some optimism to be found in the lobbies and committee rooms of MEPC 60 but it too, is fragile and failing. But from a detached perspective, say Connecticutt to London, the process must look more akin to Altamont than Woodstock.

There is some progress. Barring a wind over the Atlantic, a US/Canada Sulphur Emission Control Area will be signed off by week’s end. This is actually a pretty big deal but not strictly speaking new news.

Elsewhere, chairman Andreas Chrysostomou succeeded in getting plenary to agree to an expert group to look at market-based mechanisms to mitigate CO2 emissions and the Greenhouse Gas working group has at least been convened.

But the rest is noise. The weather having cleared enough for your correspondent to get to Albert Embankment by Wednesday, the overall mood was already one of resigned failure. Sources lined up to say that they ‘never expected anything to come out of this’, which is strange given how important it is.

An intercessional meeting is scheduled to sign off amendments to the EEDI in July but such is the level of dissent against this and other technical/operational measures that a robust framework cannot be taken for granted.

So MEPC 60 looks like making no progress on market mechanisms and little on technical/operational measures. But according to the timetable issued by the secretary-general at MEPC 59, a decision on a preferred market-based mechanism should be ready by MEPC 61, which would report its progress to the 27th Assembly and seek adoption by MEPC 62 in 2011.

Given that the committee can no longer agree on the issues which we once thought it had in common, it must be judged less than likely that any kind of deal can be done on a market-based solution for greenhouse gases.

This gifts the initiative to the UNFCCC, the European Union and anyone else who stands to gain from suggesting that shipping has failed to grasp the sense of its own destiny that MEPC 60 represents.

One bright spot amid the gloom: MEPC 60 is the first ‘paperless’ meeting of this committee, requiring attendees to turn up with memory sticks rather than box files for the customary reams of paper. It is a worthy development: after all, they are here to save the planet…

So many papers have been submitted and so many arguments up for debate that MEPC chairman Andreas Chrysostomou has moved to put the debate and the discussion into the working group rather than plenary.

He also suggested that since the IMO committee charged with developing the mechanisms for environmental protection seemingly cannot agree on market-based measures that a group of experts could be empanelled to take the debate outside the meeting.

This went down very badly among the Kyoto non-Annex I countries and other serial doubters that have delayed the IMO debate on MBMs thus far but Chrysostomou is right: this problem needs a different take.

Such an expert group might not come with a better solution – though there is every chance that away from the pressure of an IMO committee, that it could. It might even come to conclusion that the MBMs proposed fall outside the criteria that the IMO has set – fair in operation, easy to administer, fraud-free etc.

What it needs is the freedom to make that decision. This cannot currently be found inside MEPC.

It need hardly be added that the clock is ticking and MEPC has a stack of other work to do, notably ironing out the bugs in the Energy Efficiency Design Index, Operational Index and Ship Efficiency Management Plan. Efthimios Mitropoulos opened the session by suggesting these could be finalised for adoption at MEPC61, wishful thinking to judge by the afternoon’s proceedings.

It must also find time to finalise the Emissions Control Area for North America, implore more countries to ratify the ballast water convention and agree technical guidelines for the ship recycling convention.

These are all making progress but GHGs will not. The afternoon of the first day offered echoes of the Annex VI debate on SOx, NOx and particulate matter: stalemate, punctuated by disagreements, not just on MBMs but on technical and operational measures too.

The IMO actually looks like a body that is aware of the consequences of failing to come up with solutions to achieve GHG reductions. Sadly half the members of its senior environmental committee seem prepared to take the chance of finding out what the alternative might be for themselves – taking the rest of the industry with them.

That seems to be the message that the shipping industry is channelling in the long run up to MEPC60 in March this year.

Since the end of the COP15 conference, there has been a feeling that the process will peter out. The news hasn’t helped.

Thanks to the airmiles clocked up by its leader and its false claims for glacial melting, the IPCC is being denounced as a hobbled organisation. The farce of the University of East Anglia’s ‘manipulated’ emails on climate change data merely adds tabloid fuel to the fire of righteousness.

I’m amazing and humbled by my co-contributor Michael Grey’s forbearance for not laying into this subject before now with his customary verve. We could hardly have blamed him.

So who is going to step forward and still make the case for green shipping? No? OK, here goes.

The first reason that the industry should continue on the path on which it has embarked is that the climate change sceptics and naysayers are at least as divided as the converts to the cause. There is simply no cogent argument against climate change, merely dissonant voices arguing that the science is open to question. This is debate that should be held in public – properly moderated – and needs to move beyond the anecdotal.

The second is that even without the ‘threat’ of climate change, shipping has evolved to be a brilliantly inefficient industry. It sometimes appears to do what it does inspite of itself, even though it has managed to transport more of almost everything around the world for next to nothing. Energy efficiency simply hasn’t been an issue until now so hasn’t made the agenda. The energy crunch will do what climate change fails to. Making the transport chain more efficient would benefit everyone except those who make money from its inefficiencies.

Lastly, even if climate change fails to appear at all, what would be the downside of a concerted move towards environmentally-friendly shipping? Would consumers paying closer to the ‘true cost’ of the goods manufactured and delivered – be they natural resources or running shoes – a bad thing? Rather, wouldn’t that give shipping a better story to tell the public about its role in world trade and globalisation; that it was prepared to reach beyond the bare minimum or the regulations.

Shipping might be confused but does it still need to act? Yes, arguably more so than ever. If it does not, the assumption must be that it is afraid to look its stakeholders in the eye and account for its record on safety, on environmental protection, on human rights and corporate social responsibility.