In this blog we have proposed that shipping, its primary subject, was closely linked to the crosswinds and tidal forces of economics and politics. If the EU falters, splits or fails, maritime matters will be profoundly affected, and probably will suffer.  If Greece, possessing the region’s largest fleet, were to leave the euro, would maritime safety and environmental protection fall outside the control of Brussels?

One Greek shipowner has asked: is it not time for the EU to own up to its internal contradictions, and allow countries such as Greece to secede, devalue their currencies, and put their houses in order? His point is that if Greece does not leave the EU, as well as the euro, the flood tide of reform imposed from without may encompass the tax treatment of the country’s shipping sector.

Painful as a Greek default would be, the world economy – and the EU – face a much graver threat if investors abandon Italian debt, as well as that of other EU members, and the cost of borrowing for these governments become prohibitive. Italy is the world’s fourth largest borrower, after the United States, Japan and Germany. It owes more than the other troubled countries on the periphery of Europe — Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain — put together. Therefore, the reasoning goes, one or more of those countries, and certainly Greece, might as a last resort benefit from exiting not just the euro, but the EU itself.

For Greece, shipping is now crucial to economic survival. Uniquely, for a country that exports little, the shipping sector presents something to offer investors. The chief of these is China. The large number of shipping companies now based in Greece, or affiliated with the Greek flag, are a vital investment.

There is another major risk.  Europe has taken a leading part in the development of effective safety and environmental protection measures in recent years.  On November 11, EMSA, the European Maritime Safety Agency, held a conference at its Lisbon headquarters, entitled “Looking Forward: The Evolution of EMSA’s Tasks“.  While intended as a valedictory to its esteemed (Dutch) Executive Director Willem de Ruiter, who is retiring, and to the equally esteemed, and also retiring (Danish) Chairman of EMSA’s administrative board, Jurgen Hammer-Hansen, some issues were apparent.

EMSA originated, as an idea, in the late 1990s as the regulatory agency that would, as it eventually turned out, provide support to the Commission and Member States in the implementation of EU laws on ship survey and certification, marine equipment, training of seafarers and port state control.  The agency has developed and operated maritime information systems, including the SafeSeaNet ship tracking system, the long range information and tracking data centre, and protection of evaluating and applying systems for protecting coasts and waters from maritime pollution.

Keeping the focus on Maritime safety costs money. As the present crisis rolls on, there will be less of it available to EMSA.  Degrees of political support, and differences of emphasis, were also visible.

Among the speakers were: Siim Kallas, the European Transportation Secretary (who appeared by televised hookup); Knut Fleckenstein, a member of the European Parliament hailing from Hamburg; Juan Riva of the European Community Shipowners’ Association; soon-to-retire IMO Secretary-General Thimio Mitropoulos; Mr. Hammer-Hansen; Matthias Ruete of the European Commission; Anna Wypych-Namiotko of the Polish Infrastructure Ministry, representing the Polish Presidency of the EU; and Pavel Shikov, Chairman of the Council of the International Association of Classification Societies (IACS), who is also Vice-Director General of the Russian Maritime Register of Shipping.

Different points of view were expressed as to what EMSA should be like in the years to come.  Some commentators seem to look upon EMSA as largely a port state control enforcement agency.  Others want it to go further, and become a source of policy initiatives, proposing safety standards and acting as the voice of Europe on all maritime safety matters.

There is general agreement that EMSA, under its present leadership, since its establishment in Lisbon in 2002, the year of the Prestige sinking, has been a considerable success.  Its mission, like that of agencies elsewhere in the world, is expanding and changing.  When the European Union’s institutions come in for criticism, the achievements of an EMSA should be taken into account on the other side of the scale.

Sir Robert Coleman, who once ran the transport directorate in Brussels and now monitors the EU for BIMCO, is to head up a taskforce to find solutions to the regional crisis facing maritime recruitment. It is one of those problems which sounds a lot easier to solve than it really is, once the full scale of the problem is revealed.

Europe is a high cost region, and just like Japan, or the United States, or Australia, domestic seafarers have been priced out of their shipping industries.

Deep sea, a declining number of officers are found on ships which are controlled in these high-cost places – otherwise shipowners are happy to shop at the global maritime manpower bazaar, where there are any number of bargains to be found.

It suits the shipowners’ customers too, because they would rather have cheap shipping, rather than pay a little more and get shipping that employs locals.

Politicians have tended to go along with this, to the chagrin of European and other high cost seafarers and their unions, who have seen their job opportunities shrink, and their terms, if indeed they can find employment, deteriorate.

Does any of this matter? Well, yes it does, because there is a very great deal of European seafaring, and hands-on maritime expertise and indeed sea-trained and marine related jobs within the maritime infrastructure that have depended on expertise generated and educated within the region. The jobs won’t go away, so do we really wish to see them filled by expatriates, because there is no locally recruited talent?

When he worked for the European Commission, Sir Robert once proposed that intra-European shipping, such as ferries, should be manned by Europeans, something that was denounced as protectionist by European shipowners who wished to retain their new freedoms to hire anyone from anywhere in the world on their ships. I didn’t think it was a bad idea at all, arguing that just as we probably would find it politically hard to hire cheap foreign bus drivers on our buses, while there were locals available, European waters could legitimately be treated as a domestic “pond”, reserved for domestic employment.

Such a view did not commend itself to shipowners, who suggested that they were unable to find sufficient locals to do the jobs that were available, as “Europeans no longer wanted to go to sea”. The arguments continue, and doubtless will resurface with Sir Robert’s working party, once it starts asking questions.

There are not many choices available, it would seem. The EU could be prescriptive and centralist, but would risk making shipping less competitive, at a time when it ought to be growing faster than other modes of transport, for the environmental benefits it brings. But already, ferry owners have warned that there are so many environmental costs being heaped upon them, that they can see their customers opting to send their goods by truck.

It could perhaps be interventionist, making it worthwhile owners staffing their ships with Europeans, perhaps doing more in terms of taxation or the fiscal regime, or helping with the increasingly expensive business of training ships’ officers in particular.

Or it could merely exhort, which has been tried in the past, without much success, or put a bit of extra resource into awareness, education and recruitment. It might look at what works reasonably well, and what doesn’t. But just as we probably won’t have a European Coastguard, we probably don’t want a European Merchant Navy.

It might be argued that shipping companies really have the greatest responsibility for educating and training the employees they need. If Sir Robert’s eventual report might propose some solutions that provide some institutional support and a formula for financial encouragement to shipping company training initiatives – for Europeans, naturally – , it might do European shipping a great service in the future, and even give some tips to the Japanese, Americans et al.

Opinions about the EU and its component bodies  vary greatly but few would disagree that it has been a dynamic and successful force for European unity, aiding economic and social development and laying out a future strategy for regional and international co-operation.

None of these are reasons to grant the European Union – or the European Commission – full member status at the International Maritime Organization.

Mostly, this is because the EU member states are individually and collectively among the most active contributors to the IMO process at member state level. They contribute technical expertise, shipping experience and familiarity with the process that together is often greater than the sums of its parts.

Increasing the role of the European Commission in the IMO process beyond its shepherding process as an observer would be akin to allowing each member state to bring not only its civil service but its quangos and hangers-on as well.

The importance of observer-members to the IMO is growing, in a reflection that the organization accepts that it operates in a wide world and its decisions must be informed by a number of voices. The European Commission is already a contributor to this. Promotion to full membership would be without precedent but could create a dangerous one, encouraging other unelected bodies and interest groups to seek observer status in the hope of bargaining for further influence.

The IMO is a public entity so the European Commission already has a direct line to the secretariat and the secretary-general and presumably it makes use of that channel formally and informally. Would full IMO membership provide any benefit to the organization?

More than anything else, the political implications of the EU or the commission becoming a full member would send the wrong signals. IMO remains the supreme maritime technical body but even its advocates agree that it is not a political player on the same terms as the commission. Now is not the time for that to change.