Ferry Business - Autumn/Winter 2018

International Cruise & Ferry Review Ferry Business 68 fter more than a decade of intense regulatory development and ever- increasing requirements at the International Maritime Organization (IMO), the ferry industry is currently in much calmer waters. Several factors explain this marked slowdown in new regulations, such as the European Union (EU) Commission’s expressed strategy to clean up existing regulations before pursuing new ones. The EU Commission is inextricably linked to the IMO, as almost any new IMO safety or environmental regulation has first been conceived in Brussels. More importantly, we may have come to a point where the low-hanging regulatory fruits have already been picked – and some high-hanging fruits too for that matter. The current safety regime is very strong for passenger ships on international operation or on domestic routes within the 36 countries that are members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. The fatality rate is difficult to calculate due to poor data but, based as the number of fatalities per number of passengers, the ferry industry is on par with the international aviation sector. Unfortunately, this is not the case in a handful of developing nations, and Interferry has created a Safety Committee to address this issue. The other main regulatory arena we are addressing is the environment, where performance at ship level has improved dramatically after two decades of regulatory interventions. The ferry industry has not supported all of the amendments, largely because operators need significantly more time to implement them. While there are a couple of concerning issues, such as hull fouling and underwater noise, we don’t expect any disruptive issues in the short to medium future. We do, however, need to address the fundamentally difficult and potentially disruptive issue of greenhouse gases (GHG). International shipping has historically been allowed to regulate itself through its common body, the IMO. Although slow at times, this model has served humanity and the planet well and it’s difficult to envisage a better system. However, there has been concern related to the IMO’s role in developing requirements that significantly improve shipping’s GHG performance. Many voices argued that shipping should not have been excluded from the Paris Agreement, which set a long-term target of well below 2°C for the increase in global average temperature compared with pre-industrial levels. In fact, the non-binding nature of the agreement is not well aligned with how we manage shipping regulations, especially as it could create significant marketplace distortions and a resurgence of Flags of (GHG) Convenience. This April, the IMO agreed to binding requirements for international shipping after being influenced by the EU, Australia, Japan and others, with constructive support from China. The requirements demand that by 2030, there will have been a 40% reduction in GHG emissions per transport work – typically measured as grams of carbon dioxide per ton/nautical mile of A lower carbon future Interferry regulatory affairs director Johan Roos discusses how the ferry industry can sustainably address climate change in a realistic timeframe Johan Roos Swedish national Johan Roos holds an environmental sciences masters degree from the University of Gothenburg. He left DNV for Stena Line in 2000 and was Stena Rederi’s director of sustainability from 2006-2011 before taking up his Brussels-based Interferry post COMMENTARY Interferry members like Color Line are building hybrid ferries to reduce their environmental impact