Watchkeeper: The carrot better than the stick
All manner of environmental initiatives seem to be emerging, not least because of the latest climate change meeting due to end this week in Durban. And while sound science may (or may not) be behind them all, there is a good deal of public support for a cleaner, greener world, which seems to resonate with Corporate Social Responsibility.
The problem for industry is not the implied changes themselves but, as past President Robert Lorenz-Meyer asked at this year’s BIMCO General Meeting in Vancouver, “where is the cash-flow coming from that will justify the measures?” It remains a very valid question as the cost/benefit analysis of so many environmental initiatives seems to be rarely discussed before they are promoted from good ideas which resonate with public approbation into regulation.
It is also far better for industry to be encouraged with incentives rather than to be coerced into making changes which it is believed will help the environment. Once again in Vancouver, BIMCO members were appraised of the various green incentives the British Columbian port were putting in place to reward ships for good environmental performance. It was getting results. There are major ports in Europe going down the same route and it is seen to be generally more effective than putting in place rigid prescriptions alongside penalties for infractions; the carrot is invariably more useful than the stick in encouraging any sort of environmental progress.
But the cash-flow for green measures will continue to be a difficulty, and it might be that slightly lower dues in ports will be an inadequate incentive to encourage a ship operator to pay for the capital costs of machinery improvements or alternative fuels. More imagination might be needed.
The US Environmental Protection Agency has already allocated some USD 50 million in grants to bodies that can somehow promise better air quality, under the Diesel Emission Reduction Act. An interesting initiative, revealed recently in the marine newsletter of Washington lawyer Denis Bryant, concerned a public/private partnership in which a grant of nearly USD 1 million was given to the Port of Houston for a fuel switching project it is undertaking with the big international carrier CMA CGM. This will enable the carrier to use fuel with a sulphur content of less than or equal to 0.2%, within 24 miles of the Texas coast. The EPA hopes that this example will encourage the adoption of fuel switching in the Gulf of Mexico.
This case is interesting for a number of reasons. Firstly, the company involved is a foreign ship owner, although its ships are regular callers at the Texas port. Secondly, it is a constructive, incentive-based approach that sees the port and the shipping line working together to implement measures that are of clear social benefit to the local population. It could also provide something of a blueprint to others and a message that the maritime world can be a beneficiary of meaningful assistance towards their own green policies. The EPA, for instance, is also providing the same amount of money to the Houston-Galveston Area Council for re-engining projects involving three local tugboats. They might be small sums of money but it does begin to answer questions about cash-flow and might just provide an example elsewhere of shared endeavour.
Source: BIMCO, Watchkeeper
