–
As a starting point, could you outline the main goals of the Association?
The chief aims of NAMEPA, which draws its name from the Hellenic Marine Environment Protection Association (HELMEPA) – which was the first such organisation formed from within the commercial shipping industry – is to secure the participation of the private sector shipping industry in support of safety at sea and improvement and protection of the oceans and, in the case of North America, the rivers and Great Lakes.
Your membership comprises a broad spectrum of international industries from banks to oil companies. How do you work with them effectively and how do you ensure your objective to save the seas is not compromised by conflicting interests?
We have not found much of a difference of opinion in our members’ commitment to ‘saving the seas’. I think that the reason for this is that in joining an organisation such as NAMEPA, there is an implicit commitment to sincerity; our members understand that we are not a policy-making nor an advocacy organisation. We are a support association, working with government, the academic community, students of all ages, and within the shipping industry itself. There are so many things to do in bringing the whole community together, including environmental groups, that dissent is either minimal or non-existent. Moreover, there is a spirit of ‘leaving private agendas outside the door’. We do not find that there are too many corporate positions and special interests ‘on display’.
How do you work with representatives of the shipping industry to reduce their impacts on marine resources?
Our most effective approach to working with representatives of the shipping industry is to conduct seminars and meetings in their presence, or with them as participants. Of course, they and their companies are often NAMEPA members (we have well over 100), so we are able to reach a broad spectrum within the industry. We also believe in the value of public relations, the Internet and all forms of social media to gain support for our work. It must be emphasised that the shipping industry has experienced very few major environmental ‘incidents’ in recent years. The present drive to reduce air emissions and to build a coalition reducing the acidification of the oceans and lakes has been successful, largely because it is backed up by strong federal and state laws in the US and Canada. The same is true with regard to the management of ballast water, which often contains invasive organisms.
We are increasingly becoming aware of the economic costs of inaction on climate change and environmental decline. Why do you believe ‘green’ is good business? How can other organisations learn from this model?
We do believe that green is good business. In fact, we are strongly committed to corporate social responsibility (CSR). We believe that experience has taught the world that a corporation that is willing to invest a reasonable amount of money in risk awareness and management – merely the practical consequence of CSR – will save itself a lot of money. BP has, to date, scaled the irrational heights of liability, approaching at this point a grand total of between US $40-$60 billion dollars in expenditure. Its stock price has fallen by a third since the Deepwater Horizon disaster of 20 April, 2010, and shows no sign of recovering – despite the general prosperity of the oil industry. We think this says it all.
To what extent do you work with other conservation organisations to help protect global resources? Do you represent this community at a political level?
From time to time we have collaborated with other conservation groups, particularly in our public awareness efforts. On the whole, however, because NAMEPA seems to occupy a unique position in North America, and particularly in the US, we have not found that there is a strong desire for a collective approach that involves the shipping industry. This is something that we hope will change over the next five years.
We continue to find new ways of oil exploration and there is currently a big drive towards deep-sea drilling. In particular, US oil companies are looking to drill in the Arctic. What is your opinion on this? How can we, as you say, ‘prevent the Deepwater Horizons of tomorrow’?
We are of course concerned that there is, in particular, a need for more government resources to be deployed in the Arctic, chiefly to mitigate the effects of an oil spill. Unfortunately, we are at a time when governments – including those of Canada and the US – are eager to cut back on their financial commitments. It is true that icebreakers are particularly expensive to build and operate.
NAMEPA is working to raise the Alaskan State Government’s investment in safety and pollution prevention. The problem has several aspects: the US Government already has its single largest Coast Guard contingent based in Alaska, traditionally to provide the fishing industry with adequate search and rescue resources. There is not very much ‘stretch’ left in the US Government’s budget for the additional floating equipment and crews needed to prevent oil spills or blowouts. The various federal agencies are therefore hard-put to carry out their missions in the highly unforgiving weather and sea conditions of the Arctic. Canada, for its part, is engaged in a large-scale expansion of its maritime capabilities in the high Arctic. The Arctic is different to the Antarctic in that, years ago, the Arctic Council was formed as a coalition of nations either in Polar Regions, or facing the Arctic seas. There is, therefore, an international body with a growing amount of jurisdiction over deepwater drilling and the shipping that goes with it. There are a number of specific problems, including the fact that passage from the Arctic seas into the Northern Pacific and Atlantic, as well as across the north of Eurasia, is subject to the jurisdictions of a number of different countries. Moreover, certain features, such as the Unimak pass near Dutch Harbour in the Aleutians, are somewhat like constricted straits. There is need for a more effective system of traffic separation, rather like what we have in the English Channel. We fear that this is still a good many years from realisation.
Alaska’s society and unique biodiversity is supported by a healthy marine ecosystem. What threats is their dynamic facing? How are you advocating change?
We would say that the biggest threat facing the Alaskan maritime biosphere is, in fact, climate change. While it is true that the ultimate fear is a major oil spill or blowout, it is not clear that the existing maritime species can or will adapt to global warming. Research has shown a remarkable change in sea temperatures in recent years. NAMEPA is advocating that Alaska develops its own maritime environmental centre, modelled after Wood’s Hole in Massachusetts and the Scripps Institute. In California, we believe that this would give Alaskans a more tangible stake in their own maritime destiny.
What is NAMEPA aiming to achieve over the next five years?
In fact, our Alaskan work is likely to be one of the most important things we do in the next five years. Our work with government agencies in the US, Canada and probably Mexico will be the most important effort. While we are not a lobbying organisation, we do believe that it would be a major accomplishment if, during the next five years, we foster a greater awareness of the relationship of shipping to the seas, and the extent to which ships contribute to global prosperity – and, therefore, the marine environment itself. We are not optimistic that an international consensus will be achieved on areas like carbon and greenhouse gas issues. We also believe that one of the most significant challenges that we – and those who think as we do – will have to face in coming decades is the gap that we believe exists between the goals and aspiration of lawmakers and the general public on the one hand, and reality on the other. In our opinion, there is very little appreciation among the public of the fact that simply making a law does not necessarily make things happen.
Clay Maitland
Fouding Chairman of NAMEPA and Managing Partner of International Registries
