By Craig Eason, Editorial Director, Fathom World
THERE’S often a caution about policy and rule making in any sector or country. The temptation to be self serving are often high and when it comes to international rule making I have heard the the ‘you scratch my back- I’ll scratch yours” is still a favoured path for stale-mate resolution.
It does not matter whether it is for business improvement, safety or environmental, there is the opportunity for leveraging self interests in any political debate and this is why one always hear about calls for increased transparency.
There is an ongoing call in the maritime sector for increased transparency, and with the transparency, accountability.
The latest international maritime body to promote its drive for self transparency is the International Association of Classification Societies.
It is, says its current chairman Knut Ørbeck-Nilssen, needed to retain IACS as a modern organisation which is relevant for the maritime industry of tomorrow.
And therein lies one of the key issues. IACS needs to do this. The role of IACS is in danger of being outdated and irrelevant. It is also an issue considering the very important role that class societies play. They can represent flag states (under their function of Recognised Organisation), they have construction rules and operational rules for vessels that need to be followed to ensure compliance for bank and insurance covenants. They also class equipment as compliant and capable to be used at sea (i.e. they will type approve equipment on behalf of administrations).
Class is the safety key in the ongoing evolution of shipping.
Knut-Orbeck Nilssen rightly points to the digitalisation of the shipping industry, but in its essence digitalisation of processes may not fall under the classification services of IACS members, but part of their consultancy or advisory offering (which at times one can perceive as being at odds with its statutory function).
I see two types of IACS members; the classification societies that are predominantly offering statutory services, such as inspections, RO services or certification. Then there are the organisations which have consultancy offerings for maritime stake holders, but also other industry sectors.
To this extent DNV GL, the class society that Ørbeck-Nilssen works for, is a prime example. It has services for oil and gas, renewable and other sectors. Lloyd’s Register, Bureau Veritas and RINA fall into this category too, as does ABS and Class NK, though not to the same degree
So when IACS talks about transparency, the talk is not so much about transparency of the individual associations- some are more open and transparent than others (as search for financial results of IACS members is a good indicator of this).
Through IACS the class societies have the harmonised common structural rules, an excellent example of co-operation to provide a solid, and high, baseline for newbuilding standards. H-CSR effectively made sure that structural safety was no longer a source for competitive advantage. I recall there were internal issues when CSRs for bulk vessels and tankers were first created, but these were resolved and the CSR are now seen as a success of class co operation over safety..
But what I am not sure is how much further IACS should or can go. There are some aspects of the class work which are not part of the statutory workload, and at the same time IACS and the IMO are trying to cement a new relationship, one where IACS becomes even more the defacto interpreter of the goal-based rulemaking the IMO is tending to favour.
So, do we need transparency in class? Yes we do, because then industry knows that the rule maker and its interpreter are working for safety of ships and the environment, and are not self-serving in anyway. The word is Trust.
Craig Eason
The f-word blog aims to offer a personal opinion, from the Fathom Editorial team, of events and trends in the developing transformation of the shipping industry.
