There would seem to have been a good result from the annual Tripartite meeting between ship owners, shipbuilders and classification societies, held in Tokyo last month. These are always important meetings, valued by those who participate, many of whom recall the problems some years ago when owners, builders and class did not formally confer on a regular basis. Chaired by BIMCO President John Denholm, the meeting was wide ranging; not surprising when all that is going on in this essential industry is considered. The President, who spoke of his pleasure at the plentiful and constructive debates, also commented on the commonality of views across the industry and support for the work of its regulator, the International Maritime Organization (IMO). This support is very important at present, and emphasises the need for international consensus, rather than any fragmented, local or regional initiatives on a large number of pressing issues.

The 2013 theme of the IMO is, of course, “a sustainable maritime transport system”, but which is further and more usefully defined by its “three pillars” which note that sustainability encompasses environmental, economic and social elements, all of which must be considered in our consideration of the way ahead.

Emphasised at recent meetings at the IMO, which have brought industry and regulators closer together, this inter-relationship between safety, the environment and economic practicability within the regulatory agenda, was given further weight in Tokyo.

“Sustainability” is sometimes ill-defined and used as a “catch-all” term to justify all manner of environmental advances, so it has been useful to see a more precise explanation, in which the importance of balance, economic realities and above all the centrality of safety have all been emphasised.

The industry is anxious to play its full part in environmental improvements of all kinds, but would wish to work towards a regulatory process in which an initial impact assessment more thoroughly studies the potential consequences of regulations, weighing both costs and benefits. Environmental advances which were either impractical or unaffordable would fail their objectives, so a more studied and balanced approach is clearly indicated.

There is clear evidence that environmental improvement and ship operating efficiency need not be mutually exclusive and indeed that better designed and more cleverly operated ships help the environment while improving cost effectiveness, and also safety. There is no reason to suggest that in the shipping industry, those who design and build its ships and regulators driven by environmental pressures should be on opposite sides.

Nevertheless, there is a need to recognise economic reality and the ability of a shipping industry still in recovery mode from the depths of a deep global financial crisis to finance expensive mandatory changes out of its own earnings.