Does ratification matter and do major conventions improve safety and decrease pollution in shipping?

Abstract

We develop a method which measures the effect of the major international conventions in the area of safety, pollution, search and rescue and work related measures. We further distinguish between the effect of entry into force and the status of ratification of a convention by its parties. We use standard econometric models and base our analysis on a unique dataset of 30 years of monthly data where we correct for other factors which can influence safety such as safety inspections and ship economic cycles. The results show a complex picture where the average time between adoption and entry into force was calculated to be 3.1 years. Overall, the more parties ratify a convention, the more likely safety is improved and pollution is decreased although one can detect a certain level of non compliance. The immediate effect of entry into force presents a mixed picture where most negative effects can be found with legislation in the area of safety management and pollution, followed by technical areas. The effect of legislation in the areas related to working and living conditions and certification and training is smallest. Seasonality can be found with peaks in December and January for all conventions but are less important for pollution.

One size fits all? Safety management regulation of ship accidents and personal injuries

“…In Norway, county authorities give contracts to the cheapest tender for passenger transport, making the tenderers reduce their costs and increase their efficiency. Production priorities tend to trump protection -as Reason (1997) would say -but safety regulations have made shipping companies prioritize protection where it is mandatory [also reported by Lappalainen, Kuronen, and Tapaninen (2014); Bhattacharya (2012); Knapp and Franses (2009)]. The companies report openly that they cannot afford to implement safety measures that are not directly related to government requirements.…”

Corporate Social Responsibility or Government Regulation? Evidence on Oil Spill Prevention

“…For instance, all shipping companies in U.S. waters have to abide by the 1990 Oil Pollution Act; notably, all companies are obliged to convert their fleets to double-hull tankers for most tanker trades by 2015, while amendments to the MARPOL convention also mandate the phasing out of single-hull tankers on a global scale. Statistical studies demonstrate that double-hull tankers have a lower incidence rate than single-hull tankers and that double-hull design significantly reduces the size of oil spills on average Knapp 2009, Yip et al 2011) and that MARPOL amendments related to the phaseout of singlehull tankers decreased the number of pollution incidents and, to some extent, the amount of pollution (Knapp and Franses 2009). Alongside international conventions, national legislation can make a critical contribution toward oil spill prevention.…”

Dynamic Response of Risk Management Model to Mitigate Impact of Maritime Regulatory Changes: Oil Tanker Owners Perspective

“…Deadlines for the implementation of regulations can be challenging to meet when they overlap with the long recession periods occasionally generated by unpredictable marker cycles. The average time between adoption and entry into force has been calculated as 3.1 years (Knapp & Franses, 2009). Moreover, the interest of ship owners to comply with regulations is much narrower than that of the states.…”