The Daily View: A template for IMO diplomacy

But your correspondent can’t help but wonder about the possible productivity gains of such an approach, especially at the pollution subcommittee (PPR13) this week.

I’ve covered five of the past six PPRs since 2020. Certain historical echoes are audible from the tinny headphones of the press room.

Such echoes, if combined with the help of a munificent tech giant, several gigawatts of gas-fired electricity and a little coding know-how, could combine to produce something like the following satirical template:

The IMO has made slow progress in the long-running debate about whether to regulate [biofouling/scrubbers/black carbon/ballast water] today.

Green groups say [problem X] harms marine life and impoverishes fishing communities.

EU members are pushing for stricter regulation, projecting the economic cost of environmental destruction in the trillions of euros.

Now, after 20 years of debate, thousands of documents of written arguments and several heart-warming spoken-word performances by visiting cultural groups, the IMO is on the cusp of adopting [Regulation Y].

The proposal would set “concrete” and “robust” non-binding guidelines for companies on how to respond: by either changing fuels, cleaning hulls, or by taking several deep breaths and pledging a donation to a local aquarium of their choice.

But shipping industry groups warned Regulation Y could contribute to the quilting of a patchwork of incompatible global rules, increase shipping costs, and “tear asunder the very fabric of time and space”.

The PPR chairperson acknowledged the urgency of the matter. They thanked [Insert country] for sponsoring lunch, forwarded all documents to the relevant working group, and agreed to revisit the matter, once again, this time next year.

More to come, but not any time soon.

Declan Bush
Senior reporter, Lloyd’s List

Click here to view the latest Lloyd’s List Daily Briefing