ASIAN shipowners have stepped back from formally voicing their concerns over plans to introduce a bunker levy and instead said more time was needed to consider the proposal.

This followed two days of talks Monday and Tuesday at the 17th Asian Shipowners’ Forum, which represents seven regional shipowner associations in Asia.

In a draft joint statement prepared for the opening day of the meeting, the group said it had “concerns on the practicality and other associated complications in implementing a global bunker levy scheme in the maritime sector”.

But during talks forum members decided to drop this reference from the final 10-page joint statement.
The idea of the bunker levy was proposed by Denmark and is expected to be on the agenda of an International Maritime Organization meeting in Oslo on June 23-27 which will discuss greenhouse gases.

Summarising the Danish proposal, the forum said that while a levy on bunkers is not likely to have a significant impact on total emissions of carbon dioxide and at best would drive ship efficiency improvements, cash raised could be utilised for carbon related schemes.

But it also pointed out that funds raised may have a potentially disruptive impact on the existing carbon markets, while the creation of a “transparent and fraud free levy collection, transfer and disbursement system appears to be complex, but possible”.

Hong Kong Shipowners’ Association managing director Arthur Bowring said the forum wanted to wait until the IMO meeting that will discuss technical, operational and market based issues related to greenhouse gases.

Mr Bowring personally supported the idea of a $30 per tonne bunker levy that would be collected from whoever had the responsibility of buying bunkers. This could be container lines for the liner industry or charterers for the bulk sector. He said d the cash raised could be spend on specific schemes rather than on carbon credits.

But other shipping sources voiced their concern regarding the Danish plan saying levy could provide a catalyst for certain authorities to charge additional fees, such as administrative charges for collecting the levy, on top of the basic bunker surcharge.

Separately, Li Shanmin, head of the forum’s seafarer’s committee said the shipping industry was facing a “terrible shortage of seafarers” as a result of increased demand and the introduction of new ships.

As a result, he believed the industry should take three steps to address the problem. The first involved helping communities to encourage more young people to embark on a seafaring career.

Mr Li, who is also Cosco Manning deputy managing director, said that secondly there should be more investment in both seafarers’ training and measures to encourage seafarers to stay at sea.
Finally, he said there should be closer co-operation between shipowners and specialist maritime universities.

But Mr Li’s employer, China Ocean Shipping Group, China’s largest shipping company, did not appear to have a shortage problem. Captain Wei Jiafu, Cosco president and chief executive, said the company had 15,000 seafarers and had set up a training school at Qingdao in eastern China to train officers and ratings.

He said the company recruits from high schools and colleges and educated at Qingdao for three years before being deployed onboard ship.