Source: Lloyds List
By Lloyds List Comment
AT LESS than £28m ($42m), the annual budget of the International Maritime Organization is small change. To put it another way, one of the world’s largest industries is regulated for an annual outlay that would just about buy a five-year-old aframax. How cheap is that?
Lloyd’s List therefore cannot approve of the actions of at least one leading flag state in withholding its 2010 dues, at least temporarily, in the light of a 14.9% hike in subscriptions.
Open registries are a business, and IMO fees are a business overhead for the states they serve. If flags set up shop, they should ensure they pay their way, in the same way as any other enterprise.
Given that the bill is footed on a proportional basis, with an element related to ability to pay, the current system by which it is levied is broadly fair.
Yet the IMO is not entirely blameless in all this. Frankly, the lack of financial transparency at the only UK-based UN agency is little short of shocking.
Every company, charity, local authority, political party and trade union in Britain must by law file a full set of audited accounts each year. Most table tennis clubs, amateur dramatic societies and the like choose to do so, even though it is not a legal requirement.
But in this respect the IMO persists in exemplifying the veil of secrecy that remains the unacceptable face of the modern shipping industry, routinely refusing legitimate requests for information from the media.
The default position at Lloyd’s List is always to support the IMO. We like what it does, we think it offers excellent value for money, and we think it should have the resources to carry out the projects it feels it needs to undertake.
The crucial rider here is that we believe it should justify it budget to its stakeholders across the maritime community, in just the same way as the marketing department at a provincial widget manufacturer must make its case before the board.
As things stand, it gives every appearance of failing to do so.
By Lloyds List Comment
AT LESS than £28m ($42m), the annual budget of the International Maritime Organization is small change. To put it another way, one of the world’s largest industries is regulated for an annual outlay that would just about buy a five-year-old aframax. How cheap is that?
Lloyd’s List therefore cannot approve of the actions of at least one leading flag state in withholding its 2010 dues, at least temporarily, in the light of a 14.9% hike in subscriptions.
Open registries are a business, and IMO fees are a business overhead for the states they serve. If flags set up shop, they should ensure they pay their way, in the same way as any other enterprise.
Given that the bill is footed on a proportional basis, with an element related to ability to pay, the current system by which it is levied is broadly fair.
Yet the IMO is not entirely blameless in all this. Frankly, the lack of financial transparency at the only UK-based UN agency is little short of shocking.
Every company, charity, local authority, political party and trade union in Britain must by law file a full set of audited accounts each year. Most table tennis clubs, amateur dramatic societies and the like choose to do so, even though it is not a legal requirement.
But in this respect the IMO persists in exemplifying the veil of secrecy that remains the unacceptable face of the modern shipping industry, routinely refusing legitimate requests for information from the media.
The default position at Lloyd’s List is always to support the IMO. We like what it does, we think it offers excellent value for money, and we think it should have the resources to carry out the projects it feels it needs to undertake.
The crucial rider here is that we believe it should justify it budget to its stakeholders across the maritime community, in just the same way as the marketing department at a provincial widget manufacturer must make its case before the board.
As things stand, it gives every appearance of failing to do so.
No hay comentarios.:
Publicar un comentario