Capacity Building for Sustainable Shipping Industry

Ocean & Coastal Management 45 (2002) 617–632
Capacity building for a sustainable shipping
industry: a key ingredient in improving coastal
and ocean and management
Moira McConnell*
Dalhousie University, 6061 University Avenue, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada B3K 4T9
Abstract
Shipping and ports are major factors in coastal and ocean development and have significant
direct and indirect impacts on coasts and oceans. Transportation systems and particularly
international shipping have always influenced coastal settlement and economic development
activities. The emergence of issues, such as biodiversity protection, biosecurity and climate
change, mandate a more integrated approach to dealing with ocean-based activities, such as
shipping. However, the maritime industry—shipping and ports—is internally fragmented and
both are isolated from the contemporary integrated coastal and ocean discussion and practice,
despite their impact on coastal and ocean activity. This article argues that the maritime sector
is a key factor in effective integrated marine ecosystem development and protection and
should take a leadership role. However, there needs to be increased capacity to do so.
Education and training relevant to sustainable development and integrated management
practice needs to be widely and methodically available, particularly in the initial stages of
Maritime Education and Training (MET) where professional values and practices are
developed. Marine and maritime education should be integrated with a view to preparing
people to work in an environment in which there is a wider range of actors and activities
involved in matters relating to the impact of the shipping industry on coastal development and
preservation. There needs to be education to encourage reflective thinking and human
relations skills development for both on shore and seagoing personnel.
r 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
*Tel.: +1-902-494-2776; fax: +1-902-494-1316.
E-mail address: moira.mcconnell@dal.ca (M. McConnell).
0964-5691/02/$ - see front matter r 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 9 6 4 - 5 6 9 1 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 0 8 9 - 3

1. Introduction
I am privileged to have been invited to this important UNESCO Oceans and
Coasts at Rio +10 Conference and to hear the views of people that have been
instrumental in raising global awareness of the importance of the ocean. I am
especially privileged to have the opportunity to share my observations1
and to
present some recommendations to this Roundtable regarding the sustainable
development and integration of the shipping industry, an activity affecting all
oceans and coasts. I note the recent comments of the Secretary-General of the
International Maritime Organization (IMO) that ‘‘a strong transport and commu-
nication infrastructure is essential to achieving sustainable development’’ [1]. The
Secretary-General also highlighted the importance of marine environmental
protection, in view of the dependency of many nations on the sea as a source of
food. Both of these comments were made in the context of a speech on the
importance of the individual seafarer and improved education training and
management. They reflect an increasingly holistic view of the role of shipping as a
positive force to promote sustainability, alleviate poverty and to minimise and
eliminate ecosystem security risks.
2. Observations on integration and shipping activity
Even though the pace of change is slow, even slouching, it is beyond question that
the vision of a more integrated global system articulated by the world community at
Stockholm in 1972, at Montego Bay in 1982 and at Rio de Janeiro in 1992 is now the
dominant governance paradigm. The labels used to describe this process vary,2
but
the overarching theme of convergence, integration and a greater consciousness of
relationships and processes is evident at all levels—economic, ecological, electronic,
administrative, legal and spiritual. The 1992 United Nations Conference on
Environment and Development (UNCED) did not initiate this process nor did it
create the idea or terminology. Rather the Conference and the ideals and instruments
it bore gave voice to this nascent awareness, providing both substance and shape.
UNCED also served as the forge for a link between the ideas of integration,
management and sustainable development. Only time will tell whether the
underlying diagnosis that global problems of poverty, health, environmental
degradation and conflict are management problems, arising from a lack of
integrated and holistic planning and the absence of informed and enlightened
decision-making was accurate. The remedial and rehabilitation plan proposed in
1
These observations draw on my background as a Canadian legal academic working across a number of
fields within law and policy including inter and cross disciplinary teaching and research in international
marine environmental protection, international trade, human rights, economic development and perhaps
most importantly skill-based education to prevent and manage individual and social conflict.
2
Ola Jonsson’s paper [2], ‘‘Globalisation, Europeanisation, Place Embeddedness’’, presents an
interesting discussion of labels such as globalisation, internationalisation in relation to a sense of place
(territory) and the concept of the nation state.
M. McConnell / Ocean & Coastal Management 45 (2002) 617–632618

the 1992 Agenda 21 may be challenged as unduly optimistic with its deadlines and
budgets. From the perspective of a subsequent decade of increased conflict and
environmental and economic disasters it appears even naive. Certainly it under-
estimated human resistance to change. Nonetheless, the major accomplishment
embodied in the Rio Declaration principles and Agenda 21 is undeniable. The
influence of a web like [3] systems or process view of the interaction and relationship
between activities and the environment to which they are wedded has shaped the
rhetoric and approach of most subsequent public management activity internation-
ally, nationally and locally.
In particular, we have seen a renaissance of interest in the ocean and its role in
human survival and as a site or focal point for major changes in international
and national governance systems. In fact we need to realise that this period
may also be viewed as UNCLOS+20 (United Nations Convention on the Law of
the Sea). The recent development of the General Assembly Informal Consultative
Process on the Law of the Sea (UNICPOLOS), aimed in part at integrating
international ocean governance activities, is an important indicator of institutional
change.
The idea of a more integrated approach, irrespective of the acronym adopted
(ICZM, ICM, IAM, ICOM, etc.), to managing coastal and ocean activities also did
not have its genesis with UNCED. Rather the practice and philosophy on which it is
based—consultation, conflict management, transparent and more informed cross
sectoral decision making based on scientific information and local values—informed
the ideals propounded at UNCED and captured in Agenda 21. However, its
popularisation and proliferation as a management approach is linked to post
UNCED activities such as the 1993 World Coast Conference and the numerous
meetings under the umbrella of the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity.
At the risk of oversimplifying the field, one can sum up integrated coastal and
ocean management (ICOM) as a means of dealing with the fact of increased
economic, social and environmental pressure and dependency on the coastal areas
and the tensions that this situation generates. The reason for this situation is
primarily related to the history of economic development. Ports and shipping are
often at the heart of the cluster of activities that take place in coastal areas. Increased
pressure for foreign exchange revenue to balance external national debt has
influenced both the direction and geography of economic development towards
product or primary resource export oriented industries that rely on international
transport. This means that goods must be moved safely, economically, securely and
efficiently. Thus shipping, if not ship owning or operating, activity is a key ingredient
in the economic development strategy of many countries. Increased interest in
commercial exploitation of the ocean’s non-living and living resources, which also
relies on shipping, compounds its importance. Ports and port related infrastructure
require a myriad of land based highly centralised transport systems, workers and
spin off activities which, in turn, draw the populace to the coastal trading posts, as
they have always done. Ports are both the guardians and the gate to the internal and
external communities. Logic suggests that the maritime industry—shipping and
ports—would be at the heart of, and indeed leaders in integrated coastal and ocean
M. McConnell / Ocean & Coastal Management 45 (2002) 617–632 619

management thinking, activity and practice and central to sustainable development
planning.
In fact shipping, or more broadly, the maritime industry, is ‘‘out of the picture’’ or
at best operating at the margins of ICOM activity, thinking and approaches,
internationally, in many countries and in its supporting educational and training
institutions. This is largely a result of a combination of its history as the earliest
international activity, often inseparable from empire building and national maritime
security, and the traditionally highly specialised educational orientation, culture and
governance institutions of the industry. Ships, with their brave carriage of the
national flag across the seas, have a deeply symbolic meaning as an icon of a nation’s
presence in the world. Against all economic logic many countries still aspire to a
national commercial fleet. Despite the modern day reality of complex multinational
ownership and operation of ships and the rise of numerous other transnational
industries, the idea of shipping as special, sui generis, has remained sacrosanct. The
point of interest is that the mystique surrounding shipping has had an impact on its
relationship to sustainable development activities and, in particular, its uneasy
relationship with the ICOM movement. Reflecting on the boundaries implied by the
distinction between marine and maritime can best capture this idea.
However, the process of integration is gradually affecting this sector. The post
UNCED emergence of what James Cameron [4] has called the ‘‘ecological state’’ has
been accompanied by a more sophisticated generation of environmental concerns
particularly related to oceans. These are concerns for abstractions such as
biodiversity protection, biosecurity and climate change. They refer to relationships,
processes and interactions rather than observable point-in-time evaluations of
substance-based pollution and cause and effect. This means that these issues cross
and sometimes fall between sectors, institutions, disciplinary lines, activities,
countries and responsibilities. They demand new regulatory and management
approaches and with it the human resource capacity to develop and work with these
ideas. This intellectual shift has resulted in a number of new, less permanent,
institutional arrangements, projects and programmes particularly at a global and
regional level.3
These arrangements seek to establish and facilitate flexible
cooperative activities to specifically address these problems outside the pre-existing
jurisdictional and sectoral constraints. They operate as forces of institutional
integration triggered, as they often are, on a domestic level by shared ecological and
socioeconomic concerns.
Given the centrality of the ocean in the ecosystem it is not surprising that most of
these concerns touch directly or indirectly upon the shipping sector. The problem of
harmful aquatic organism and pathogen transfer in ships’ ballast water and through
other ship vectors and their impact on food, health and economic security and on
biodiversity is an important example. It is a topic of concern to the environmental
community and is governed by a strongly supported multilateral environmental
agreement (MEA) the Convention Biological Diversity (Article 8(h)). It is also
governed by UNCLOS (Article 196). The IMO is also developing an international
3
The Global Environmental Facility projects are a good example.

convention to govern the problem. It affects fisheries, ports, human health,
international trade and ships’ operations. It can be seen as a threat to national
biosecurity, thereby also falling within maritime security concerns. This means that it
does not fit neatly into specialised international and domestic shipping regulations or
administrative structures.4
It requires extensive interaction amongst agencies and
sectors and people that may have widely differing expertise, values and practices. In
other words, it requires integrated coastal and ocean management in order to
develop an effective response to the threat this problem presents.
The need for integration in the context of ocean activity was recognised in the
preambular declaration of UNCLOS in 1982 ‘‘that the problems of ocean space are
interrelated and need to be considered as whole’’. UNCLOS sought to resolve the
tension between maritime and what I will call marine or coastal state interests
through a tight delineation of agreed upon rights and responsibilities. But the tension
between the two remains at the international level and within the internal dynamics
of the national regulatory structures. The current tussle for supremacy between port
State control and enforcement and the much maligned flag State jurisdiction is
illustrative. The concern about the transfer of harmful aquatic organisms and
pathogens by ships’ as well as other issues such as ship source air emissions, port
expansion and marine biodiversity protection is demanding integration through the
process of dissolving the boundaries between maritime and marine. This is evidenced
at a domestic level with the greater involvement of, for example, the US
Environmental Protection Agency in the development of ship source air emission
controls [5] or the Indian government’s decision to transfer port development
approvals from the Shipping Ministry to the Environment Ministry [6]. In the former
case these shifts have been construed by the shipping industry as acts of unilateralism
and a challenge to the hegemony of the IMO regime. They can also be viewed as
simply part of the more general process of mainstreaming the impacts of shipping
related activities into the domestic environmental regime. This may result in the
feared patchwork of standards. However, the globalisation of environmental
standard setting through the MEA process and the World Trade Organisation
processes may also mean that these standards are equally international, albeit
negotiated in different fora with differing actors influencing the balances and values
set out in the standards.
Whatever the eventual meaning of these trends, it is clear that they are placing new
and different demands on all participants. The new system based on ecological
system concerns means that it is imperative that the shipping sector develop a
broader awareness and capacity to easily work in a cross disciplinary way within the
contemporary ICOM governance framework.
These comments should not be understood to suggest that there is a lack of
environmental awareness or activity in the shipping sector. The situation is, in fact,
4
The developing national laws deal with it in many different ways. For example, in some countries, such
as Australia and Chile, it is a quarantine matter. In the USA it is a mix of fisheries and coastguard activity.
In Canada it is dealt with under Federal Transport regulations and port notices. In New Zealand it is part
of a new biosecurity regime.

quite the opposite. At the international convention and ship operating levels there is
a markedly high degree of awareness and concern about protecting the ocean from
ship source pollution. Relatively speaking shipping is an industry that has been very
responsive in terms of insurance and compensation for polluting incidents and the
development of technical innovations to address pollution problems. Ports have been
less so but even now there are industry efforts, such the proposed ECOports5
initiative in the EU, underway in many places. In fact the degree of regulatory
attention devoted to shipping has led some to complain that it would be better if
countries did something about the real source of marine environmental degrada-
tion—land-based activity.
But the shipping sector can be viewed as something of a loner, perhaps like the
heroic myth of the seafarer. Shipping’s aura of specialisation and its complicated
‘‘national but a resident of the world’’ identity have also rendered it isolated and
therefore vulnerable to more political attention than other industries. It has also
meant that the regulation and presentation of environmental issues in this sector has
generally not moved in concert with the developing ecosystem awareness. As Gold
[7] has noted these ‘‘[c]hanges have crept up on the maritime world quite
imperceptibly’’. Thus the interaction of shipping and ports as residents of coastal
communities is not easily part of the international or domestic management and
regulatory structure.
In fact ports and ships are also dealt with in institutional isolation, or at least at a
wary distance, from each other.6
This means that the maritime industry is itself
fragmented internally and even further distanced from the coastal management
community. This internal division, at one time likely viewed as complementary and
expertise based, is preserved in the international regulatory structure and largely
duplicated in the domestic or national institutional design. For example, the IMO is
predominantly concerned with regulating ships’ operating standards and practices
through ﬂag State control, irrespective of a vessel’s geographical location.
Historically, environmental standards and strategies have been developed on the
basis of a reconciliation of ship equipment technical developments and commercial
viability [8] as opposed to ecological carrying capacity.7
There are sensible reasons
for this approach since the failure to account for viability will simply encourage non-
compliance and conﬂict. However, the weight to be given to these factors is a matter
of international controversy. Environmental protection is important but it is still
frequently dealt with on the basis of polluting substances and structured command
and control enforcement. There are an increasing number of issues such as the
transfer of harmful aquatic species in ships’ ballast water and the problem of
5
See http://www.ecoports.com/index.html.
6
This split is evident in Agenda 21, Chapter 17, which calls for, inter alia, 17.6 (i) ‘‘Integration of
sectoral programmes onyports and industries affecting the coastal area.’’ Section 17.30 characterises
shipping as a sea-based activity and, primarily, urges national activity to ratify and implement IMO
conventions.
7
Karin B.ackstrand [9] has carried out an interesting study exploring this issue from the perspective of a
discourse analysis of the science–policy interface in standard setting for transboundary air pollution
diplomacy.

organotin based anti-fouling paint, that point to the need for a differing approach.
However, to date the regulatory approach that has been adopted by the shipping
regime remains much the same. Although it must also be acknowledged that there
are some shipping sector regulatory activities that have bridged the ‘‘at sea-on shore’’
gap.8
For example, contingency planning for oil spills and search and rescue often
require regional cooperation, integration of resources and systems, coastal sensitivity
mapping and interaction with many non-shipping shore based services.
In line with this approach Gold [7] has argued for the potential of regional
cooperation based on a conscious decision to move to a more functional or interest
based approach to managing ecologically vulnerable and economically important
shipping areas such as international straits. He notes recent events in South East
Asia where disputes are rapidly moved to the background ‘‘yin order to make way
for a more co-operative spirit. This spirit can also affect any approaches taken to
develop an acceptable regime for straits transit with equitably shared responsi-
bilities’’ [7].
This cooperative, interest-based approach, particularly in regions with contested
maritime boundaries and resources, is a way to ensure that shipping is a sustainable
activity. It can mean that ecological concerns are better cared for, as a matter of
shared priority. But such an approach requires personnel that are broadly informed,
comprehend the multiple values and concerns involved and have the cooperative
skills and expertise in integrated planning processes necessary to expeditiously
achieve viable and resilient plans and relationships.
Does the maritime sector have personnel with the training and background
to enable it to participate effectively in initiatives such as this or to respond
effectively to the dynamics of biosecurity and other ecological concerns outlined
earlier?9
The next section of this paper does not pretend to answer this in any conclusive
way. Certainly many individuals have these skills and knowledge for reasons relating
to life experience and personal educational histories. Others have neither.
Organisational cultures and values also vary greatly and depend on a mix of
broader social variables. The so-called ‘‘human element’’ is, as always, the wild card
that renders any absolutes suspect. Section 3 comprises observations and a summary
of the results of a small survey assessing the educational background of some
personnel active in the maritime sector relative to the topic of integrated
management and sustainable development.
8
There are some notable projects under the Technical Cooperation Division of IMO that seek to span
this gap: PEMSEA (Regional Programme on Partnerships in Environmental Management for the Seas of
East Asia); GloBallast (Global Ballast Water Management Programme). Both are joint GEF/UNDP/IMO
projects. PEMSEA , in particular, explicitly involves Integrated Coastal Management and sustainable
development objectives http://www.pemsea.org.
9
The topic presented here relates to ICOM and the example used is the transfer of harmful aquatic
organisms and pathogens, but it is also useful to note in passing other concerns, such as the ‘‘human
element’’ and its impact on ship safety and environmental protection that are demanding changes in the
approach and thinking of the shipping sector.

3. Observations on education, integration and sustainable development in the shipping
sector
As noted in Section 2 above, it is obvious that, at an individual level, personnel in
the shipping sector have many different educational backgrounds and experiences.
The issue here is to consider the common or shared educational experience—the
professional training of people working in this sector. While education does not
per se determine attitudes, values and practices it is clear that it can have a significant
shaping effect.
In its narrowest sense—that is specifically ship related—the majority of personnel
are or were at one time seafarers, sometimes with backgrounds in various other
related disciplines, including naval architecture, marine engineering and training to
various levels of competency in navigational and nautical and ship management
matters. Within this generic category of seafarer it is important to realise that
differences have been noted in terms of attitudes, expectations and roles [10]. They
are a predominantly male [11] and, in the EU, older workforce [12]. Most work for
either private- or state-owned shipping companies, the coastguard, the navy or on-
shore as maritime or port administration and maritime education and training
personnel. If the definition is broadened to include ports and shipping management
then it also includes people with training in maritime economics, logistics, law,
management or commercial expertise. In short it is a highly specialised field with
disciplinary overlaps primarily in economics, law, engineering, commerce and
communication technology. Not all, but many people in the sector combine either
sea going experience and credentials with other professional credentials, such as law,
thus giving them doubly specialised technical expertise.
The majority of people working in this sector, particularly those in maritime
administrations and other regulatory roles, will have attended an MET institution
delivering, at a minimum, the courses required to meet the IMO competency
certification requirements. The focus of these requirements is technical or
operational and aimed at ensuring the safe operation of the ship, particularly at
the initial stage of training. Professional certification (and progress through the
various career levels) requires a mix of training combined with on board experience.
Career development requires further training and examination. The educational
curriculum depends to a large degree on the location and vocational orientation of
the MET institution. Some institutions are stand-alone nautical academies or
colleges, others are part of a university and others are in-house shipping company
training programmes.10
Many offer a number of courses in addition to the
certification courses, particularly for personnel moving into management roles either
on board (e.g., Master Mariners) or on shore. Environmental issues are addressed
10
My comments are based on discussion with R. Prasad, Former Principal, Maritime Training Institute,
the Shipping Corporation of India, a Research Fellow and Lecturer at the World Maritime University.
The majority of his research at WMU has been in connection with WMU research on MET in various
parts of the world. My comments are also based on a review of research studies prepared at WMU and on
commentary from students that I have worked with at WMU.

mainly through the study of IMO conventions, such as the International Convention
for Prevention of Pollution by Ships (MARPOL 73/78). Human relationship issues
are also addressed, again to varying degrees, by lectures on social responsibility and,
for those seeking advanced certification or management roles after a number of years
at sea, courses in leadership and human resource management. The availability,
extent, scope and delivery of this kind of training is variable (see footnote 10).
Research also indicates that only a small percentage of shipping companies and port
administrations have a human resource development department.11
The point of interest for ICOM is that an important feature of the background of
many maritime personnel irrespective of their later positions in management,
administration or teaching is the shared seafarer training and experience. Although
things are changing with the emergence of practices such as safety committees12
and
an increased appreciation13
for the role of the individual mariner [1], nautical
organisational culture is still based on a hierarchical and authoritarian model, with
specified roles, responsibilities and reporting relationships. There may be some good
reasons for this relating to the technical demands and stress of operating today’s
high tech vessels. However, in an industry where human resources are increasingly
scarce and culturally diverse and where more individual responsibility is required,
this may be a less functional leadership approach. For example, preliminary results
of a recent study of multi-national crews indicates that cultural differences are not in
themselves a problem, but management practices are: ‘‘ythe master’s stance is
critical in determining the social interaction between crew members and developing
good teamwork’’ [14].
The traditional shipping culture has been likened to the organisational designation
‘‘bureaucratic’’ [10]. In such a structure, bottom up consultation and non-directive
discussion, the heartland of many ICOM activities, can be construed as weakness
and uncertainty on the part of the ‘‘superior’’ who must retain command of the team
at all times [10]. Depending, again, on the individual concerned, this can create an
environment of silencing. If this cultural orientation is not matched by the
development of communication skills and reflective thinking then, from an ICOM
perspective, it is likely that personnel with this history will have difficulty working
within processes that are flexible, consensus-based, participatory, non-hierarchical,
value non-technical knowledge, focus on values and relationships and are dynamic.
The foregoing does not necessarily mean that personnel in the maritime sector are
unaware of sustainable development, Agenda 21, biodiversity or ICOM or that there
11
Discussion with B. Francou, Associate Professor at WMU regarding data collected on human
resources policy in the shipping and port sectors. Francou’s research to date indicates approx 19% of
combined shipping and ports companies have functioning HR departments and of these, shipping
companies tend to have more. Again as with MET institutions, there is a wide variance depending on the
country involved.
12
Prasad, see footnote 10.
13
Despite the efforts of the IMO and ILO to improve the situation, a recent Report (2000) [13] by the
International Commission on Shipping. (ICONS) suggests that, for many, the working condition of
mariners are akin to slavery, exposing ‘‘ythousands of seafarers to exploitation and abusey[and crews
are often]yfatigued, malnourished and under personal or social pressure’’ (p. 8).

is no education on these topics. However, a limited survey conducted at the World
Maritime University (WMU) indicates that the level of awareness of the issue or
ideas is surprisingly low in this sector in many countries.
Before discussing the survey it is useful to provide some context. WMU was
created in 1983 by the IMO14
as part of its mandate to build technical capacity,
particularly in developing countries, to participate in the development of the
maritime transport sector and to ensure safe shipping to protect human life, cargo
and the marine environment [15]. WMU currently offers a 17-month M.Sc. in
Maritime Affairs with specialisations in maritime administration, maritime safety
and environmental protection, maritime education and training, port management
and shipping management. Its annual student intake ranges from 95 to 100 students
with over 140 countries represented in its 18-year history. The students are mostly
early or mid-career personnel employed in these sectors. Many students are funded
by international development agencies or foundations with the intention that the
students will return to their employment and improve the local capacity to deal with
maritime sector issues, including marine environmental protection.
At the time of writing there is full time teaching faculty of 18 combined with a
large number of visiting experts who teach parts of the curriculum, which is delivered
in weekly modules. Many of the faculty are on limited term secondments and
contracts (2–3 years) from coastguards, maritime administrations and academic
institutions in other countries. The disciplinary background of the faculty includes
maritime economics, marine engineering, master mariners, naval architecture,
English language and linguistics (for the intensive English language training
programme) and law. At the time of writing there are two women on the faculty,
one of whom is in the language programme. The majority of the faculty have
extensive industry—ships’ operations or ports—related expertise and have gone
through some form of MET in addition to their speciﬁc expertise.
The course offerings by and large reﬂect faculty expertise with a strong emphasis
on introducing IMO safety, training and marine protection conventions, ship
operations, port marketing, economics, commercial shipping logistics, nautical and
engineering instructor education and maritime law, as it relates to implementing
IMO conventions, commercial shipping, ship registration and liability for oil and
other ship source pollution. Integrated management and sustainable development
have been present in the curriculum to varying degrees in different periods,
depending on the disciplinary expertise and priorities of the faculty. For example,
some periods particularly, the mid-1980s15
and early 1990s were characterised by a
14
The IMO also created two other advanced maritime education institutions, one in Malta, The
International Maritime Law Institute which provides postgraduate legal education and the International
Maritime Academy in Trieste, Italy, which provides post graduate level professional development training
and education. Although for reasons relating to scholarship funding the majority of students attending
WMU are from developing and transitional economies, this is not a prerequisite nor is it the current goal
of WMU, which currently seeks to bring together students from all parts of the world.
15
In the mid-1980s the Canadian government’s International Centre for Ocean Development (ICOD),
developed a comprehensive, marine affairs training module and materials for WMU, including a large
volume (5) entitled Integrated Ocean Use Management. Many of the personnel involved in developing this

high level of sustainable development and integrated management [15] education.
In other periods the curriculum has reflected a more technical maritime—ship
operations and maritime commercial management—focus.
In 2001, in the context of a one week (15 contact hours) final semester (4th)
elective module entitled Integrated Ocean and Coastal Management I conducted a
hand count–oral report survey of the students regarding their prior knowledge of
sustainable development, Agenda 21 and/or ICOM/ICZM, etc. Of the 24 students
drawn from all of the WMU specialisation areas, only a few had heard of sustainable
development and Agenda 21 before the module and, of these, the majority had only
heard of it when taking an environmental issues module from me earlier in the year.
This informal survey was followed up by an anonymous questionnaire asking for
country, gender,16
WMU specialisation, educational background, career position
pre-WMU, and any contact with sustainable development ideas, Agenda 21 and
integrated management. Fifteen out of 24 (62%) questionnaires were returned. The
outcome was as follows:
* Countries represented: Georgia, Malaysia, Vietnam, Bangladesh, Honduras,
China, Senegal, Vanuatu, Thailand, Cameroon and Fiji.
* Gender: 4 women, 11 men.
* WMU specialisation: 7 maritime administration, 2 maritime safety and
environmental protection, 2 shipping management, 2 port management, 2
maritime education and training.
* Educational backgrounds: law; engineering; navy; economics; navigation;
nautical; general arts/political science. Many but not all also had MET.
* Career positions: port authorities; maritime administrations; navy; MET institute;
environmental protection agency (1); external affairs (2).
* Prior knowledge of the SD/Agenda 21: 9 reported no prior knowledge. Others
had heard of it but had little contact or exposure except for 3 people working in
external affairs, EPA and in regional fisheries enforcement.
* Prior knowledge of ICOM: 11 had none, 4 had worked with it: 1 in an EPA land-
based marine pollution project; 1 as part of a departmental restructuring under an
ICOM programme but had no knowledge of the topic; 1 in connection with
regional fisheries regulation had experience with it but not a much knowledge; 1
had knowledge as an aspect of external affairs work.
(footnote continued)
training course and materials were also involved in developing the Dalhousie University Masters degree in
Marine Management, which has very strong emphasis on integrated coastal and ocean management. In
1988 UNESCO carried out a study, Year 2000 challenges for marine science training and education world
wide [22]. UNESCO. In it, then WMU professor, Alastair Couper, reported (p. 105) on integrated ocean
use (EEZ) simulation exercises used at WMU. These appear to have been replaced by a simulation
associated with a 1 week module on UNCLOS which is no longer offered (ceased 2002–2001).
16
The reason for seeking data on gender in this context relates to the question of professional
educational background. Very few women attend or teach in MET institutions. Women are significantly
underrepresented in the sector [11]. This survey also generated some additional data on the educational
background of women in the sector.

Based on the oral reporting the results would have remained the same with a 100%
return on the questionnaire.
Clearly this sample is too small to count as statistically valid and counterfactuals
have not been taken into account. Nonetheless, it does suggest that personnel
currently working in the maritime industry in a range of countries may have had
little or no exposure to sustainable development ideas or integrated management
approaches. However, many reported that they felt a need to become informed and
to learn about it, hence their decision to take the elective. Many also noted that, after
taking the module they believed they would be called upon to deal with aspects of
implementation of these approaches in the future. Although no verifiable data was
obtained, instructor observation of an experiential skill development module
delivered under the title, ‘‘Leadership and Organisational Behaviour’’, to 47 students
from all programmes in the last semester (4th) before graduation, also suggests that
reflective thinking and process/facilitation skills may be underdeveloped in this
sector.
A lack of substantive education on sustainable development ideas and ICOM
theory can be easily remedied. Developing reflective capacity and problem solving
process skills presents a more difficult issue, as it requires changing behaviours and
ways of thinking. If the prominence of the maritime industrial sector (both ports and
shipping) for coastal sustainable development and biosecurity argued for here is
correct, then there is a need to address these gaps early in professional training and
education in this sector.
4. Promoting education in integrated management for a sustainable shipping industry
Integrated management of coastal and ocean activities has now emerged as a field
of knowledge, if not a discipline [16]. In fact one its main claims is that it does not
accept the assumptions of traditional disciplinary approaches to understanding
phenomenon and activities. It is a radical approach that aims at a long-term culture
shift in human thinking and behaviour by consciously changing patterns of human
behaviour. This approach is related to and reflects the thinking also found in the
parallel development of the field of dispute resolution (DR). DR is also a cross
disciplinary field which focuses on moving away from a narrow framework of rights
and claims to interests, relationships and process as a means of reducing immediate
conflict and changing the way people deal with conflict. It is also radical in its
aspiration to a more peaceful sustainable society [17]. The values and practices
embodied in both fields of theory, knowledge and skill overlap and inform each
other [18].
Chircop [16] noted the advantages and disadvantages of this consciously radical
view from an educator’s perspective:
ICM has an amorphous character, which makes it difficult to nail down precisely,
for students to maintain a sense of identity and ‘‘belonging’’ in comparison to
other studentsy[t]he advantage of designation as a field, rather than a discipline,

is the freedom to cut across different perspectives and methodologies in pursuit of
problems, thus providing opportunities for interdisciplinarity without letting the
premises and assumptions of one discipline overshadow or condition the overall
approach to learning.
This amorphous character means that ICOM teaching does not easily fit into
educational models, such as MET, which are geared to creating and shaping a
professional identity.
However, many of the ecological and development issues confronting us today are
so intertwined that linear notions of cause and effect are irrelevant. The problem of
harmful aquatic organism and pathogen transfer as a result of ships’ operations,
discussed earlier, is a case in point. It is not entirely clear that it falls within
traditional definitions of pollution and, even if it does, the appropriate
characterisation of the issue in domestic regulatory practice and from the perspective
of the States’ international responsibility is less than obvious. What is clear is that
managing the risk and the potential harm involved, triggers concerns for a wide
range of institutional actors, many of whom are part of regimes other than
shipping.17
Developing an effective response to this ecosystem threat requires a change in
ideas of responsibility for management. It requires increased cooperation between
sectors involved in coastal activities and the involvement of a greater range of
interests. As Chircop [16] suggests, it requires an ability to develop new solutions
without the ‘‘shadow’’ or the conditioning of prior practice.
Although the analysis in this paper relates to ICOM and the example used is
biosecurity and invasive species, the same arguments are equally relevant to and
overlap with other concerns. For example, increased awareness of the ‘‘human
element’’ and its impact on ship safety and, in turn, on environmental protection is
demanding a change in attitudes and practices in the shipping sector. These ideas
were put forward in the 1970s in a book called The Human Element in Shipping [10],
but they did not take hold until relatively recently. There is now a dawning
realisation that, even with the plethora of technical and equipment fixes and refined
regulations, negative incidents are still happening. This has warranted the attention
of sociologists, psychologists, and linguists, to name but a few.
Changes in professional education to provide personnel with an ability to work in
different ways require a reform of curriculum and curriculum objectives. These issues
are not unique to the maritime industry. The problem of changing a professional
culture to promote cooperation and interest based problem solving, rather than an
adversarial rights claiming practice, is also a current concern for legal education [17].
The argument made here is that skills based education and the development of
reflective thinking and practice needs to come in the more formative stages of
professional training and education where values, attitudes and practices are
inculcated [17]. The importance of differences in values and communication as key
17
Regime theory, which examines inter alia the role of ideas, power and interests as ‘‘forces guiding
efforts of actors to form regimes as mechanisms for solving collective-action problems’’ [19], is also a
useful approach to explaining the changes that are taking place.

factors in successful ICOM practice has been described in a 1997 EC study, The Role
of Value Conflict Assessment Techniques in the formulation of implementable and
effective coastal zone management policies [20]. The relationship between concepts of
power, rationality, social integration and personal growth have also been
documented in case studies such as Roger Bennett’s ‘‘Coastal planning on the
Atlantic fringe, north Norway: the power game’’ [21].
Ideas about human rights, ecological and social values, and a myriad of other
issues and responses are learned and passed on from generation to generation of
workers. This process of preservation of the norms of a professional culture is
exacerbated in the maritime sector where requirements for technical expertise linked
to the shared shipping experience operates as a barrier to the entry of other ideas and
practices. This means, as it does in all specialised sectors, that education is needed to
ensure the development of capacity to working in new ways and, in particular, to
work in an integrated way in connection with coastal and ocean activity
management. It also means that in order to have any real change, education must
take place at both the entry and senior echelon of any profession.
In summary, this paper has presented an argument that:
1. Shipping and ports are major factors in coastal and ocean development and have
significant direct and indirect impacts on coasts and oceans for reasons relating to
the key role of shipping in coastal settlement and activities and economic
development.
2. The maritime industry—shipping and ports—is internally fragmented and both
are isolated from the ICOM movement and practice despite their impact on
coastal and ocean activity. This isolation is due to a range of cultural factors
including the technical specialised orientation of the sector.
3. The emergence of issue areas, such as climate change, biodiversity, biosecurity or
even ‘‘the human element’’, that do not fit neatly in the pre-existing institutional
packaging and sectors, requires new relationships and approaches. This means
that the shipping sector is in a process of integration with the broader ecosystem
protection regime.
4. The maritime sector is a key factor in effective ICOM and marine ecosystem
development and protection and should take a leadership role. However, there
needs to be increased capacity to do so. Education and training relevant to
sustainable development and integrated management practice needs to be widely
and methodically available, particularly in the initial stages of MET where
professional values and practices are developed. There needs to be education to
encourage reflective thinking and human relations skills development for on shore
and seagoing personnel. This is best achieved through the use of simulations or
experiential learning combined with theory.18
5. Marine and maritime education should be integrated with a view to preparing
people to work in an environment in which there is a wider range of actors and
18
Some interesting work has been done using this approach in the English language skills programme at
WMU in cooperation with the University of Ottawa.

activities involved in matters relating to the impact of the shipping industry on
coastal development and preservation.
Education is necessary to develop the attitudes, skills and knowledge required to
work effectively in these new relationships. In 1988 UNESCO quoted comments
received in connection with management of marine resources for 2000 and beyond:
In the longer term sound management of the marine environment depends on an
educated community in which all members understand the importance of a mix of
conservation, development and wise utilization of natural resources [22].
This comment appears equally valid in 2001 and applies to all sectors. There is a
need for educational reform in the maritime-marine sector in order to equip people
with the ability to work effectively and take the lead in promoting integrated
management of coastal and ocean activities. This will help to ensure that this sector
actively promotes ecological and human security. It will also help this sector play a
meaningful role in addressing the complex problems of poverty and global inequities
in a manner that reduces conﬂict and that takes care of both the present and the
future.
Acknowledgements
This article was prepared and delivered during my 2-year secondment as Professor
of Maritime Affairs at the World Maritime University located in Malmo, Sweden.
The World Maritime University is an international postgraduate educational
institution specialising in capacity building in the shipping industry. The support of
the University and its students is gratefully acknowledged.
References
[1] O’Neil W. IMO—globalization and the role of the seafarer. A message from the Secretary-General
of the International Maritime Organization. World Maritime Day 2001. Circular Letter No. 2335.
Ref: A4/A/1.17. IMO, 2001: p.2.
[2] Jonsson O. Globalisation, Europeanisation, place embeddedness. New developments within
production networks and territorial implications. Paper presented at the 1998 conference, The
survival of the national state? Centre for European Studies, Lund University, Sweden, 1998.
Available at: http://www.cfe.lund.lu.seunder ‘‘working papers’’.
[3] Helgeson S. The Web of Inclusion. Double Day, 1995.
[4] Cameron J. Globalization and the ecological state. RECIEL 1999;8(3):243.
[5] Intertanko. US Environmental Protection Agency Retreats from MARPOL Annex VI. Weekly News
No. 35/2001–31 August 2001. Electronic delivery.
[6] Fairplay. Port approvals get tougher. Fairplay Daily News, 2 August 2001. Electronic delivery.
[7] Gold E. Preventing and managing marine pollution in the Malacca and Singapore Straits: framework
for cooperation. Singapore Journal of International and Comparative Law 1999;3:359, 368.
[8] Mitchell R, McConnell ML, Roginko A, Barrett A. International Vessel Source Pollution. In: Oran
Young, editor. The effectiveness of international environmental regimes. Causal connections and
behavioral mechanisms. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1999. p. 33–90.

[9] B.ackstrand K. What can nature withstand? Science, politics and discourses in transboundary air
pollution diplomacy. Lund Political Studies 116. Lund University, 2000.
[10] Moreby DH. The human element in shipping. Colchester, UK: Sea Trade Publications Ltd., 1975.
p. 47, 58, and sources cited therein.
[11] Tansey P. Women on board—ten years of the IMO Women in Development Programme. IMO, 1999.
Available at http:www.imo.org/home.html under Information Resources: papers by IMO staff.
[12] TecnECon (a Hyder Consulting Company). Study on the maritime profession in the European
Union. 31125-F. European Commission, Directorate General for Transport, 1996. p. viii.
[13] International Commission on Shipping. Ships, slaves and competition. ICONS, 2000. p.8.
[14] Fairplay. Culture is no problem-crew study. Fairplay Daily News, 7 September 2001. Electronic
Delivery.
[15] WMU (World Maritime University). The ﬁrst decade 1983–1993. World Maritime University, 1993.
[16] Chircop A. Teaching integrated coastal management: lessons from the learning arena. Ocean &
Coastal Management 2000;43:345.
[17] McConnell ML, editor. Attitudes skills knowledge: recommendations for changes to legal education
to assist in implementing multi-option civil justice systems in the 21st century. Report prepared by the
Joint Multi-disciplinary Committee on Legal Education. Final Report: Canadian Bar Association,
2000.
[18] Davos CA. Sustaining co-operation for coastal sustainability. Journal of Environmental Manage-
ment 1998:379.
[19] Young OR, editor. The effectiveness of international environmental regimes. Causal connections and
behavioral mechanisms. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1999.
[20] VALCOAST. The role of value conﬂict assessment techniques in the formulation of implementable,
effective coastal zone management policies. EC, Directorate General XII Science, Research and
Development. Contract No. EV5V-CT940392, 1997.
[21] Bennett RG. Coastal planning on the Atlantic fringe, north Norway: the power game. Ocean &
Coastal Management 2000;43:879.
[22] UNESCO. Year 2000 challenges for marine science training and education world wide. UNESCO
reports in marine science. No. 52. UNESCO, 1988.

Capacity Building for Sustainable Shipping Industry

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (7)

Similar to Capacity Building for Sustainable Shipping Industry

Similar to Capacity Building for Sustainable Shipping Industry (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Capacity Building for Sustainable Shipping Industry