Before addressing the issue at bar, a definition of shipping policy under consideration here would be in order. It is an established fact within the transport world that shipping is conducted through a variety of channels: notably– by air, road, rail and sea. However, the shipment in focus here refers to that which is undertaken by sea and regulated by policies affecting sea-borne trade. This means basically those policies affecting the shipping business relative to vessel safety whether in port or on the high seas, including crew wellbeing and the marine environment.
The definition above presupposes that there are many stakeholders (cutting across the political, environmental and security spheres) affected by shipping policies. Hence, shipping policies formulation should take their concerns into consideration. While there are many stakeholders (as in governments cum regulators, ship-owners, ship-builders, Seafarers, etc), they are divided into two broad categories here for the purposes of drawing out the issues under consideration. These are: governments as in regulatory bodies or IMO on the one hand, and ship-owners as in industry on the other.
With these clarifications, I now my turn attention to the issue of who should drive shipping policy? Should it be the ship-owner or the regulatory authority? Should it be the regulatory authority, there are constant accusations from ship-owners that regulators are insensitive to the needs of industry and only keep adding unnecessary burden on ship-owners. If ship-owners, they are accused of putting profits above the wellbeing of the crew and care of the environment, and therefore cannot be left alone. This is at the core of the debate. As a way of general statement, there is no simple solution, neither is one better than the other!
From my perspective, I am in full concurrence that shipping policy-formulation should be participatory and should involve key stakeholders and interest groups. However, inasmuch as implementation is expected to be sustained and succeed, regulators should drive the process. The reason being, ship-owners, no matter how well intentioned their management practices are, would naturally pursue their bottom-line (i.e. profits) above rigid rules when such situations arise. There are myriads of instances within the shipping world that support this viewpoint. For example: findings in the BP Gulf of Mexico rig explosion in 2010 finally boiled down to the neglect of safety standards by company operatives; moreover, the perennial poor treatment of seafarers by some ship-owners, thereby given rise to MLC 2006, which came into force August 2013, supports this argument.
In closing therefore, I hold the view that regulators should drive shipping policy. However, this should be in consultation with industry-players as they are the implementers of any resultant policies. Industry would do well in advancing their goals by being proactive in their management policies and practices that put vessel safety and crew wellbeing at the top of their priorities. By so doing, shipping policies would not be mostly reactive and imposed by governments, but proactive and thereby prevent the formulation of regulations that are less sensitive to industry concerns.
After all, the ultimate goal of shipping policies, no matter who determines its formulation or drives its implementation, is to keep seaborne trade safe and secure: thereby making it attractive to those desiring to make living out of it.
Harry Conway, MA International Maritime Policy Student
The next public research seminar of the 2013-14 programme will be taking place on Wednesday 12th February 2014.
During this presentation Alan Cartwright of Warsash Maritime Academy will reflect upon the challenges and factors of designing vessels for the tidal Thames and how the Port of London Authority (PLA) has been leading the research and development of both technology and operations.
After enjoying a rewarding career as a General List engineer officer in the Royal Navy, Alan Cartwright was appointed to head the Marine Engineering Department of the Port of London Authority in January 1998. During his service with the PLA, Alan led a number of substantial projects, all focused on introducing more capable and environmentally efficient vessels for operations on the tidal Thames. Under Alan’s direction and with the PLA’s support, pioneering research work was undertaken by Southampton University into minimising vessel wash and resistance for shallow water operations. This led to the design and build of the PLA’s first class of low-wash, low-emissions patrol launches, Richmond and Chelsea, which operate in the upper reaches of the tidal Thames. The innovative concept, research and vessel build was recognised by the Royal Institution of Naval Architects and Lloyd’s Register, winning first prize at their international Ship Safety Award, 2008.
Development of the low-wash / low-emissions concept provided the opportunity to rationalise the PLA’s vessel fleet of patrol and pilotage vessels, in which further research work was undertaken by Newcastle University, leading to the build of four combined service catamarans by specialist boat builder Alnmaritec Limited, of Northumberland. The Bridge Class of pilotage and patrol vessels (Lambeth, Southwark, Kew and Barnes) has now been in service for three years, demonstrating great operational flexibility and immense fuel and emissions savings.
Since 2011, Alan’s primary focus has been on the design and build of a new and very capable Moorings Maintenance Vessel, to replace the PLA’s old salvage ships Hookness and Crossness. This complex and very capable vessel, to be named London Titan, is now at an advanced stage of build at Manor Marine, Portland, Dorset. In December 2013, Alan moved on from the PLA, to start the third phase of his maritime career, as Commercial Manager of Warsash Maritime Academy, the world renowned provider of Merchant Navy education and training.
Location: Edinburgh Room (075), Queen Anne Court, University of Greenwich, Old Royal Naval College, Greenwich, London, SE10 9LS
Time: The seminar will begin at 6pm with refreshments available from 5.30pm
Anyone is welcome to attend this free event and no booking is required. If you would like any further information however please telephone the GMI Office on 020 8331 7688 or email email@example.com.
Greenwich Maritime Institute holds a range of events, seminars and conferences including the popular Public Research Seminar Series which are held in Greenwich at monthly intervals.
Experts are invited to give a presentation on areas that relate to the three broad themes that the GMI specialises in: Maritime History, Maritime Policy and Maritime Security. Presentations are then followed by questions from the audience. Anyone is welcome to attend these free seminars although advance booking is required via Eventbrite.co.uk.
This year we are pleased to announce a variety of topics such as:
- Licensing Private Maritime Security Companies
- Navy, Identity & Leisure in 20th Century Britain
- Loss of the RB Angus
- 1412 – The Year China Discovered the World
- Designing New Vessels for 21st Century Tidal Thames
- Human Rights Considerations in the Maritime Industry
- China’s Ship Recycling
GMI Research Seminar Series 2013-14 – Download the brochure in PDF format
We are pleased to announce that Michael Everard CBE, a senior figure in the UK and international shipping communities, received an Honorary Doctor of Business Administration from the University of Greenwich on Wednesday 24 July 2013.
Within his career Michael served as Chairman of F.T.Everard & Sons between 1988 and 2006, a family firm which during the twentieth century became leading owners of coastal vessels and small short-sea tankers. It was unique in remaining in private ownership and management for over a century. At the time of the company’s sale to James Fisher plc, in 2006, it owned eleven tankers.
Michael has also served as President of the Institute of Chartered Shipbrokers; as Chairman of the UK Chamber of Shipping; as Vice-Chairman of the International Chamber of Shipping; and as Vice-Chairman of Council and Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Mission to Seafarers.
Michael has been actively involved with the University of Greenwich through his membership of the Greenwich Maritime Institute Advisory Committee, where he acts as a ‘critical friend’, providing advice and assistance and facilitating industry contacts. He also sits on the Greenwich Forum an independent body established in 1973 formed to promote Britain’s awareness of the sea which is administered by the Greenwich Maritime Institute.
Alev Adil, the University’s Orator, says: “Michael Everard has always set the highest industry standards in terms of safety, quality and innovation in the shipping business. Today we’re celebrating his long and distinguished career and his involvement with the Greenwich Maritime Institute, where he regularly shares his extensive knowledge of shipping policy issues with our postgraduate students.”
Honorary degrees are awarded to individuals of distinction who have made a major contribution to the work of the university, or who have earned prominence for activities associated more widely with education, business, culture, creative work and public service and the Greenwich Maritime Institute are delighted that Michael was able to accept this prestigious award last week.
In the May 2013 issue of Mariners’ Mirror, a tier 1 journal, GMI graduates and staff are responsible for a large proportion of the items published.
Dr Peter Skidmore who completed his PhD with the GMI in 2009 had the following article published ‘Vessels and Networks: Shipowning in North-West England’s Coasting Trade in the Late Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth Centuries’. Dr Skidmore’s PhD focused on the maritime economy on the north west of England in the later eighteenth century.
Mr Ken Cozens, MA Maritime History graduated from the GMI in 2006 has published another article with his colleague Gary Sturgess, ‘Managing a Global Enterprise in the Eighteenth Century: Anthony Calvert of The Crescent, London, 1777-1808’. This builds on previous work and publications that they have completed together on mercantile networks.
Finally there is an excellent review of Dr Cathy Pearce’s book ‘Cornish Wrecking, 1700-1860: Reality and Popular Myth’. Dr Pearce completed her PhD with the GMI in 2007 and is now attached to the Institute as an Honorary Research Associate. She will be contributing to the delivery of a short course on ‘Maritime Crime: Piracy, Smuggling, Wrecking and Water Whodunnits’ on 12th June 2013.
GMI is very proud to have a high proportion of graduates in addition to the current staff that publish frequently in top journals. Look out for the next issue of Mariners’ Mirror which will feature an article by Dr Chris Ware, Lecturer in Naval History.
The China maritime business story over the past ten years has been dazzling. By the end of 2012 Chinese shipowners’ share of the world’s entire merchant ship fleet had risen to 10 percent. This Chinese fleet is now more than three times its size one decade earlier. Last year shipbuilders in China produced 43 percent of the world’s newbuilding ship deliveries (based on deadweight tonnage), up from a relatively small six percent share at the start of the 2000s. Equally impressively, importers in China last year received an enormous volume of cargo by sea, comprising almost one-fifth of all world seaborne trade, compared with a six percent proportion a decade earlier.
An opportunity is approaching to examine this amazing narrative and its causes in more detail. At Greenwich Maritime Institute on 10th June, a one-day short course entitled ‘A Leading Global Player: Maritime Business Activities in China’ will look closely at the trends and assess the current position. Any clues to how events will unfold in the period ahead also will be discussed.
What has made these achievements so remarkable is not only the sheer magnitude, but also the speed at which expansion occurred. During a period of a little over ten years, China has transformed the global maritime business scene, overtaking other major players to become the most prominent and influential participant in several key activities. A dizzying velocity of sustained growth year after year became a defining feature, a pattern which was not widely foreseen. Few people would believe a forecaster predicting advances of that intensity or longevity.
Chinese shipowners, shipbuilders, ship recyclers, and importers and exporters of commodities and products carried by sea have become the principal, immediate focus of attention in international shipping markets. The first question asked by market operators, brokers and analysts in weighing up the current position and attempting to predict a pattern of events in the future is usually “what are the Chinese doing”?
From a global freight market viewpoint, the most prominent aspect has been the vast expansion of seaborne bulk commodity imports into China. In their offices during the late 1970s and early ’80s, some shipbrokers and analysts sat around talking about the possibility of China one day (within the foreseeable future) becoming a key factor affecting global bulk trade movements. Labelling this agreeable vista as a ‘great white hope’ did not seem too exaggerated. But the reality would take a long time to appear. Although in the 1990s there were distinct signs of a strong upwards trend from a low base, it was not until well after the millennium celebrations that China rapidly started becoming the most influential element.
In the early 2000s China’s dry bulk commodity imports averaged 8 percent of the global total. The 2002 figure was 217 million tonnes. Ten years later, in 2012, the total reached 1300 million tonnes, according to data compiled by Clarksons Research, raising the Chinese share of global dry bulk trade four-fold to 32 percent. This astonishing performance was driven by enormous expansion of iron ore imports for the steel industry. Other commodities also contributed strongly. Coal, for power station usage (steam coal) and for steel mill consumption (coking coal), was a key growth component, especially towards the end of the period. Rising soyabeans purchases and import volumes of several ‘minor’ bulk commodities were additional features.
The Chinese shipbuilding scene merits particular attention as well. When the 2000s began newbuilding vessel deliveries of all types from China’s shipyards totalled 3-4 million deadweight tonnes annually, a modest volume. In 2012 the total was massively larger at 65m dwt, comprising over two-fifths of the global total. Two years earlier, in 2010, China had become the world’s largest shipbuilder based on deadweight tonnage, overtaking South Korea. Then, last year, China also became number one on the basis of both deadweight tonnage and the dollar value of output.
Explanations for these striking developments (and for other prominent trends including oil imports, container trade and ship recycling) and perceptible pointers to the future will be examined intensely in the forthcoming GMI course. What is well known is that China’s economy has been a star performer, raising living standards sharply for a large proportion of the population. Sustained export competitiveness has been a notable achievement, both in shipbuilding and in sales of many other products including the vast quantities of consumer goods bought by countries around the world. Infrastructure building has greatly augmented growing Chinese domestic demand for manufactured goods, in turn adding to requirements for more raw materials and other commodities than could be provided from internal resources. Benefits for the world’s shipowners from the resulting imports have been very obvious.
GMI Visiting Lecturer and MD, Bulk Shipping Analysis
The Wallasea Island Site Visit
Wallasea Island was the site visited by our group of MA students on a beautiful sunny day last week. We’d been thinking about where best to go in the Thames estuary area to see in action some of the themes discussed in our environmental history course (Environmental History and the Sea: The British Isles, 1800 to 2013, part of the MA in Maritime History, at the Greenwich Maritime Institute). Wallasea was suggested by one of our students and turned out to be perfect. Political debates over port development, erosion and flooding, leisure and the coast: they’re all at Wallasea. It is here that the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) is developing its Wild Coast project: the largest ‘habitat creation’ scheme in Europe.
We were very fortunate to have the opportunity to meet up with the RSPB’s Wallasea Island Project Manager, Chris Tyas. He showed us the site and talked to us about the project’s three main inter-locking strands: Defra’s ‘Wallasea Wetlands Creation Project’, the RSPB’s Wild Coast Project, and the material provided by the Crossrail project.
Wallasea Wetlands Creation Project: Allfleet’s Marsh
These mudflats and salt marshes are part of a new site – Allfleet’s Marsh – created by Dept of the Environment, Fisheries and Rural Affairs (Defra) in 2005-06 for the Wallasea Wetlands Creation Project.
The project arose from a protracted political and legal dispute over port development and the preservation of coastal wetlands. Two East Coast areas earmarked for port expansion were excluded from designation as Special Protection Areas (SPAs) on the grounds of their socio-economic importance. (The areas were: parts of the Lappel Bank on the Medway, developed by the Port of Sheerness, and Fagbury Flats in the Orwell estuary, developed by the Port of Felixstowe). The conservationist case was argued by the RSPB. They took it to the European Court of Justice, who in 1996 decided that socio-economic importance was not a valid reason for exclusion from designation as an SPA under EU legislation (the Birds and Habitats Directives). This was confirmed in a legal ruling of the House of Lords in 1997. Retrospective action was taken by the government to create a new coastal wetland habitat in compensation, elsewhere within the Greater Thames Estuary Natural Area. Wallasea Island was ultimately chosen as the new site.
Defra worked with the Environment Agency, English Nature (now Natural England) and RSPB on the project. Breaches were made in the old sea wall and the sea now pours twice a day into this area of 284 acres (115 hectares), up to the new sea wall. ABP mer (Associated British Ports Marine Environmental Research) have been responsible for the environmental monitoring of the project. The RSPB manage the site.
There is still debate about the efficacy of habitat compensation sites. Can newly created habitats adequately compensate for long-established habitats, now lost? A good place to start for academic research on intertidal habitat creation is the work of Alastair Grant, Hannah Mossman and others at the University of East Anglia. See: ‘Restoration and Creation of Saltmarshes and Other Intertidal Habitats’ at http://www.uea.ac.uk/~e130/Saltmarsh.htm.
Wallasea Island and the RSPB’s Wild Coast Project
Wallasea Island is part of what is sometimes called the ‘Essex Archipelago’: the network of islands created by rivers and estuaries that flow into the North Sea, including Havengore, Potton Island, Foulness, Canvey Island and others. Wallasea itself is located between the Crouch estuary to the north and the Roach estuary to the south.
According to an RSPB article, Wallasea was once five distinct saltmarsh ‘islands’, used by farmers for grazing. The area was converted to arable land in the inter-war years, with the building of sea defences and land drainage. It was hit badly by the 1953 flood and has since relied on sea walls for protection.
The RSPB’s current Wild Coast Project expands this Defra scheme, developing the largest ‘habitat creation’ site in Europe. Almost 1,500 acres (607 hectares) of salt marsh, mudflats, saline lagoons and freshwater areas are being created to provide a diversity of habitats. The land behind the existing sea wall currently lies around two meters below sea level. So the level of the land needs to be raised before further development. This is where the earth dug up by Crossrail comes in (see below). In due course, the existing sea wall will be removed and new sea defences built further back as part of the process of ‘managed realignment’. The project is due for completion in 2020 and will be managed by the RSPB.
Plant life is already becoming established on Defra’s mudflats: the evocatively named glasswort (now sold in shops as marsh samphire), sea purslane, common saltmarsh grass, and clumps of Spartina Anglica. Like many non-native species now found in Britain, the Spartina family is part of our maritime legacy. It’s thought to have first arrived in the nineteenth century in the ballast water of ships docking at Southampton Water. There is also English scurvy-grass here, at one time eaten by those at sea to ward off scurvy.
None of us in the group were committed bird watchers but it is impossible to visit an RSPB reserve and not be seduced by the birdlife. There were linnets flying up from the grassy sea wall as we walked along it. We saw whimbrels and little egrets, and undoubtedly missed many more. The island though won’t really come into its own as a haven for birds until site construction is over.
A visit to Wallasea Island shows that there is much more to the Essex coast for visitors than the seaside resorts of Southend and Clacton-on-Sea. Places like Wallasea, Northey Island (run by the National Trust) and Abbotts Hall Farm (Essex Wildlife Trust) are part of a new kind of coastal tourism. Here, habitat restoration is at the heart of the tourist attraction.
For more on the East Coast see, for example, Jules Pretty’s coastal journey round Essex, Suffolk and Norfolk in This Luminous Coast (Full Circle Editions, 2011). For something shorter, this is his article: ‘Discover Wild Essex’ at http://www.countryfile.com/countryside/discover-wild-essex.
The Crossrail Connection
Crossrail is the Transport for London subsidiary currently working on a major new rail route being constructed under London. As part of its environmental remit, millions of tonnes of earth from the tunnelling are being conveyed by ship to Wallasea Island.
Mostly London Clay, sand and gravels, this material will be shipped up to five times a day when at maximum capacity, from Northfleet, Barking Riverside and Instone Wharf on the Thames. The material will form the base for the first phase of the island’s new landscape. Shipments have begun, with vessels from the Hav fleet. Both the Port of London Authority and Crouch Harbour Authority have piloting responsibilities for the shipping. This project is partly a response to long-standing demands for better use of the River Thames as a highway for freight transport.
Wallasea and Witches
For lunch we went to The Anchor pub in the village of Canewdon near the western entrance to Wallasea Island. Canewdon has a long association with witchcraft and the punishment of witches. It still has a reputation as one of the most haunted places in the UK. Halloween, according to the pub landlord, is their busiest night of the year. The pub is decorated for Halloween all year round.
Environmental History and the Sea: The MA Option
Environmental History and the Sea: The British Isles, 1800 to 2013 is an option on the MA in Maritime History at the Greenwich Maritime Institute (a specialist post-graduate institute within the University of Greenwich.)
Sessions include: Coastal Environment and Planning Port Development and the Environment Coastal Erosion and Flooding Fisheries, Habitats and the Marine Environment Offshore Oil and Gas Land-Based Pollution and the Sea Shipping Industry and the Environment Estuaries: Thames as a Case Study Leisure and the Sea Marine Environmental History (Concepts and Sources) Marine Environment and the Future.
How to get to Wallasea Island
You can get to Wallasea Island: by train to Rochford (then taxi – not the cheapest option, as I found) on the Liverpool Street to Southend line; by car; or at weekends and bank holidays in the summer by ferry from Burnham-on-Crouch, on the north bank of the River Crouch. The Visit Essex and RSPB Wallasea Island Wild Coast websites have details.
Dr Vanessa Taylor
Dr Vanessa Taylor is Course Tutor on the ‘Environmental History and the Sea: The British Isles, 1800 to 2013’ option. A GMI Research Fellow, Vanessa is also part of the team on the current GMI research project ‘Running the River Thames: London, Stakeholders and the Environmental Governance of the River Thames, 1960-2010’.
Many shipping- and trade’s associations have been established in the United Kingdom since the nineteenth century. However, the UK Chamber of Shipping in its current form dates only from 1975. In 1878, most of the above mentioned associations agreed to support the formation of a national trade association, the Chamber of Shipping of the United Kingdom. This rapidly became the dominant trade association for shipping and most of the older, regional associations became members. The Chamber’s forerunner was granted a Royal Charter in 1921, and in 1975 merged with the Shipping Federation, which was formed as an employers’ association in response to increasing trade union activity in 1890. In 1992, the forerunner was renamed as the Chamber of Shipping and was re-branded as the UK Chamber of Shipping in 2012, to emphasize its identity.
The Chamber is recognized by the UK Government, EU institutions and other national and international organizations as the focal point for consultation with the British shipping industry on regulatory and other key developments, thus giving it advance notice of forthcoming changes. The Chamber has a well-developed mechanism and communication channels for promulgating relevant information throughout the industry, Government, Parliament, international organizations, unions, general public as well as media.
The mission of the Chamber is to champion and protect the UK shipping industry on behalf of its around 140 members from across the maritime sector, representing over 28 million DWT members. They are passionate about UK shipping and work to champion its future success and London’s status as the premier global maritime centre. The Chamber work closely with Government, Parliament, policy makers and other parties to:
1. Gain recognition of shipping’s contribution to the UK economy and employment;
2. Make clear the impact of upcoming and existing legislation on the future of shipping in the UK;
3. Bring them together to work with the UK shipping industry and the related national, European and international maritime organizations.
The UK Chamber of Shipping has five committees covering the most prominent policy areas for UK shipping within its membership and three sector panels to deal with issues affecting particular sections of the shipping industry. The Chamber is monitoring the new developments of shipping and other relating spheres, it proposes and agrees policy, it represents that policy to the appropriate audiences, aims at the adoption of its policies and at ensuring their implementation. The Chamber works with a range of national and international regulators, maritime and trade bodies across the industry, which often have common goals in terms of lobbying and political activity and championing the profile of maritime activities. The UK Chamber is often active within this cluster to help the UK maritime industry to achieve its common goals.
According to ‘The economic impact of the UK maritime services sector’ published by Maritime UK in December 2012, the maritime services sector made an estimated £13.8 billion direct value-added contribution to GDP in 2011, equivalent to 0.9% of the UK economy. It is estimated that the maritime services sector created approximately 262,700 jobs in 2011 or 0.8% of total UK employment. Moreover, including direct, indirect and induced impacts, the maritime services sector is estimated to support 634,900 jobs, or 1 in every 50 jobs in the UK. Moreover, once these multiplier effects are accounted for, the sector makes a value added contribution to GDP of £31.7 billion, equivalent to 2.1% of the UK economy. The above mentioned figures imply that the maritime industry is a larger employer, contributor and producer for UK national economy. And furthermore, these figures indicate that the role of the UK Chamber of Shipping is really important not only for the British shipping but for the whole British economy, now and in the future.
Hsien-Chang Yang, MA International Maritime Policy Student
Shipping Pools. Refer to them as you wish: the reincarnation of a bygone shipping system, shipping economic metamorphosis, old wine in a new bottle, the 3rd way shipping method – whichever way you want, the core facts remain unchanged. Shipping pools are the Liner Conference systems all over again, right?
For a century and half or thereabouts, shipping concerns were able to arrange themselves into cartels called conferences in a bid to agree, among other things:
• the quantity of goods that could be allowed on the market at any one time
• the schedules of deliveries
• the freight rates
• the terms of contracts
• the allotments of freight to be ferried by individual ship owners (quotas)
This easy, unchallenged way of making money continued even after the birth of the mother of all supra-national policymaking institutions, the EEC, the forerunner of the EU. These cartels were exempted from all European competition laws for many years as a way of protecting the European shipping industry – a kind of bulwark against flag of convenience shipping, a way of augmenting Europe’s lost competitive edge in the global market place – a way of ensuring greater prosperity in Europe. Can you believe it? Yes. Take it from me. It is true. Shameful but true, really.
However, everything came to an end when in the wake of immense pressure from the United States and GATT, the predecessor the World Trade Organization (WTO), it suddenly dawned on the Europeans that the conferencing business model was not only utterly uncompetitive but also hugely unfair to all non European shipping companies and all non European consumers, especially those in dirt poor developing countries. Hence, under EU guidance, the Liner Conference system was faced out slowly and finally prohibited on 17 October 2008. It was said then that a breach of the prohibition would result into hefty fines, anything up to and beyond a shipping company’s global one year profits.
Gee. How did the ending of the Conference impact European ship owners? How did it impact freight rates and surcharges worldwide? What about service levels – did they go up or down? It is reasonable to wonder if someone has ever incurred the wrath of the EU, right – and how much was the penalty? How did it impact regional port throughputs? What about impoverished states – how did the end of the Conference impact them? Be a good maritime student. Find out on your own. Every good admiralty and maritime law guide published after 2008 have answers to these questions.
Tell me. How are liner conferences different from shipping pools? Are they one and the same animal? What are shipping pools, anyway? Read my next piece to find the answers to these hot questions.
Gola Traub, MA International Maritime Policy Student