Motorways of the sea concept drives into trouble

ANY form of subsidy in the shipping and logistics markets should be looked at with suspicion, even those given for such neutral and altruistic objectives as environmental ones.

It would appear that the Motorways of the Sea concept is coming under closer scrutiny due to either European competition or environmental affairs officials. It seems that even though there is a push to get freight from the roads and on to ships, it is potentially creating more harm than good. The argument stems from whether ro-ro freight should continue to be in the form of a lorry with driver or as containerised wheeled freight unaccompanied by a lorry that can be more efficiently stowed on the ro-ro vessel. The latter is, according to some, more than twice as efficient.

For starters boxes can be stacked two-high, which the ferry company cannot do with lorries, and there is no space wasted with the drivers cab. There’s also no hungry and tired driver to accommodate.

So the MoS subsidies are suspected of promoting the development of accompanied freight at sea, as opposed to united unaccompanied freight that is more economic. The difference has been simplified down to the difference between north European freight models and those in the Mediterranean Sea.

But the real question is what will happen if the European Union decides there is a case for turning the Mediterranean into an emission control area? Consider this: subsidised routes would find themselves either having to use low sulphur fuels, which are notably more expensive than residual fuels used today by shipowners other than when in port, or installing exhaust gas scrubbers to remove the sulphur. Scrubbers are as yet unaccepted in the industry though they are gaining some ground; Messina Lines is one of the few to opt for this abatement technology.

The use of gas is a much talked about third alternative, but the idea of Greek and Italian ferry and ro-ro owners suddenly rushing to convert their fleets seems rather remote.

So how would the creation of a low sulphur emission control area be received by the Mediterranean operators that already rely on subsidies to keep some routes open? One assumes the threat of a modal shift will be re-heard as owners say they will be forced to close routes otherwise.

There is an ironic element to this debate though. Every single gas powered ferry or ro-ro in existence or planned, and they are all for northern Europe, has had or will have some governmental support and in the case of the Viking Line ferry, being built with Finnish subsidies, the Finns may say it has been given for environmental reasons — but one suspects that the real reason is to keep Finnish shipyards alive.