Feature: Predicting the future - and the past

It’s not predicting the future that is problematical, it’s the realisation that you have to relive the past again and again when you fail to learn from your mistakes. So much so in fact that, like a scientist studying the formation of the universe, it should become possible to predict the past too.
Shipping knows exactly how this feels, having ignored the simplest of supply/demand equations and instead put its faith in fanciful predictions that the world – and therefore business – had changed forever.
The trouble is that the more things change, the more they also stay the same. The belief that an industry could break completely free of the cycles which had marked its history for hundreds of years was in fact a departure from reality, the consequences of which we continue to live with.
At least we know now, in case we did not before, that the world will continue to be a difficult place in which to trade, and one need only attend one of the regular shipping industry trade shows to experience that feeling first hand.
Even in Asia, grounded more in trade and consumption rather than the optimism of capital markets, there is an expectation that the world which emerges from the industry’s longest downturn in a generation will be different to the one that went into it.
Classification Society Lloyd’s Register used the recent Singapore Maritime Week to launch its own piece of long range research, laying down competing scenarios of what the industry might have to be grappling with by 2030.
A thorough piece of work put together by LR, QinetiQ and Strathclyde University, it nonetheless can only really succeed in telling the reader what they might already suspect, particularly with regard to the economic/political backdrop.
It seems highly unlikely, for example, that the world will adopt anything but an aggressive posture to protection and preference, not simply for the length of the recession but subsequently, as the emerging nations that (again, we know) will come to dominate the industry flex their muscles.
The shipping industry gives thanks en masse for China’s rise but it must surely recognise that the trading partner with which it will have to deal is no US, no Europe, not even a Russia.
Shipping has traditionally enjoyed freedom of capital, movement of people, goods and services, all commodities it cannot be certain will be so readily available in future. The evidence of the tension emerging in Singapore last week over the need to balance immigration against the requirement to import skills to cement the city-state’s future growth is one clear example and far from being the only one.
Shipping also likes to be left alone and to do its own thing, rather in the same way as entrepreneurs enjoy conditions of privacy to found and grow businesses – unfettered by regulation and competitive constraints, served by relatively free-flowing debt financing.
Again, little to no hope there. Shipping’s dalliance with unreality has left it, if not high and dry, then in a new room with different lenders with very different ideas compared to its former ship finance partners.
Shipping is also highly regulated, but in some areas, less highly regulated than other comparable industries. The trouble is that the industry has done a bad job too often of arguing its case that the positives outweigh the negatives.
There are a number of reasons for that, not least that its main regulator has to juggle the demands of being a technical body on the one hand with being a political one on the other. The tidal wave of opprobrium heaped upon regulators during CMA was a little less obvious during Maritime Week but it is clear the costs of compliance, the need to demonstrate transparency and the requirement to operate under greater scrutiny will all be firm future requirements.
But can shipping change by enough to meet these needs? Of course it should – by practising restraint, by being more commercially adept, by making friends with regulators earlier in the rulemaking process, by recognising that market share without profit margin is a pointless metric and that it something looks too good to be true, it probably is.
To carve out a survival strategy that goes beyond merely putting off the inevitable for another seven years, shipping certainly has to get smarter, and not just in terms of the above commercial issues, however pressing they appear.
Shipping needs to cure itself of the affliction that it has suffered under for at least the last 20 years – you take care of providing sufficient growth, we’ll take care of the rest. The industry is being asked tough questions about its place in the world, just at the time when it has demonstrated the definition of commercial irresponsibility and lack of regulatory engagement. So, back to the future. There is a fine living to be made predicting even short term scenarios, but better cuttings and weblinks to be garnered by mopping up in the aftermath. Most of those doing the latter focus on how we failed to spot the emergence of various technologies and services in time to either make our fortunes or to adopt them to our competitive advantage, preferring to dismiss them as the short term fads driven by people who just want to sell us things before our current things have worn out.
But watch this space – there are two factors that will be decisive in marking out corporates for survival and perhaps the wider industry for adaptive evolution: attitudes to people and the use of technology. The entry into force of the MLC might not by itself guarantee better working conditions for all seafarers but it demonstrates a much clearer focus by regulators that owners will be unable to ignore and should turn to their advantage.
And as for technology? Well, without new approaches to designing, building and operating ships, incorporating not just some tried and trusted techniques but new – and as yet unproven – technologies, there is little hope of meeting future regulatory hurdles and energy efficiency requirements.
I said that predicting the past was possible and here is the history lesson. Owners will adapt and survive. Some will leave the stage and some big names disappear but long before 2030, we will see a new industry emerge. In fact this is not a prediction. It will have to happen.
Source: BIMCO