Upload
ashanti-whetten
View
217
Download
3
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Dr T H Moller
Technical Team Manager
INTERNATIONAL TANKER OWNERS POLLUTION FEDERATION
www.itopf.comITOPF
STATUS OF THE INTERNATIONAL
COMPENSATION CONVENTIONS
STATUS OF THE INTERNATIONAL
COMPENSATION CONVENTIONS
Role of ITOPF
How CLC & FC operate
Benefits of the Conventions
Measures to improve Conventions
Performance record : Future outlook
ITOPF MEMBERSHIP
4,500 tanker owner Members
8,000 tankers of 194 million GT
Other ship owner Associates
310 million GT of non-tanker tonnage
P&I Clubs arrange ITOPF entries & pay dues
RESPONSE TO MARINE OIL SPILLS
Promoting an effective response to oil spills
Advising ship owners, P&I Clubs, IOPC Funds,
spill response community & victims
Technical advice on merits of claims
Attended 450 spills in 70 countries since 1972,
including 150 bunker spills from non-tankers
INTERNATIONAL COMPENSATION CONVENTIONS
CIVIL LIABILITY CONVENTION
(1992 CLC)
The International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, 1992
The International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage, 1992
FUND CONVENTION
(administered by1992 Fund)
Supplementary Layer of Compensation
Primary Layer of Compensation
FUND CONVENTION
CIVIL LIABILITY
CONVENTION
1992 Fund
Oil Cargo Receivers
Tanker Owner
Insurance(P&I Club)
COMPENSATION CONVENTIONS a two-tier system
CLC 92 & Fund 92 CLC 92 only
Parties to Civil Liability and Fund Conventions at 1 December 2001
CLC 69 onlyCLC 69 & Fund 71
1992 CLC : STRICT LIABILITY~ RIGHT TO LIMIT LIABILITY
Registered owner liable, regardless of fault with very few exceptions (e.g. act of war)
Required to have insurance and certificate
Enables direct action against insurer
Right to limit lost if damage resulted from personal act or omission of owner done with intent or recklessly and with knowledge that damage would occur
CHANNELLING OF LIABILITY
Claims ‘channelled’ to registered owner
Servants, agents, any charterer, manager, operator, salvors or responders protected from claims for pollution damage
Unless damage resulted from their personal act or omission done with intent or recklessly with knowledge that damage would occur (same test as for owner)
Recourse actions not prevented
COMPENSATION LIMITS
Liability of tanker owner / P&I Club (in SDR) based on gross tonnage of tanker
~US$ 4 million for tanker of < 5,000 GT to ~US$ 77 million for tanker of > 140,000 GT
1992 Fund limit ~ US$174 million, including 1992 CLC
EC CONCERNS
Inadequate limits of liability
Inappropriate balance between responsibilities of different players & their exposure to liability
Shipowner’s ‘unbreakable’ limitation rights
No incentive on industry to use ships of high quality
Inadequate cover for environmental damage
INCREASE OF LIMITS
Post-ERIKA, 50% increases of CLC and Fund agreed by IMO Legal Committee October 2000
Under special terms in Conventions (tacit amendment procedure) new limits enter into force 1 November 2003, unless >25% object
CLC limits become:-
~US$ 6 million for tanker of < 5,000 GT to
~US$ 116 million for tanker of > 140,000 GT
1992 Fund limit ~ US$ 261 million (incl. CLC)
current CLC
current FC
current CLC
CLC + 50%
current FC
FC + 50%
current CLC
CLC + 50%
current FC
FC + 50%ERIKA
NAKHODKAHAVEN
IOPC FUND RESPONSE
Response to EC and other concerns
1992 Fund Intersessional Working Group on operation of CLC and Fund
Consideration of issues could lead to fundamental revision of Conventions
WG met in March and June and reported to Fund Assembly in October 2001
Input by industry observer associations
MAXIMUM LIMITS
Difference of opinion on need to increase limits beyond 2003 levels
Agreement to Protocol establishing an ‘opt-in’ Supplementary Fund (‘third tier’)
Only apply in States that ratify Protocol
Operation of 1992 Conventions unaffected
Maximum limit to be decided by Diplomatic Conference, probably in 2003
BALANCE OF RESPONSIBILITIES
Purpose of CLC & FC to provide compensation, not to be punitive
Victims indifferent to source of compensation
Preserve existing balance of measures to facilitate compensation
Industry supportive of Supplementary Fund
To maintain equitable sharing, P&I Clubs have proposed voluntary increase in small ships limit in States party to Supplementary Fund
ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE
Continued strong opposition to use of ‘theoretical models’ as outside of definition of ‘Pollution Damage’ in Conventions
Emphasis remains on actual restoration/ reinstatement of damaged resources
Encouragement of innovative measures and post-spill studies - must be ‘reasonable’
Little enthusiasm for expanding provisions to allow acquisition of equivalent components to those damaged or destroyed
COMPENSATION CONVENTIONSthe record : the future
Successful formula adopted by 74 countries: >2,000 CLC cases & >100 FC cases settled
IOPCF WG’s mandate extended to consider:– shipowners’ right to limit (CLC 69 test?)– limit of liability under 1992 CLC– channelling (exposure of charterer to claims?)– environmental damage
Fundamental changes to 1992 CLC and Fund would require further Protocol
CLC 92 & Fund 92 CLC 92 only
Parties to Civil Liability and Fund Conventions at 1 December 2001
CLC 69 onlyCLC 69 & Fund 71