OWNERS URGE STATES NOT TO REVISE OIL POLLUTION COMPENSATION CONVENTIONS

[proud_ionian]

THE International Chamber of Shipping (ICS) has urged states attending next week’s Assembly of the International Oil Pollution Compensation (IOPC) Fund not to agree to revise the Civil Liability (CLC) and Fund Conventions.

In a statement the ICS says that it “remains firmly opposed to revision, given the danger of disturbing an existing regime that has so successfully delivered prompt compensation payments to oil spill claimants worldwide”.

It adds: “The consistent view of ICS, Intertanko and the International Group of P&I Clubs has been that the existing regime works well and that the two principal concerns of those favouring revision– sharing of costs between the shipping and oil industries, and identifying and isolating sub-standard tankers in an insurance context – can be effectively addressed outside the Conventions.”

ICS notes: “The P&I Clubs have offered a contractually binding voluntary agreement under which states that have ratified the Supplementary Fund would be offered either STOPIA (an increase in the small ship limit under CLC, already introduced earlier this year), or alternatively TOPIA (a 50:50 sharing between the shipping and oil industry of any claims falling under the Supplementary Fund).”

πηγη: mgn

[proud_ionian]

According to ICS the P&I clubs’ proposals to address the sharing issue by means of a voluntary binding agreement could be introduced immediately and “thereby dispense with the need for a lengthy revision and ratification process”. On the other hand, ICS argues, formal revision of the Conventions by way of amending Protocols would result in fragmentation of the global oil pollution compensation regime, with different states being parties to different “editions” of the Conventions, which would be to the detriment of claimants as well as the industry.

ICS is concerned some states attending the IOPC meeting will be “seduced” by a new paper to the Assembly which suggests a limited revision focusing on so called ‘house keeping’ issues. ICS says: “While the proposal is superficially seductive, on careful reading it is clear that the intention of those behind it, including Canada and the UK, is to keep open the fundamental issue of whether the Conventions should be revised to address the sharing of the costs of compensation between the shipping and oil industries, and also the possibility of revising the Conventions to address sub-standard transportation of oil (i.e. to introduce an element of punishment).

Calling on opponent of the revision proposal to stand firm the owners’ body says: “ICS believes the proposal should not change the position of non-revisionist governments and should be rejected by them. Under the guise of a proposal for “limited revision”, the paper is simply seeking to buy time for a more extensive revision of the Conventions.”