International Maritime Organization. The IOPC Funds: Meeting of the Governing Bodies. (4-7 November 2025)
International Maritime Organization.
The IOPC Funds: Meeting of the Governing Bodies. (4-7 November 2025)
The meeting of the Governing Bodies of the 1992 Fund and of the Supplementary Fund took place at IMO Headquarters between 4 and 7 November 2025. The 1992 Fund Assembly Chair was Mr Francois Marier (Canada) and the Chair of the 1992 Fund Executive Committee was Miss Malgorzata Buszynska (Poland)). The Chair of the Supplementary Fund Assembly was Mr Andrew Angel (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland). The quorum for both the 1992 Fund and Supplementary Fund was achieved. The 1992 Fund has 122 member States and welcomed the Republic of Iraq to its first meeting. The Supplementary Fund has 33 Member States. The meeting was conducted in the hybrid form.
STOPIA 2006 and TOPIA 2006 – recent information on entered ships (IOPC/NOV25/4/1)
The ten year review of STOPIA 2006 and TOPIA 2006 is due in 2026. In relation to STOPIA it was noted that 7,814 ships were entered in that voluntary agreement: 7,597 ships insured by the International Group and reinsured and 217 ships by written agreement. The latter comprise ships which, although entered with an International Group P&I Club, are not part of the International Group reinsurance. Under the Memorandum of Understanding between the 1992 Fund and the International Group it is agreed that if the review shows that either shipowners or oil receivers have borne more than 60% of the total cost of claims, corrective measures are to be taken to restore balance. The International Group confirmed that it would be collecting the relevant information for the commencement of the 2026 Policy Year on 20 February 2026 and co-operate with the Secretariat to finalise the relevant figures.
The potential impact of sanctions on the international liability and compensation regime (IOPC/NOV25/4/3)
The Director expressed his continuing concern about the danger and potential impact upon the international liability and compensation regime arising from the so called “dark” or “shadow” fleet, a presently estimated in the region of 600-1,100 ships. It was noted that IMO had adopted a resolution (Resolution A: (192(33)) which called upon the Flag States to take measures against dark fleet operations, in particular to ensure that ships on their registers adhered to measures which prohibit or regulate ship to ship transfers of oil and to consider requiring ships to register up to date STS plans, including notifying the Flag State when engaged in such operations. The same resolution called upon port states to enforce the safety and liability conventions, to notify Flag States of ships intentionally taking steps to avoid detection by turning off AIS and LRIT transmissions and to monitor STS operations within their territorial seas and EEZ. Notwithstanding, the dark fleet was able to evade safety compliance measures by turning off AIS transponders or “spoofing” false positions.
The principal concern were practical difficulties which might arise in dealing with an incident involving a vessel laded with Russian oil. These would include the possibility of the 1992 Fund having to pay additional compensation if a shipowner or insurer failed to establish a limitation fund or was unable to establish bank accounts from which the compensation could be paid.
In view of these issues the Director encouraged Member States fully to comply with their obligations not only under the IMO Resolution but also under Article VII of 1992 CLC and IMO Circular LEG.1/Circ. 16 in relation to the verification of the insurer and insurance certificate provided.
A number of delegations expressed their deep concern at the risk posed by the fleet and its continuing expansion and noted in particular the financial risks posed to the IOPC Funds themselves. They supported the actions highlighted by the Director to safeguard the effectiveness and credibility of the international liability and compensation regime. It was also noted by one delegation that concerns raised by the unsafe and uninsured vessels potentially linked to the work being conducted by the IMO Sub-Committee on Navigation, Communications and Search and Rescue (NCSR). It was suggested that the Secretariat should monitor any developments on IMO’s NCSR are and Maritime Safety Committee on the mandatory transmission of certificates.
A major Flag State reported that it had already implemented measures requiring mandatory traceability for ship to ship or transfer operations. They also reported that its registry strict age and safety criteria which included refusal to register bulkers and oil tankers over 15 years old.
Finally, as at the meeting in April 2025, the Russian Federation reaffirmed its commitment to fulfil its international obligations related to merchant shipping and liability instruments. They again pointed to the illegal and discriminatory nature of unilateral sanctions which, they said, were negatively affecting the functioning of the international liability and compensation regime.
Development of a guidance document – procedures for determining whether a ship falls under the 1992 Civil Liability Convention or the 2001 Bunkers Convention (IOPC/NOV 25/4/4/Rev.1)
The background to the proposed this guidance was the Court of Appeal decision in the Netherlands in respect of the Bow Jubail. The court considered that there was no generally accepted standard procedure to determine from an evidentiary perspective when a ship that can serve as both an oil tanker under the 1992 CLC and as a chemical tanker under the 2001 Bunkers Convention, ceases to be a ‘ship’ under the 1992 CLC.
The Bow Jubail had undertaken a MARPOL pre-wash and discharged the slops into a waste reception facility, which was correctly recorded and signed for in the vessel’s Oil Record Book, but the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Court of First Instance and Court of Appeal that the shipowner had failed to prove that there were no residues of oil on board. Accordingly, the 1992 Fund Executive Committee had requested the Director to explore guidance on developing a standard procedure. In doing so he consulted industry bodies.
Following that consultation the Director proposed wording on the interpretation of “residues” together with several options for a footnote to the “Guidance for Member States – Consideration of the definition of ship”.
After interventions from the observer delegations from the International Chamber of Shipping, International Group of P&I Clubs and OCIMF the 1992 Fund Assembly adopted the following wording of a footnote which included the interpretation of “residues”.
“For the purposes of the 1992 CLC, ‘residues’ are the remnants of a persistent oil cargo of a quantity that represents a material pollution risk. Tank cleaning conducted in accordance with Annex I, Chapter 4 of MARPOL 73/78 will remove residues, and any corresponding material pollution risk. Where a vessel undergoes cleaning and flushing of its cargo tanks, slop tanks, residual oil tanks and all associated pumps and pipelines in accordance with Annex I, Chapter 4 of MARPOL 73/78; and any oil, tank washing and/or oily mixture have been discharged or transferred off the vessel, the completed Oil Record Book countersigned by the Master, as required under MARPOL, will be prima facie evidence that the vessel is free of residues.”
Risk of uninsured and unsafe ships – submitted by Türkiye Document IOPC/NOV25/4/5
The delegation of Turkiye recalled that on 23 December 2024, the Amnah, IMO No 9126259, registered under the Comoros flag, sank with its cargo of over 200 containers, at the dock within the Ambarlı Port area, due to an incorrect stability calculation by the crew. This incident caused significant danger to life, property, the environment, and navigational safety. It also rendered the port facility unusable and resulted in significant delays and commercial losses.
Measures were taken to prevent oil pollution by sealing all fuel tank leaks using divers when the ship sank. The minor oil spill that occurred in the initial stage did not leak outside the protective barriers and was cleaned up by emergency response companies. No visible pollution remained before the ship was completely floated and towed away from its location.
All certificates issued by the flag State and by a recognised organisation on behalf of the Flag State, which were valid as of the date of the ship’s arrival at the port, had been uploaded to the national maritime single window system. Among these documents there was a Bunkers 2001 certificate issued by the Comoros flag Administration based on a P&I insurance policy, valid until 1 November 2025, issued by ‘Los Andes de Protección de Indemnización’, a company based in Chile.
After the incident, the Turkish Maritime Authority tried to contact the insurance company, Los Andes de Protección de Indemnización, but no response was received in the first three days. Although, validity of the policy was verified by the Harbour Master’s Office on the insurance company’s website, the company denied the insurance policy. The insurer, who did not assume liability for the incident, did not pay any compensation, and no damages were paid. The ship was removed from its location by the port operator using its own resources.
Türkiye, as a flag State, within the scope of flag State practices, requires that certificates for Turkish-flagged vessels such as those for the CLC or Bunkers Convention must be from the list of reputable P&I organisations declared by the Administration. However, there are some difficulties in controlling the insurance of foreign-flagged ships submitted from any insurer that is not a member of the International Group of P&I Clubs (International Group) and which is not even known. Therefore, Turkiye has concluded that a separate insurance regulation should be introduced for foreign-flagged vessels calling at Turkish ports. In this regard, each insurer who wants to register in the national single window system should apply to the Maritime Administration by 20 February 2025 showing that they meet the listed criteria, including appointment a local correspondent, online verification, reinsurance agreements, and international credit rating note. Although this is a local solution, Türkiye has questioned the existence and adequacy of insurance policies offered by ships arriving at its ports since February 2025, placing importance on the financial strength and compensation payment capacity of insurance companies.
Turkiye invited the Assembly to encourage Member States to share their lists of reputable/respectable insurers in their own waters and to take account of IMO guidance in LE9.1/Circ.16 when regulating insurance companies.
The document of Turkiye prompted a lively and generally supportive debate. One delegation noted that the incident highlighted the uncertain implementation of the IMO guidelines. It also stated that certain flag States contributed significantly to compromising the effectiveness of insurance obligations, and that if the proposal to establish a list of reliable or reputable insurers provided a form of transparency, there was little doubt that many insurers of uncertain reliability, would appear on the list of insurers accepted by States. That delegation expressed concern that simply by being on such a list published by the IMO, this could lead to those insurers benefiting from appearing legitimate undeservedly.
It further stated that maritime administrations faced difficulties in assessing the seriousness of numerous and proliferating insurance offers, and under national law, the legal basis for refusing an insurer, who otherwise had a legal right to offer its services, were uncertain, which made the position as a flag state relatively delicate
A large number of delegations supported the concerns raised in the document submitted by Turkiye and some the proposal to share more information about reliable insurers. However, in relation to the proposal to establish a section on the IOPC Funds’ website to share lists of reliable/reputable insurers, a number of delegations expressed concern that there might be issues with maintaining the accuracy of the data, since it needed to be dynamic, requiring frequent updates which might cause confusion or give rise to issues of liability, and could be seen to endorse certain insurers over others.
Noting also that the case concerned the Bunkers Convention, it was suggested that the matter was more appropriate for consideration at IMO.
Incidents involving IOPC Funds
PRESTIGE (IOPC/NOV25/3/2)
The remaining matter of interest for the 1992 Fund is a claim in France against the Classification Society, American Bureau of Shipping (ABS). In resisting the claim of the 1992 Fund, ABS has claimed sovereign immunity, relied on the doctrine of res judicata in so far as ABS has been discharged from liability by the courts in the United States, claimed an entitlement to rely on the channelling provisions in Article III(4) of 1992 CLC and asserted that the claim is time barred pursuant to Article VIII of 1992 CLC.
The 1992 Fund replied to these arguments by denying ABS was entitled to sovereign immunity. As already determined by the Court of Cassation in April 2019 ABS was not entitled to sovereign immunity in its activities of providing classification. The 1992 Fund’s action related to faults committed by ABS in this regard. As to res judicata, the Fund argued it was entitled to maintain subrogation rights in relation to the French claimants and the Portuguese State. It would renounce its claim in respect of amounts paid in compensation to Spain in the light of the decision in the US appeal courts in the action by Spain against ABS. The 1992 Fund also argued that classification societies could not benefit from the channelling provisions in 1992 CLC. It was not, for example, a “servant or agent of the Owner” nor a “member of the crew”. Further it was not a “pilot or any other person who … performed services for the ship”. The 1992 Fund, in relation to the time bar question, argued that 1992 CLC did not apply to actions in tort or against third parties whose actions are not governed by 1992 CLC. It would follow that the relevant time limit was the 10 year limitation period in accordance with French law. That period started to run on 13 November 2002 the 1992 Fund brought its action on 30 October 2012. Accordingly, the 1992 Fund’s action was not time barred.
In February 2025 the first instance court in Bordeaux delivered its judgment deciding that the 1992 CLC applied to the 1992 Fund’s action and, accordingly, that the action was time barred. The action had been brought at a date later than the 6 year anniversary of the incident as provided in Article VIII of 1992 CLC.
The Director had been authorised to appeal at the April 2025 meeting and reported that the appeal had now been lodged. France also informed the meeting that, since the case raised fundamental questions concerning the law and procedure and financial impact, it had also appealed.
“SOLAR 1” (IOPC/NOV25/3/3)
The Philippines’ registered tanker “SOLAR 1” (998GT) sank on 11 August 2006 when laden with a cargo of 2,081 tonnes of industrial fuel oil in the Guimaras Strait, 10 nautical miles of Guimaras Island in the Philippines.
As at 18 August 2025, 32,466 claims had been received and payments totalling PHP1,091 million (£12.3 million) were made in respect of 26,872 claims, mainly in the fisheries sector so for clean up by the Philippines Coastguard. All claims have been assessed and the local claims office has been closed. “SOLAR 1” is a ESTOPIA case where the total amount is SDR20 million. It is considered unlikely that the total compensation will exceed the STOPIA limit.
There are two claims outstanding, a claim by 967 fishers and a claim by a group of municipal employees. No evidence has been provided by the fisher claimants and it is thought the claim by the municipal workers is unfounded. Both are subject to legal proceedings in the Philippines and are progressing satisfactorily. They are likely to end soon. The 1992 Fund will shortly present its own evidence in the two actions.
Redfferm (IOPC/NOV25/3/4)
This case concerns the sinking of an inland-certified barge “REDFFERM” in early March 2009 at Tin Can Island, Lagos, Nigeria following a transshipment operation with the tanker “MT CONCEP”. An unknown quantity of low pour fuel oil (LPFO) estimated at between 100 and 650 tonnes was spilled into waters surrounding the site. The barge “REDFFERM” was used to tranship LPFO from a sea going tanker, the “MT CONCEP”, to a shore based power plant.
The 1992 Fund had rejected claims in February 2014 on the basis that: the barge “REDFFERM” was not a ship under Article I(1) of 1992 CLC; there were discrepancies between the claimed losses and other source of information; and there was a lack of information to prove the claimant’s identities and occupations. A claim for US$26.25 million had been filed in March 2012 by 102 communities against the Owner of the “MT CONCEP”, the Owner of “REDFFERM” and the agent of both “MT CONCEP” and the “REDFFERM” and the 1992 Fund. In February 2013 the 1992 Fund sought to be removed as a defendant and replaced as an intervener on the basis that primary liability rested with the Owner of the “REDFFERM”. This was denied and that decision was appealed by the 1992 Fund.
Various other procedural issues arose in the ensuing years but the substantive development was in February 2022 when the First Instance judge delivered summary judgment against the Owner and Charterer of the “MT CONCEP”, the Owner and Charterer of the barge “REDFFERM” awarding the claimants their amended claim of US$92.26 million and US$5 million as general damages. However, the judge had made no reference to the Memorandum of Appearance and Statement of Defence by the “MT CONCEP” nor to the counter-affidavit filed by the 1992 Fund in opposition to the claimant’s application for final judgment. “MT CONCEP”and “REDFFERM” filed appeals to set aside the summary judgment on the grounds of fraud as the court had been misled into believing “MT CONCEP” had failed to enter an appearance or to file a defence when it in fact had done both.
In June 2022 the claimant’s lawyers filed garnishee proceedings against all the defendants including the 1992 Fund. The garnishee proceedings against the 1992 fund were set aside in November 2022. A request for payment of the judgment sum was made in February 2023 but this was not responded to by the Secretariat and no compensation has been paid.
In February 2024 the claimants renewed the writ of summons and, after one adjournment, there was a hearing in September 2024 at which the 1992 Fund argued that the suit should be dismissed. In January 2025, the Judge dismissed the 1992 Fund’s application, giving reasons at odds with the order sought, and held that the same application had been previously argued and dismissed. The 1992 Fund’s lawyers have filed an appeal against the ruling on two grounds, namely that the judge failed to make a finding (and that the claim filed by the claimants was time-barred), and that he failed to consider the contents of the affidavits filed by the parties. They have also applied for a stay of the proceedings, pending the appeal. There was a hearing in March 2025 and in May the Court has stayed proceedings pending resolution of the appeal of the 1992 Fund by the Court of Appeal.
As it had at the April 2025 meeting, the delegation of Nigeria made a statement. It said that, noting the complexity and uncertainty of the status of the vessel under Article I(1) of the 1992 CLC, it recognised the importance of upholding due process and the principles which underpinned the compensation regime. It supported the arguments of the 1992 Fund.
Alfa 1 (IOPC/NOV25/3/5)
On 5 March 2012, the Greek registered tanker Alfa I, laden with 1 800 metric tonnes of cargo, hit the wreck of the City of Mykonos while crossing Elefsis Bay, near Piraeus, Greece and sank, with the escaped oil impacting some 13 kilometres of the shoreline of Elefsis Bay. Clean-up operations were conducted at sea and on the shoreline.
In May 2015, the Piraeus Court of First Instance awarded the main clean-up contractor the sum of EUR 14.4 million. The 1992 Fund settled the main contractor’s claim for EUR 12 million and is claiming back from the insurer the 1992 Civil Liability Convention (1992 CLC) limit (SDR 4.51 million or EUR 5.26 million<1>). In February 2018, the Bank of Greece revoked the insurer’s license and placed the company in liquidation.
The 1992 Fund filed applications for prenotated mortgages against buildings owned by the insurer and registered its claim with the liquidator. After a series of court hearings, the 1992 Fund succeeded with its claims at the Greek Supreme Court and now the right of the 1992 Fund to register prenotated mortgages against the insurer’s properties, forcing their sale, is undisputed. In early 2024, the Athens Court of Appeal issued a judgment which ordered the liquidator to include the 1992 Fund’s claim in the list of insurance claims.
In 2025, buyers were found for two properties (one property in Athens at EUR 321 574 and one property in Thessaloniki at EUR 253 101) upon submissions of competitive offers. The notarial contracts of sale will be signed later in 2025. For the remaining properties, the liquidator is in contact with the supervising authority at the Bank of Greece about the proper sale procedure
NESA R3 (IOPC /NOV25/3/6)
On 19 June 2013, the 856 GT tanker Nesa R3, carrying 840 tonnes of bitumen from the port of Bandar Abbas in the Islamic Republic of Iran, sank in 65 metres of water about 1.4 miles off Port Sultan Qaboos, Muscat, the Sultanate of Oman.
33 claims were received by the 1992 Fund for clean up, surveys and economic loss in an amount of OMR 5,915,218. 28 have been settled at the total amount of OMR 3,521,364 and BHD 8,419. The remaining claims were rejected.
The Omani Government commenced legal action in Muscat against the shipowner and insurer as both refused to meet their obligations under 1992 CLC. The 1992 Fund joined those proceedings.
On 20 December 2018, the 1992 Fund reached an agreement with the Omani Government to settle its claims out of court. The settlement agreements provided that the Omani Government would withdraw these claims against the 1992 Fund by application to the Court.
In January 2023, the Court of Appeal in Muscat rendered a judgment in which the Court ordered Indian Ocean P&I Club and Welance Marine Inc. to pay the 1992 Fund OMR 3,521,364 and BHD 8,419.
In February 2023, the insurer filed an objection before the Supreme Court, which referred the case back to the Court of Appeal.
On 19 January 2025, the Environment Agency submitted a memorandum to the Court of Appeal to withdraw its claims against the 1992 Fund.
The 1992 Fund has investigated the financial circumstances of the shipowner and the insurer. The investigation indicated that the 1992 Fund would be unlikely to recover any of the compensation paid for this incident.
The Omani Government has withdrawn all claims against the 1992 Fund from the legal proceedings.
Once the Court of Appeal issues its judgment against the shipowner and the insurer, the 1992 Fund will consider closing this incident.
NATHAN E STEWART (IOPC/N)V25/3/7)
On 13 October 2016, the articulated tug-barge (ATB) Nathan E. Stewart and DBL 55 grounded near Bella Bella, British Columbia, Canada, resulting in the tug sinking and releasing over 107, 000 litres of diesel and 2 240 litres of lubricants.
A First Nation community filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court of British Columbia against the shipowners, operators, crew, and several third parties, including the Ship-source Oil Pollution Fund (SOPF) in Canada, the 1992 Fund and the Supplementary Fund. In July 2019, the Federal Court of Canada stayed this action during limitation proceedings and ordered the constitution of a limitation fund under the 2001 Bunkers Convention and the LLMC 76/96, based on the vessels’ combined tonnage. The Court found no grounds for the establishment of a limitation fund under the 1992 Civil Liability Convention (1992 CLC) at that time.
A two-mediator mediation took place on 27 and 28 February 2025 between the claimant and the shipowners. Further mediation is expected to take place. The stay of proceedings has been continued until 26 September 2025.
The delegation of Canada reported that the mediation between the claimants from the First Nation community and the shipowner was ongoing, and confirmed that the Canadian government is not a party to the mediation. That delegation also stated that the stay on proceedings, which was originally due to end on 26 September 2025, has been extended until 27 March 2026. It was also stated that the parties to the mediation must provide a joint status update by 20 March 2026, after which they will inform the Court of the settlement status and propose either a further suspension or a procedural timetable if litigation is to continue.
“AGIA ZONI II” (IOPC/NOV25/3/8)
This long-standing claim concerns a small and very old tanker which sank in mysterious circumstances in the northern part of Piraeus anchorage area. Serious pollution was caused by the 500 tonnes of oil which escaped from the wreck. Since then, the wreck has been raised and placed in drydock. Two local investigations have reached different conclusions as to the cause of the sinking. One concluded that there had been an explosion on board but the other found that water had been deliberately introduced by opening ballast tank valves. This “scuttling” was planned, it is suggested, by the shipowner working in conjunction with the salvors and/or one of the clean-up contracting companies.
The ASNA report concluded that the accident should be attributed to the deliberate and negligent actions of the shipowner, two crew members who were on board at the crucial time, the shipowner’s General Manager and representatives of the Salvage/clean-up companies.
An investigation was undertaken by the Piraeus Public Prosecutor into the causes of the sinking and in June 2021 the Fund’s lawyer and a number of other parties were called and questioned by the Prosecutor. The Fund’s lawyer was questioned about the procedure which had been adopted for the payment of claims including those of the clean-up contractors.
The criminal department of the Piraeus court concluded that of those potentially involved in the deliberate sinking there were clear indications of criminal conduct on the part of the engine room foremaster, the AB seaman, the Master, the shipowning company representative and the representative of the first clean-up company. The decision has been made to prosecute the two seaman who remained on board for intentionally causing pollution by unscrewing the cargo tank covers and deliberately flooding the vessel causing it to sink. The Master, the representative of the shipowner and the representative of the first clean-up company will be charged with instigating the criminal activities which took place. 24 October 2024 was fixed for the trial of these 5 defendants.
Against this background the IOPC Funds had already decided that it was obliged to pay for the clean-up operations. The advice from the Funds’ Greek lawyers had been that Article 4(3) of the 1992 CLC required that compensation be paid to innocent victims regardless of the cause of the spill. Should there eventually be a finding of criminal activity by the shipowner or contractors, recourse actions could be taken by the Fund.
As regards compensation, the Fund has received 424 claims in the amount of EUR 100.21 million and one claim for property damage in the amount of USD 175,000. 418 claims have been approved and EUR 16.92 million has been paid out. As for clean-up and wreck removal claims there are 34 claims amounting to EUR 83.54 million. A claim by the Greek State for oil waste disposal was paid in February 2024.
The “AGIA ZONI II” was insured for oil pollution risks by Lodestar Marine Ltd. which is not a member of the International Group of P.& I. Clubs and the policy has a limit of EUR 5 million. However, the insurers have said that they will honour the Blue Card which they issued with its limit of SDR 4.51 million. Limitation proceedings were commenced by the insurers and a guarantee in the amount of EUR 5.59 has been lodged with the court. Claims against the limitation fund, including a subrogation claim from the Fund, were filed and assessed by the Administrator. His assessments were the subject of review by the Court of First Instance in Piraeus in June 2022 and the decision of the Court is subject to further appeals with the Fund challenging the ruling that because of late submission of some of the subrogated claims they had no right to appeal against the Administrator’s assessment. Proceedings continue and a hearing, originally fixed for February 2024, was adjourned until September 2024.
At the September 2024 hearings, five appeals were heard against the first instance judgment issued in the limitation proceedings. The appeals addressed legal points (the right of the 1992 Fund to question directly the provisional list of claims issued by the Limitation Fund Administrator, and to submit subrogated claims against the limitation fund later than the time permitted under Greek procedural rules) and points on the merits regarding the reasonableness of the claims awarded in the first instance.
Following the judgment any interested party may file an appeal before the Supreme Court (limited to examining legal errors in the interpretation of the law). Under Greek procedural rules, the distribution of the limitation fund will commence upon the Supreme Court issuing its judgment, or the time period for appealing before the Supreme Court lapsing with no such appeal having been filed.
The Piraeus Appeal Court recently issued judgment 643/2025 on the five appeals of the limitation fund proceedings, which was over 1 000 pages in length.
In May 2025, the criminal court of Piraeus issued its judgement finding guilty the Master, the manager/legal representative of the owning company, and the Managing Director of one of the clean-up contractors, for the sinking of the ship and the ensuing pollution.
The judgement was taken by a majority of four persons (three judges and one jury member) against three jury members who voted for the acquittal of all accused parties. The above parties were condemned to 12 years of imprisonment with suspension. The indicted parties have filed an appeal and the procedure is continuing.
The Executive Committee noted that the Secretariat’s comments were to be regarded as provisional and that, in the judgment in the limitation fund proceedings, the claims of the indicted clean-up contractor had been suspended and would be reconsidered in light of the eventual finding of the Criminal Court regarding any criminal liability of the contractor. Accordingly, there remained a lot of uncertainty regarding the claims situation, and that this would remain until matters had reached an unappealable decision from the Greek Supreme Court.
The delegation of Greece thanked the Secretariat for the document and stated that as the judgment of the Piraeus Appeal Court had only been issued recently and was over 1000 pages in length, it required further consideration before it could comment further.
“BOW JUBAIL” (IOPC/NOV25/3/9)
On 23 June 2018, the oil and chemical tanker Bow Jubail (23 196 GT) collided with an LBC Tank Terminals jetty in Rotterdam, spilling fuel oil into the harbour. The resulting pollution affected nearby vessels, quays, property, and wildlife.
In March 2023, the Supreme Court of the Netherlands confirmed that Bow Jubail qualified as a ‘ship’ under the 1992 Civil Liability Convention (1992 CLC), making the 1992 Civil Liability and Fund Conventions applicable. The 1992 CLC limits liability to SDR 15.99 million, but the shipowner is a party to STOPIA 2006 (as amended 2017), voluntarily raising the limit to SDR 20 million.
Legal actions were filed against the shipowner, its insurer (Gard P&I Bermuda), and others. The 1992 Fund was included in some cases. In June 2023, the insurer applied to the Limitation Court to limit its liability to SDR 15.99 million via a Letter of Undertaking (LoU), but in October 2023, the Court rejected the application to exclude accrued interest. The insurer made a revised application in December 2023 including interest.
In May 2024, the Court approved a limitation fund of SDR 18.9 million (EUR 23.03 million), including interest and costs. This sum was deposited by the insurer.
Ahead of the six-year time bar on 23 June 2024, the 1992 Fund notified claimants to protect their rights. By August 2024, 44 claims had been filed, totalling EUR 30.8 million, USD 1.92 million and NOK 152 070. Most claimants reserved the right to amend the claimed amounts, so as at 13 August 2025, the total amount claimed remains unknown. Of 20 claims notified in the amount of Euro 9.3 million, 19 have been assessed and paid in an amount of Euro 5.82 million and four others are awaiting acceptance. The assessment of some of the largest claims submitted by the Dutch State and Port Authority will commence soon.
MT HARCOURT (IOPC/NOV25/3/10)
On 2 November 2020, the oil storage tanker MT Harcourt (26 218 GRT, built 1997) suffered an explosion in a ballast water tank at Delta State, Nigeria. Approximately 31 barrels (approximately 4.2 tonnes) of crude oil were reported to have spilled.
The clean-up operation was organised by the Terminal which used its own barges and crew, and was completed successfully. No trace of the oil cargo was found in the water samples taken by the P&I Club’s experts.
The owner of the MT Harcourt is a party to the Small Tanker Oil Pollution Indemnification Agreement (STOPIA) 2006 (as amended 2017) whereby the limitation amount applicable to the tanker is increased, on a voluntary basis to SDR 20 million. The 1992 Fund has not been called upon to pay compensation.
A representative of 12 riverine communities alleged to have been affected filed a claim against the shipowner and Master in the Federal High Court, Warri, Nigeria. No proceedings were commenced against the 1992 Fund. The shipowner’s P&I Club filed a defence and were successful in striking out the claim. The claimants filed an appeal. On 9 May 2024, the Court of Appeal dismissed the case and the claimants did not appeal to the Supreme Court within the given deadline.
The claimants have not applied for time extension to appeal beyond the deadline. Given the time that has passed and the claim’s lack of merit, the P&I Club has closed its file. The 1992 Fund also considers this incident closed.
Incident in Israel (IOPC/NOV25/3/11)
In February 2021, the Government of Israel requested assistance with oil found along the Israeli coast. The source of the spill was not identified, but it was believed a spill had occurred in the waters of Israel’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and analyses of the polluting oil indicated that the oil was crude oil.
Clean-up operations were carried out by the Israeli Ministry of Environmental Protection, with local authorities organising the response on the beaches. The main clean-up operations were completed by mid-April 2021.
In July 2021, the 1992 Fund Executive Committee decided that the pollution which had affected the coastline of Israel could be considered as a spill from an unknown source and that the 1992 Civil Liability and Fund Conventions would apply to this incident (document IOPC/JUL21/9/2, paragraph 3.2.22).
A total of 415 claims were submitted for clean-up operations, property damage and economic losses, totalling ILS 34.8 million.
The three-year time bar for claims against the 1992 Fund expired on 17 February 2024.
Following the submission of additional documents, a settlement was reached with 363 claimants for economic losses in the fisheries sector.
As at 11 August 2025, 387 claims have been settled for a total of ILS 10 451 911 in compensation.
“PRINCESS EMPRESS” (IOPC/NOV25/3/12)
The Philippine flagged “PRINCESS EMPRESS” (508 GT) sank off the coast of Naujan, Oriental Mindoro in the Philippines on February 28th 2023. She was carrying 800,000 litres of fuel oil as cargo. An oil spill occurred causing widespread pollution damage. As oil continued to leak from the wreck it was decided to remove the remaining oil. This operation was completed in June 2023. Clean-up operations have now also been concluded and clean-up costs have been paid in the amount of PHP 5.6 million, USD 26.2 million, Euro 2.7 million and GBP 64,510.
As at 17 September 2025 40,807 claims, mainly in the fisheries sector had been received of which 38,930 have been approved and 34,063 paid. PHP 1,004 million has been paid out to fisherfolk and traders. 2,891 claims from the tourism industry have been received totalling PHP 121.2 million. Of these 997 have been approved at PHP 3.5 million and 420 rejected.
The Philippines is a party to the 1992 CLC and the 1992 Fund Convention. The Fund is therefore working closely with the Club and with the Philippine authorities. It is anticipated that the claims may well exceed the CLC limit which will mean that the Fund will be involved. The CLC limit is calculated at SDR 4.51 million but the shipowner is a party to the STOPIA Agreement with the result that the limit is increased to SDR 20 million.
The causes of the incident are still being investigated in order to determine whether there is any criminal responsibility.
The delegation of the Philippines thanked the Secretariat for continuing collaboration regarding the Princess Empress incident, which disrupted livelihoods in the fisheries and tourism sectors, and damaged the marine environment. That delegation expressed appreciation for the Secretariat’s reminders about the timely submission of institutional claims. It also acknowledged support from the IOPC Funds’ Secretariat and cooperation with the Shipowners’ P&I Club, which had enabled faster assessment and settlement of claims for fishers and tourism businesses. The delegation also recognised the prompt payment of claims despite logistical issues, and expressed hope for the swift resolution of recent claims submitted by the Philippine Coast Guard, the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, and several municipalities
“GULFSTREAM” (IOPC/NOV25/3/13)
This case concerns an articulated barge “GULFSTREAM”, towed by the tug “SOLO CREED”, which capsized on 5/6 February 2024, spilling an unknown quantity of its 4,650mt cargo of persistent bunker fuel cargo and polluted some 15km of the coastline of Tobago. Traces of oil and tar balls were washed up on the coast of Bonaire (Kingdom of Netherlands). The barge was on a voyage from Pozuelo Bay Bavarian Republic of Venezuela, to Guyana.
As noted in previous reports, the history and ownership of both the tug, “SOLO CREED” and the barge, “GULFSTREAM” is murky. Although the tug was registered in Tanzania, there was no clear evidence of the ownership, or of any insurance being in place for the barge laden with oil, due to a number of incomplete or falsified registration documents which had been provided to the authorities. A subsequent claim made by a businessman, that he was the true owner of the barge, is believed to be an attempt to lay a false trail away from the true owners of the barge and tug.
Prior to the voyage, the barge had been aground on a beach for some seven months. There were serious maintenance issues, lack of survey data or insurance. Satellite footage located the barge Gulfstream in Pozuelo’s Bay, Venezuela, on 26 January 2024. The tug and barge were visually matched near this location in Pozuelo’s Bay on 27, 29, 30 and 31 January 2024.
On 3 February 2024, after leaving Pozuelo’s Bay, satellite imagery showed the tug and barge heading northeast, with the barge on a long tow. Notably, the satellite images of the barge showed that it was already leaking an oily substance, leaving behind a slick that stretched for at least 40 km. As no such trail was spotted beforehand, it is believed that the Gulfstream took on a cargo from Venezuela while in Pozuelo’s Bay, possibly via a ship-to-ship transfer.
On 6 February 2024, satellite imagery showed the barge Gulfstream capsized surrounded by a large oil spill, approximately 16 nautical miles southeast of Tobago. According to a document purportedly showing a request to book a pilot for the tug Solo Creed and its barge tow Culie Boy, the barge was destined for the Vreed en Hoop terminal of Guyana Power and Light, Guyana’s state-owned electric utility in fulfilment of a tender process for a number of shipments. Guyana Power and Light has subsequently denied any involvement with the incident. However, the existence of further additional contracts providing oil to entities in Guyana have been mentioned, as to which no conclusions have been reached. The Trinidad and Tobago authorities are continuing their investigations and therefore, it has not been possible to ascertain the ultimate destination of the cargo, or its owner.
Searches for the location of the “SOLO CREED” conducted by Trinidad and Tobago with the assistance of other Member States resulted in the discovery that the “SOLO CREED” had been arrested in Angola by the Angolan authorities for breaching the boundaries of a number of oil field exclusion zones. Trinidad and Tobago contacted local lawyers in Angola to effect an arrest, a possible judicial sale and to ascertain further details of its ownership. However, the tug escaped detention and its present location is unknown despite efforts to trace it.
Following the conclusion of the onshore clean-up operations, efforts concentrated on the oil removal operation from the barge. By August 2024, salvors had removed 32 675 barrels of oil. On 19 August 2024, they refloated the barge and towed it to Trinidad arriving on 22 August 2024. The oil onboard was advertised for sale by auction, but due to the unknown origin of the oil, only one potential buyer was willing to purchase the oil. The value of the oil when sold will be deducted from one of the claims submitted by the Trinidadian authorities.
Efforts to trace the tug continue, both through diplomatic measures and by tracing the crew members onboard the tug at the time of arrest.
The 1992 Fund’s FPO, established in Trinidad in June 2024, has so far received 357 claims, totalling USD 48.5 million. These claims relate to clean-up operations undertaken in Tobago, and to fisheries. Interviews with those who submitted fisheries claims commenced in March 2025 and a large number of the 177 claims submitted in the fisheries sector have been assessed. Claims for surveillance and clean-up operations conducted in Bonaire, where oil was found following the incident, have also been received and paid.
The delegation of Panama noted that the report stated that the Tanzanian Registry had listed the owner at the time of the incident as an individual residing in (but not a citizen of) Panama. That delegation stated that according to the Panamanian Tax Registry, that individual was listed as a foreigner, and the Solo Creed was also not registered on the Panamanian Ship Registry, and that its owner was not a legal entity under Panamanian law.
“MARINE HONOUR” (IOPC/NOV 25/3/14)
The “MARINE HONOUR” while stationery at the Pasir Pangang Terminal, Singapore was struck by a hopper dredger “VOX MAXIMA”. This in turn caused the “MARINE HONOUR” to make contact with the “EVER BLINK”. As a consequence the hull of “MARINE HONOUR” was breached resulting in a spill of fuel oil 380. The quantity is estimated at 817mt.
The pollution damage resulting from the Marine Honour incident affected the Southern Islands, Sentosa Island, Labrador Nature Reserve and East Coast Park. Oil from the spill reached the southern coast of Johor and the East Johor Strait in Malaysia.
As at 24 September 2025, the CSO has registered 589 claims, amounting to SGD 72,488,502.
QBE has submitted claims to the CSO for clean-up costs, the costs for mitigating the risk of further pollution from the Marine Honour, and the management of these operations. The claims total SGD 7,700,522 and USD 21,383,729.
In March 2025, the 1992 Fund agreed to make a provisional payment of USD 11 million to QBE.
Approved amounts for QBE’s claims have exceeded the provisional payment. As at 24 September 2025, the 1992 Fund has approved amounts totalling SGD 4,432,265 and USD 16,123,610 in relation to QBE’s claims for oil spill response and prevention, and expert fees. Assessments of QBE’s remaining claims are ongoing.
Singapore government agencies have claimed a total of SGD 18,413,529 for response costs. As at 24 September 2025, the 1992 Fund has approved SGD 2,848,067. The remaining amounts are subject to ongoing assessments.
The CSO has also received claims from businesses in the tourism and hospitality sector. Private pleasure craft owners have claimed for oiled hulls and damaged equipment, while commercial vessel owners have claimed for hull cleaning costs and loss of hire.
The CSO has also received claims from 137 fishers in Johor for property damage and economic losses, which amount to MYR 609 762.
Claims for compensation have been submitted by the Owner and its insurer, QBE Insurance (Pte) in respect of clean up and other associated costs including cleaning of affected pleasure craft. As at 28 April 2025 those claims total SGD7,634,003 and US$18,276,681. The Fund has already approved payments of US$2,631,937, SGD2,477,764, USD 2,770,592 and US$1,189,082 in relation to clean up costs.
The “MARINE HONOUR” has claimed the entitlement to limit its liability under 1992 CLC and established the limitation fund on 18 September 2024 in the amount of SGD 7,885,555. On 17 October 2024 the court in Singapore granted the application of “VOX MAXIMA” to limit its liability under the Limitation Convention 1976 as modified by the 1996 Protocol. This was granted and the fund of SDR 18,373,860 (i.e. SGD 32 million or GBP 19 million) has been established against which the 1992 Fund will claim.
The Transport Safety Investigation Bureau of Singapore has completed its investigation and published its report. It revealed that there was a lack of communication between the morning-shift engineers and the afternoon-shift engineers on the Vox Maxima, which lead to an electrical overload and power loss. Furthermore, both anchors were rendered inoperable due to mechanical issues compounded by the power loss.
“TERRANOVA” (IOPC/NOV 25/3/15)
The “TERRANOVA” capsized and sank in 3 metres on the east side of Manilla Bay, Philippines after encountering heavy weather during typhoon Gaemi. Sadly one crew member lost his life. The ship was carrying 1,468,896 litres of IFO 230. Luckily 97% of the cargo was recovered from the ship. A wreck removal order was made on 23 October 2024 by the Philippines Coastguard on the basis that the remaining 3% of cargo was a continuing hazard to the marine environment. The wreck was successfully removed and the contractors demobilised on 21 September 2025.
A claims office has been opened in the provinces of Bataan and Cavite, Philippines.
As at 20 September 2025, the CSOs in Bataan and Cavite have collected 34 832 claims in the fisheries sector. These claims are gradually being registered in the IOPC Funds’ claims-handling system. As at 20 September 2025, 21,028 claims have been registered for a total value of PHP 735,943,277.
In May 2025, MRAG, the fisheries experts appointed by the 1992 Fund and Steamship Mutual, delivered their initial findings on the fisheries sector in Bataan. This report was prepared in order to provide a detailed analysis of the characteristics of the fisheries sector, refine quantitative estimates of the factors influencing the impact of the Terranova incident on fisheries, and build an understanding of the subsequent changes in market dynamics after the incident. MRAG are undertaking a second field study in October/November 2025 to obtain similar data for Cavite.
Based on the findings in the MRAG report, the first batch of claims, consisting of 1 965 fisheries claims in Bataan, is currently undergoing assessment. It is anticipated that the 1992 Fund and Steamship Mutual will be able to make the first payments of compensation before the end of 2025.
Steamship Mutual have now submitted claims for pollution response, clean-up and oil removal totalling USD 12 642 785. These claims are in the process of being registered and will then be sent for assessment.
Additional claims related to the wreck removal operation are still being finalised but are estimated to be USD 8,745,000.
The estimate of the claims for pollution damage is that they are likely to exceed the 1992 CLC limit for the “TERRANOVA” with the anticipated level of claims likely to exceed the STOPIA 2006 limit. The estimates of the impact of the incident, however, indicate that claims will not exceed the 1992 Fund limit.
Incidents in the Russian Federation (IOPC/NOV 25/3/16)
These incidents are the sinking of two oil tankers, “VOLGONEFT 2012” and “VOLGONEFT 2039” on 15 December 2024 when they were caught in a storm at the southern end of the Kerch strait entering into the Black Sea. “VOLGONEFT 2012” split into two and sank with loss of one crew member. The “VOLGONEFT 2039” also split in two with the fore part sinking and the aft part running aground near the port of Kavkaz. At the time both ships were carrying a cargo of mazut with the total volume of approximately 8,450 tonnes, of which it is estimated that 2,400-2,500 tonnes spilled from both vessels.
Satellite imagery indicates that two separate oil slicks in the area of the Kerch strait were carried in an easterly direction making land fall on 17 December 2024 in the Anapsky and Temryuksky districts. A regional state of emergency was declared on 25 December in Krasndar Krai and in January 2025 and oil was being reported in Sevastopol on the Crimean peninsula.
It was noted that the Russian Federation had reported that the area the spill extended to 2,800m2 and impacted more than 300km of the coastline. The response operation had, according to the Russian Federation, involved 28 vessels. 455 inter agency monitoring groups had been organised using aviation, drones, sea vessels and divers. 5,000 people and 600 units of equipment had been employed in the response activities.
The Russian Federation is a party to both 1992 CLC and the 1992 Fund Convention with the CLC limitation applicable to each vessel being SDR4.51 million. It is understood that both ships are insured by the Russian National Reinsurance Company.
The Director noted that he has not received a formal request for assistance from the Russian Federation and that he had received no further updates since the meeting in April 2025.
The delegation of the Russian Federation reported that the emergency response was continuing. As at 17 October 2025 183,000 tons of contaminated sand and soil had been collected. The Russian Federation also noted that the question of an official application to be made to the IOPC Funds for compensation was under consideration.
As in April 2025 Ukraine raised concerns about the use of vessels which were outdated and unfit for transport of heavy fuel. The spill had triggered a chain of severe environmental consequences across the Black Sea.
In the debate a delegation drew attention to Resolution No 12 which provides that if a Member State is in arrears with contributions for two years or more, any claims by that Member State will be deferred until the deficiency is rectified. That delegation also recalled Fund Assembly No 14 which sought to raise awareness of the risk of unsafe and uninsured ships.
Financial matters
In accordance with 1992 Fund Resolution No 12 establishing measures in respect of outstanding oil reports and outstanding contributions, it was reported that, as at 1 October 2025, the measure to defer payments of compensation pursuant to that Resolution was applicable to 16 states.
1992 Fund Resolution No 13 empowers the Director to issue invoices to contributors based on estimates when no oil reports were submitted. There were 5 1992 Fund Member States with reports outstanding for more than 5 years which had been notified of the application of Resolution No 13 and the Director’s estimated tonnages: the Dominican Republic, Syrian Arab Republic, St Lucia, Djibouti and Guinea.
Andrew Taylor