The IOPCFunds: Meeting of the Governing Bodies. (29 April – 1 May 2025)
The meeting of the Governing Bodies of the 1992 Fund and of the Supplementary Fund took place at IMO Headquarters between 29 April and 1 May 2025. The 1992 Fund Assembly Chair was Mr Francois Marier (Canada) and the Chair of the 1992 Fund Executive Committee was Miss Katarina McGhie-Thompson (Antigua and Barbuda). The Chair of the Supplementary Fund Assembly was Mr Andrew Angel (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland). Since the quorum of 61 Member States was not achieved, the Assembly agenda was dealt with by the 25th session of the 1992 Fund Administrative Council on behalf of the 29th Extraordinary Session of the 1992 Fund Assembly.
Hybrid meetings
At its November 2024 session IMO Council decided to amend its rules and procedures to facilitate the delivery of hybrid meetings at IMO. There was debate whether IOPC Fund’s rules and procedure should also be amended to accommodate a hybrid meeting format. The alternative was a streaming service which allowed member States to follow proceedings but not to participate in them. Those delegations which expressed an opinion favoured meetings in a hybrid format and the decision of the 1992 Fund Administrative Council was that future meetings will be in hybrid format and that the rules and procedures would be amended as appropriate. The practice of voting by secret ballot will continue to be held in person only with no proxy voting permitted.
Implementation of the rules and procedure of the governing bodies: Strengthening of communication between the Secretariat and the Member States (IOPC/APR 25/1/5)
A paper was submitted by the delegation of Panama. It noted that following a limit on its right to intervene at the meeting in November 2024, it expressed the need to foster clear and direct communication between the Secretariat and Member State concerning the dissemination of information that could affect a State’s international reputation. It sought an amendment to the rules of procedure by establishing an obligation on the Secretariat of prior consultation. The delegation of Panama also noted that there was a discrepancy between the English version of the rules of procedure which referred to the right to speak as a “right” whereas the Spanish and French versions did not. Member States confirmed the need for mutual respect and that the right to speak during proceedings was an essential component in the legitimacy and integrity of discussions. However, it was decided that the rules of procedure did not need to include a prior consultation requirement. The Spanish and French versions of the rules of procedure were amended to match the English version.
Incidents involving IOPC Funds
Prestige (IOPC/APR 25/3/2)
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.
Delegations supported the Directors’ recommendation that he be authorised to appeal. The consensus of opinion was that 1992 CLC did not apply to actions in tort brought against third parties such as ABS. Further the case raised important questions concerning the scope and applicability of 1992 CLC, so that appealing would be important not only for safeguarding the Fund’s interest but also to preserve the integrity of the international regime.
Redfferm (IOPC/APR 25/3/3)
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 but no judgment has been given.
The delegation of Nigeria made a statement that, among other things, it remains firmly committed to supporting the integrity of the IOPC Funds’ compensation regime and upholding the principles that safeguard the credibility of the international maritime claims system and fully endorses the 1992 Fund’s prudent and legally sound approach in resisting premature or unsubstantiated claims.
“AGIA ZONI II” (IOPC/APR24/3/2)
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 and the trial was expected to last 4-6 days.
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. Judgment is awaited.
The trial of the two crew members who had remained on board the Master, representative of owning company and representative of the first clean-up company commenced on 24 October 2024 and was expected to conclude May 2025. Pending the outcome of those criminal proceedings, the Director considered it inappropriate to make any further comment. It was, nevertheless, confirmed that no further compensation would be paid to one of the indicted defendants until the outcome of the criminal proceedings had been determined.
“PRINCESS EMPRESS” (IOPC/APR 25/3/5)
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 5 March 2025 39,813 claims, mainly in the fisheries sector had been received of which 32,360 have been settled and 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.
“GULFSTREAM” (IOPC/APR 25/3/6)
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.
Removal operations were undertaken from the barge by salvors engaged by the authorities in Trinidad and Tobago with lines rigged from the capsized barge to the shore . The collected oil was taken by road tankers to a waiting oil tanker for discharge at a refinery in Trinidad. A total of 31,998 barrels of oil was removed and delivered to the refinery. Although it was the intention of the Trinidad and Tobago authorities to sell the recovered oil at the best available market price thereby defraying the costs incurred by the authorities and reducing the claim against the 1992 Fund, there have been difficulties in finding a buyer due to the likely origin of the cargo.
As at 28 April 2025 a total of 290 claims for compensation totalling USD 30.3 million had been submitted covering some clean-up expenses and including 171 fisheries claims from Tobago. Bonaire have submitted claims for £13,633, Euro 45,328 and USD 3,434 for surveillance and clean up costs when the oil made landfall on 26 February 2024. The costs of the removal of the oil from the barge is awaited. There are no estimates of possible tourism claims at present.
In a statement made by the delegation of Panama it was noted, among other things, that its administration had not being contacted by any entity to enquire about or verify information related to the Owner of the tug “SOLO CREED”. Further, it had not nor had in the past been registered in the Panamanian Registry of Ships. Further, the Owner is not legal entity incorporated in Panama.
“MARINE HONOUR” (IOPC/APR 25/3/7)
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.
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 expenditure already incurred by QBE 1992 has exceeded the CLC limit and the 1992 Fund agreed to make a provisional payment of US$11 million which included the approved amounts and in anticipation of further assessments. Government agencies in Singapore will make further claims in the region of SGD 15 million.
Other claims have been submitted to the claims office in an amount totally approximately SGD 19.5 million and US$ 19 million. Of these 107 claims have been made other than to QBD amounting to SGD1.5 million and SGD 600,000 has been paid.
The “MARINE HONOUR” has claimed the entitlement to limit its liability under 1992 CLC and established the limitation fund on 18 October 2024. The “VOX MAXIMA” has also applied to the Singapore High Court to limit its liability under the Limitation Convention 1976 as modified by the 1996 Protocol.
In its intervention the delegation of Malaysia stated that there had been significant disruption to small scale fisheries in the 3 week period during which such operations were suspended. Claims will be made in a format required by the IOPC Fund.
“TERRANOVA” (IOPC/APR 25/3/8)
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.
A claims office has been opened in the provinces of Bataan and Cavite, Philippines and as at 15 March 2025 the office in Bataan had collected 2,693 claims; the office in Cavite 6,959 claims.
In these circumstances, on 11 November 2024, the 1992 Fund entered into an interim payments agreement with the Steamship Mutual with whom the ship was entered.
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/APR 25/3/9)
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.
Interventions were made both by the delegation of the Russian Federation and Ukraine. The Russian Federation provided further information about the casualty and the response, emphasising that there was no collision of the two vessels but separate accidents. They estimated the spill was of some 3,100 tonnes of petroleum products from both ships together. The Russian Federation also noted that it was considering an official application to be made to the IOPC Funds for compensation, no request having to date been made.
The Ukraine raised concerns about the use of vessels which were outdated and unfit for transport of heavy fuel. They said the ships had collided and caused a large scale oil spill which has triggered a chain of severe environmental consequences across the Black Sea. It had impacted the whole Black Sea eco-system causing the death of over 700 sea birds and 61 dolphins, damaging protected areas and posing long term risks to bio-diversity, fisheries and human health. It stated that the Russian Federation had actively concealed the scale of the incident/inform neighbouring countries and organisations about the spill.
Statements were then given by France on behalf of Poland, which holds the presidency of the European Union, and the United Kingdom. The Polish intervention noted that the “VOLGONEFT 2012” and “VOLGONEFT 2039” were originally designed for river transport and later converted for maritime transport. The UK supported previous interventions and reminded the Russian Federation of its obligations to comply with international law and the obligations on Flag Port States to ensure that oil spills do not pose environmental risks. The Russian Federation was called upon to further advise the IOPC Funds of the actions it was taking to prevent the reoccurrence of such events.
Financial matters
There has been ongoing concern about the failure of Member States to meet their obligations to submit all reports and ensure payment of annual contributions. In accordance with 1992 Fund Resolution No 12 measures in respect of outstanding oil reports and outstanding contributions, it was reported that, as at 28 February 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 8 1992 Fund Member States with reports outstanding for more than 5 years to be considered for the application of Resolution No 13: the Dominican Republic, Syrian Arab Republic, Albania, St Lucia, Djibouti, Bahrain, Guinea and Panama. Of those 8 the governing bodies concluded that Albania and Bahrain had not received oil. The remaining 6 had. Resolution No 13 had been applied to those 6 Member States. As a result, a report had been received from Panama for 2022 and the estimate subsequently recalculated. The invoices had been issued on 25 March 2025 with a payment deadline of 20 May 2025.
Going forward the proposed procedure for issuing invoices on estimated tonnages is that the Secretariat will estimate the quantity of unreported oil and notify the Member State through an official letter. The Member State will then be granted a 6 month period to respond. Where reported oil quantities differ significantly from the Secretariat’s estimate, explanation would be requested. Following the 6 month period the Director will issue an invoice which would be considered final.
Status of the 2010 H&S Convention
The 2010 HNS Protocol will enter into force 18 months after the date on which it is ratified by at least 12 states, including 4 states each with not less than 2 million units of gross tonnage, and having received during the preceding calendar year a total quantity of at least 40 million tonnes of cargo that would be contributing to the general account. As at 29 April 2025 there were 8 contracting states: Canada, Denmark, Estonia, France, Norway, Slovakia, South Africa and Turkiye. Of those contracting States 5 had more than 2 million units of gross tonnage. In total, the 8 States had reported receiving in 2023 over 19.2 million tonnes of cargo which would contribute to the general account. At the November 2024 meeting of the IOPC Fund’s governing bodies, the delegations of Belgium, Germany, the Kingdom of Netherlands and Sweden declared their intention simultaneously to ratify the 2010 HNS Convention in the summer of 2025. Should this happen the entry into force conditions of the Convention would be met and enter into force 18 months later.
An HNS project manager has been employed who will lead and direct all HNS activities at the IOPC Fund and work with the Member States, industry and interested parties to support the entry into force of the Convention. This would include the development of the claims manual.
Of the 4 states that had intended to ratify the Convention in the summer of 2025, the delegation of Germany reported that the federal election and other unforeseen events in Germany had regrettably delayed the proposed timeline.
Review of 1992 CLC
The delegation from India produced a paper (IOPC/APR25/8/1) suggesting that, with the passage of time and the changes in the maritime industry, it was time to review and the CLC 1992. They raised the following concerns: first, the onus of contributions appears to be concentrated on a few Member States whilst the benefits were distributed globally for all; the contribution system should be reassessed and become more equitable including contributions both from oil consuming and major oil producing states; second, the requirement to maintain insurance and financial security applied only to ships transporting more than 2,000mt so that incidents involving ships carrying less than 2,000mt result in the 1992 Fund paying compensation; third, whilst the 1992 Fund Convention only requires receivers of oil cargo in a contracting state exceeding 150,000mt to contribute, even small quantities of oil pollution could result in substantial claims; the provision exempting the receivers could encourage lack of oversight and thereby impose an additional burden on the 1992 Fund; finally definition of ship under 1992 CLC might need revision: the fact that there was no provision in relation to seaworthiness might not be consistent with the principles of the 1992 Fund.
There was a lengthy and lively debate to which a large number of delegations contributed.
Whilst a number of delegations expressed sympathy for the issues raised by India, the view most commonly expressed was that the existing regime had been overwhelming successful with compensation being paid. The concern would be that any revision or attempt to revise the 1992 Conventions or changes to their scope could lead to the introduction of political issues which might not be possible to be resolved between States. That in turn could have the result of competing conventions and the fragmentation of the existing regime.
The Director noted that a number of changes had been introduced within the scope of the conventions which served to meet some of the issues raised. Examples were 1992 Fund’s Resolutions No 12 and 13 in connection with the implementation of the contribution system. He was also negotiating with non-IG insurers to agree to a STOPIA style scheme.
The delegation of the United Arab Emirates made a statement in which it was pointed out that the issue of whether oil producing states should contribute had been discussed at length at the time of the development of the CLC 1969 and CLC 1992 and that the conclusion was that it would not be appropriate because of a number of difficulties and challenges it would present. It further noted that an attempt to amend the conventions involved a request to the IMO (Legal Committee) to convene a conference for that purpose. This was not something within the competence of the 1992 Fund.
It was also pointed out in debate that possible revisions to the Convention had been considered 20 years ago with a view to correcting some of the perceived imbalances and errors in the compensation system. At that time the majority of states preferred a different solution for balancing the burden of the risk by the introduction of STOPIA 2006 and TOPIA 2006.
In summarising the debate the Chair of the 1992 Fund Administrative Council noted that the vast majority of delegations that spoke did not support proposals contained in the delegation of India’s document. In particular, attention had been drawn to the risk of reopening the conventions which might result in fragmentation of the regime’s delicate balance between the shipowner and the oil industry. Nevertheless, matters were left on the basis that any delegation wishing further to explore the issues raised in the document submitted by India should submit more detailed proposals, supported by evidence, illustrating a compelling need for any revision of the conventions together with an assessment of the potential impact such revisions might have.