The World PostPrestige

1
The World Post-Prestige

• The tanker community's view on EU developments
  Marine Log Conference, Washington DC,
  September, 2003
• Svein Ringbakken, Deputy MD General Counsel,
  INTERTANKO

2
The International Association of Independent
Tanker OwnersINTERTANKO today

• 240 (/-) Members
• ca. 2,160 tankers
• 160 million dwt
• Average age 12.3 years
• 275 (/-) Associate Members
• 25 Staff / 8 Consultants
• London, Oslo, Singapore, Washington DC

3
Overview

• How do the EU decision-making process work ?
• What did the EU do before the Prestige ?
• How did the industry influence ?
• What has happened post Prestige ?
• What, if anything, has changed ?
• What are the key elements of the new EU regime
  being announced in Brussels today ?
• What are INTERTANKOs views on the EU
  developments, including future developments?

4
The BrusselsTriangle of power
Commission (The executive)
Commission
European Parliament (Direct election)
Council (Member States)
5
EU Action after the Erika (1999)

• Erika Packages included
• European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA)
• Phase-out single hull tankers
• Places of refuge
• PSC
• Liability - setting goals for COPE/IOPC

6
EU Action after the Erika (1999)

• Throughout the Erika debate INTERTANKO fought
  regional initiatives and turned most of these
  into sensible solutions for the tanker industry
  COPE and phase-out
• Europe, not the least the Commission and the
  Parliament, came a long way in accepting the role
  of the IMO Great support of the IMO by EU
  Member States

7
EU Action after the Erika (1999)

• The EU gained self-confidence, however, and the
  EMSA will develop this further. EMSA must
  therefore become a key partner for INTERTANKO
• The shift of focus (from safety) to broader
  environmental issues creates new challenges.
  Different people, different priorities and, to
  some extent, different processes example air
  pollution

8
Outcome of EU/IMO Action after the Erika

• A new international phase-out regime established
  through amendments of MARPOL Annex I
• International Protocol on Liability
• IMO/EU action on places of refuge
• EU PSC action
• Establishment of EMSA
• Clear preference for International Solutions

9
EU attitudes after the Prestige

• EU Member States more vigilant than the
  Commission
• Clear preference for regional solutions if deemed
  necessary
• Introduction of new initiatives

10
Prestige versus Erika

• This time Member States - less so the Commission
  - have set the agenda (6.12.03)
• Much more hostile political climate No real
  friends of shipping left in EU governments?
• Even more dramatically linked to internal
  national politics (this time in Spain)
• Extremely tight time tables (1.7.03)

11
Main EU initiatives post-Prestige

• Accelerated phase-out
• Ban on transport of heavy oil on single hull
• CAS for all single hull tankers
• Penal sanctions

12
Other EU initiatives post-Prestige

• Commission targets international legal system
  (UNCLOS)
• Unilateral initiatives in EEZs
• Increased focus on IMO Model Flagstate Auditing
• New and increased focus on maritime liability for
  compensation of environmental damage

13
INTERTANKO views post-Prestige

• Imperative that ALL events surrounding the
  accident are investigated impartially
• Places of Refuge must be addressed promptly
• The continued detention of master is not
  acceptable
• The IMO is the proper forum for discussing any
  new measures
• International law must be upheld and strict
  adherence is essential

14
INTERTANKO positions on some of the main EU
initiatives

• Challenge rationale on phase-out, but facilitate
  solution at the IMO
• Recognise need for special requirements for heavy
  oil cargoes, but push for rational classification
  of cargoes
• Accept CAS, but make it workable
• Challenge penal sanctions
• Reject regional liability scheme
• Protest against UNCLOS violations

15
INTERTANKO policy initiatives

• Provided Commission, Member States and EP with
  best possible figures and expert judgments (incl.
  causes of accident, phase-out schedules and
  definition of heavy oil)
• Highlighting EU international treaty obligations
  towards Commissioner De Palacio and Patten
• Supporting and facilitating the IMO track

16
Phase Out

• IMO is the appropriate forum for this debate
• All such proposals must be subject to rigorous
  analysis and impact assessment
• Note decisions of only two years ago
• Concern that there are no compelling reasons for
  change
• Many young tankers prematurely withdrawn
• Peaks created in 2003/2005 and 2010
• Need for stability and predictability to improve
  safety and environmental protection and avoid
  precedence on how to deal with industry assets

17
What has happened ?

• New measures to restrict single hulls in Europe
  implemented publicly announced today October
  1st
• Heavy oils to be carried in double hulls only
• UNCLOS challenged
• Moves to declare Western European PSSA
• Increase penal sanctions / criminalisation

18
EU law as of October 21st, 2003Phase-Out

• All Category 1 tankers delivered in or before
  1980 will from 21st October lose the right to fly
  EU flag
• These tankers will not be permitted to enter or
  leave ports or offshore installations or anchor
  in areas under the jurisdiction of these Member
  States. (For category 1 tankers delivered in
  1981, the final year will be 2004 etc)
• All Category 2 and 3 tankers delivered in 1975 or
  earlier will from 21st October be denied the
  right to fly the flag of these countries, nor
  will such tankers be permitted to enter or leave
  ports or offshore installations or anchor in
  areas under the jurisdiction of these Member
  States. 

19
EU phase-out

• (a) for category (1) oil tankers
• 2003 for ships delivered in 1980 or earlier,
• 2004 for ships delivered in 1981,
• 2005 for ships delivered in 1982 or later
•  
• (b)        for category (2) and (3) oil tankers
•  
• 2003 for ships delivered in 1975 or earlier,
• 2004 for ships delivered in 1976,
• 2005 for ships delivered in 1977,
• 2006 for ships delivered in 1978 and 1979,
• 2007 for ships delivered in 1980 and 1981,
• 2008 for ships delivered in 1982,
• 2009 for ships delivered in 1983,
• 2010 for ships delivered in 1984 or later

20
EU law as of October 21st, 2003Heavy Oil Ban

• No single-hull tanker, regardless of flag, will
  from 21st October be permitted to enter or leave
  ports or offshore installations or anchor in
  areas under the jurisdiction of these Member
  States if carrying heavy grades of oil

21
EU law as of October 21st, 2003Condition
Assessment Scheme (CAS)

• As from 2005, all Category 2 and 3 tankers -
  regardless of flag over 15 years of age will
  have to have passed CAS in order to be permitted
  to enter or leave ports or offshore installations
  or anchor in areas under the jurisdiction of
  these Member States.

22
Single-hull tanker phase-out comparision existing
IMO 13G EU proposal
23
Single-hull tanker phase-out 5,000 dwt and above
Number
24
What will happen next ?

• The effects of the European phase-out will
  materialise
• The work for an international compromise solution
  at the IMO will continue at the MEPC in December
• The CAS requirement needs to be made workable and
  realistic
• The penal sanctions Directive needs to be amended
  before adoption
• The international supplemental liability regime
  will enter into force, but there is push for
  further changes
• What will happen in other regions of the world
  which may experience an influx of older tonnage
  no longer able to trade to Europe ?

25

• www.intertanko.com