A PLEA for a new multi-million pound fund to compensate coastal communities in Scotland and across Europe for environmental damage from oil spills has been rejected by the international body which awards damages.
At a meeting in London last week, the 114-nation International Oil Pollution Compensation Funds (IOPCF) refused to back a bid led by a Shetland councillor representing over 150 coastal and island communities from 28 countries.
Jonathan Wills, an independent councillor from Bressay in Shetland, argued that a new fund was needed because compensation for the damage that oil pollution does to nature was rarely paid. He was speaking on behalf of the Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions.
IOPCF delegates, however, disagreed. “Whilst the issues raised provided food for thought, there was no support for the proposal to consider creating an additional fund for claims for environmental damage,” concluded the official record of last week’s meeting.
Wills was disappointed that delegates didn’t back his bid, but encouraged by the feedback he had received. “Victims of marine oil pollution often have to wait years for compensation and then may only receive less than two thirds of what they are due,” he told the Sunday Herald.
“Compensation for environmental damage is even harder to get. The IOPCF have the money but the rules on applying for environmental damage compensation are very strict and complicated. So in practice such payments are hardly ever made.”
He pointed out that a recent ruling by the Spanish Supreme Court on the Prestige oil disaster in 2002 – which polluted thousands of miles of coastline and decimated the fishing industry –was expected to lead to claims for multi-billion pound damages. “This has sparked a crisis in the insurance industry as insurers now face the prospect of very large and unpredictable costs,” he said.
“That is why we asked the IOPCF to begin talks about establishing a new fund specifically to cover environmental, as distinct from economic, damages from pollution."
Coastal communities may now write to the IOPCF asking for the rules governing applications for environmental damage to be simplified and loosened.
“We will consider an approach to the International Maritime Organisation if we consider that a new international convention is necessary,” Wills added. “The meeting in London did agree on one of our points: this issue will not go away.”
In his speech to IOPCF last week Wills described his plea as a respectful suggestion. “Please note that this is not an aggressive demand from self-righteous, self-appointed eco-warriors,” he said.
Victoria Turner, the spokeswoman for IOPCF, confirmed that Wills’s proposal had not been supported. “We would point out that one of the main reasons for the rejection of the proposal is that the international regime applicable to oil spills from tankers already covers claims for environmental damage, including clean-up operations and measures to reinstate the environment,” she said.
The minute of last week’s meeting quoted several delegations making the same point. “The creation of an additional fund would be a complicated and unnecessary duplication,” it said.
The shipping and insurance industries are also understood to have concerns about Wills' proposal. The International Chamber of Shipping declined to be quoted, and the International Group of Protection & Indemnity Clubs, which includes insurance companies, did not respond to a request to comment.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here