Owners are liable

Owners are Liable T w o n e w conventions on oll pollution were considered at a plenary session of the Inter-Governmental Consultative Organisation (IMCO) held in Brussels from 10-29 November. The first - the International Convention relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Oil Pollution Casualties -- deals with the right of a coastal state to intervene and take measures to protect its coastal and other related interests - fisheries, for example - in the event of an incident at sea likely to endanger those interests. Under this convention, before h~dng any measures a coastal state would, wherever possible, consult with other states affected, notify any person(s) whose interests might be affected by the measures, and consult independent experts whose names would be chosen from a list maintained by I M C O . In cases of extreme urgency, however, measures could be taken without prior notification or consultation. A n y state taking measures that go beyond what is necessary will be obliged to pay compensation for any damage resulting from such unjustified action. The second convention adopted was the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage. This places the liability for such damage on the owner of the ship from which the polluting oil escaped or was discharged. Except in certain limited circumstances, liability would amount to £56 a gross ton and would be subject to a ceiling of £5.8 million. Ships party to the convention would have to maintain insurance or other financial security in sums equivalent to the owner's total liability for one incident and would have to carry certificates to this effect. T o ensure adequate compensation for all victims of oil pollution damage a Working Group was appointed at the conference to consider the setting up of an International Compensation Fund which would provide a supplementary source of compensation in those cases where there was either no compensation due from a ship owner, or where the compensation due was insufficient to cover the compensation required. In recognition of the importance of pollutants other than oil, it was r e c o m m e n d e d at the conference that I M C O should, in collaboration with other interested international organisations, intensify' its studies on the problems raised by pollution from other agents. This second convention brought to a head m u c h speculation and controversy regarding limits to claims against tanker owners. Even at the conference there was deadlock over the subject for the frost ten days, and it was largely due to the initiative of Lord Devlin - head of the British delegation - that the compromise sums were accepted. Mr D . B . A . Ockenden of the International Tanker Owners' Pollution Federation said the convention, which will not be ratified for 2-3 years - is unpopular among tanker owners because of the strict liability it places on them. This in turn means that there is little or no incentive on the part of the owners to take action to d e a n up a spiU. How much the convention affects TOVALOP (Tanker Owners Voluntary Agreement Concerning Liability for Oil Pollution) remains to be seen. As indicated in the 'Marine Pollution Bulletin' No. 17 : 18, this scheme, which came into operation on 6 October 1969 and which has already been j o i n e d b.v 66.5 per cent of the world's tanker owners, provides that a participating owner will reimburse national governments up to a m a x i m u m of £45 per gross registered ton of tanker, or £4.5 million, whichever is less, for expenses incurred by them in cleaning up oil negligently discharged from a tanker. It also reimburses tanker owners for cleaning up pollution. According to Mr Ockenden, TOVALOP liability limits could easily be brought into line

with those laid down in the convention, b u t in the unlikely event of all countries adopting the convention, TOVALOP would have to be completely redesigned.

Official Concern about Pesticides There is no evidence to suggest that organochlorine residues have had deleterious effects on British seabirds, although 0.I to 5.0 p.p.m, of dieldrin and 0.1 to 6.0 p.p.m, of D D E have been found in eggs on the east and west coasts. So says the British Government's advisory committee on pesticides and other toxic chemicals, which recently published its Further Review of Certain Persistent Organochlorine Pesticides used in Britain (known as the Wilson report). According to the report, although residues of these pesticides have been found in most specimens of marine organisms examined, the limited data on invertebrates and fish from British waters indicate that the residues are present in relatively small concentrations. Some animals which are important in marine food chains, such as the c o m m o n brown shrimp, are k n o w n to be particularly sensitive to these substances, but there is not enough evidence to show whether organochlorine residues have affected marine invertebrates and fish. Nevertheless, the report continues, the concentration of insecticides in the marine life of coastal waters is causing some concern. RF.SIDUF~ ( l ~ a ~ ) OF DIELDRIN AND pp'-DDE IN MAIUN SAblPLY~

Sptc~

Typt oJ zic~r , t ~ too. oF r,cmplts

~

j~'-DD£

.ee,~r~ .~mpdes (SeOmetnc metro] ~'lTaeed t,~r~,ck (Fucus ~'l'~.tls) Oar weed (I.m,tm.,-.~ "~e':t~ta) Micro~ool~ton Sea Ll~:hin Mu~ei C.,ockie Limp,tic lt4~rozoo~ton

PooSed trample

0,00|

0.002

Poe4cd ~ t ¢ Pooled t~m~¢ Poo~d sample Pooled ~mple or ~ Pooled Ample o1 ~ Pooled musupieof ~ Poo~d s ~

0`001 0,020 0,0"27 0,023 0,018 0,009 0.160

0.00~ 0.050 0`050 0.024 O.OI 2 0`005 0.160

Lobstey Shore C.mb F.,,dlb~eCrab Pirate Hemnl~ Eels Cod Whitin(

P o ~e d f3esh fraeA tyro ~ecimens PoQled flesh |tom tyro specm~.m Pooled ~ fl-mm two specsmem Whole fiJh Poo/ed sampkt of whole fish 12 ,T~unrq)le~of wha6e f i ~ 6 Samples, ~ r,.~ per Umll~e Pooled sampJe of whole fmlh

0,0~4 0,025 0.015 0`05S 0`057 0.016 0`009 0,04@

0.024 0,057 0,06| 0`025 0`080 O.02S 0`0| 2 0.021

T h e s e d a t a w e r e o b t a l n e d f r o m 5 h e l l R e s e a r c h L i d a n d the N a t u r e C o n s e r v a n c y 1965-66.

How to deal with Oiled Seabirds The Nature Conservancy, is producing a booklet ('Oiled birds - what to do') with recommendations for dealing with oiled seabirds. It has been prepared by an Advisory, Group set up by Nature Conservancy in 1968, with representatives of Nature Conservancy, Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and its Seabird Group, International Council for the Protection of Birds and the Seabird Research Unit of Newcastle University. The booklet is intended for wide circulation, especially amongst those interested in bird conservation. Auks, divers (loons), grebes, sawbills (mc.'ganscrs), seaduck and, with some reservation waders, are regarded as having little chance of recovery and, generally speaking, h u m a n e destruction is r e c o m m e n d e d for them. Diving and surface feeding ducks, eiders, geese, swans, gulls, cormorants and shags are regarded more optimistically and the booklet goes on to r e c o m m e n d suitable methods of cleansing, feeding and housing the birds while they are recuperating. There is also s plea for detailed records of the fate of oiled birds and the booklet includes a specimen of the report forms used by the R S P B in its Beached Birds Survey, which have been 3