Member States are urged to use photographic or other visual evidence, sophisticated methods, including satellite imagery and techniques of forensic oil ‘fingerprinting’ to establish whether there is a link between the ship and the polluting oil, according to a new guidance. The International Oil Pollution Compensation Funds (IOPC Funds) published a guidance for member states on investigating the circumstances surrounding an oil pollution incident involving uninsured and unsafe ships.
According to the guidance, where the suspect ship is still in the vicinity of the spill (for example, where it has capsized and has sunk, or where it has struck a submerged reef and is unable to move without assistance) the requisite link between the suspect ship and the polluting oil might be more readily ascertained, at least on a preliminary basis, by photographic or other visual evidence.
In other cases, however, it may be necessary to employ more sophisticated methods, IOPC Funds said, including but not limited to, satellite imagery.
“Without wanting to specify the details of any investigation, it should be borne in mind that techniques of forensic oil ‘fingerprinting’ may be undertaken with samples from the spill site.”
The guidance was developed following discussions at the April 2024 sessions of the IOPC Funds’ governing bodies on the increasing transportation of oil by such ships.
The oil spill incident, which had impacted Trinidad and Tobago in February 2024, also sparked calls to develop a guidance for member states to be followed when investigating the circumstances surrounding an oil pollution incident involving uninsured and unsafe ships.
IOPC Funds explains that this publication will be particularly useful in cases where critical information about an oil spill is unclear, such as the cause of the spill or the registration and insurance status of the ship.
It is essential for “affected States” by an oil spill to take proactive steps whenever an oil pollution incident poses a threat of pollution damage to their coastlines, fisheries and other coastal interests, IOPC Funds said, rather than solely notifying the IOPC Funds about the incident and awaiting their assistance.
Delay in prompt action on the part of affected states may lead to the loss of vital information concerning the ship responsible for the incident and its insurer, as well as the circumstances surrounding the incident.
“This, in turn, may create difficulties for the IOPC Funds not only in assessing any claims for pollution damage (thereby creating delays in paying compensation for the damage) but may also hinder the IOPC Funds in any subsequent attempts to take recourse action under the 1992 Fund Convention to recover the costs from potentially liable third parties,” the guidance says.
In seeking information about the incident, affected states should not feel constrained to speak only to the master of the suspect ship (although this source is important).
Other possible sources of information include the current or previous flag states, states where the ship has previously operated, the affected member state, port state control organisations, classification societies or organisations, insurance companies or organisations (P&I and hull & machinery insurers and P&I correspondents), and charterers.
Additionally, private companies specialising in tracking ships or oil movements may also provide useful information.
“The more information provided to the IOPC Funds about the circumstances surrounding the pollution incident, the easier it will be for the 1992 Fund Executive Committee and the Supplementary Fund Assembly to decide whether the 1992 Civil Liability and Fund Conventions and the Supplementary Fund Protocol apply to the incident and to decide whether to authorise the Director to make payments of compensation for claims arising out of the incident,” the IOPC Funds noted.
