The Development of the MARPOL and EU Regulations to Phase out Single Hulled Oil Tankers

Abstract

In 1990, the US adopted the OPA 90 in response to the Exxon Valdez grounding outside the Alaskan coast in 1989. The OPA 90 was the first legislation demanding double hull on oil tankers in order to prevent the spillage of oil in case of a grounding or collision. The IMO adopted amendments to MARPOL 73/78 in 1992, which for example required all new tankers of 600 dwt and above to have double sides or double bottom and tankers of 5,000 dwt and above to have both double bottom and double sides.

The Erika accident outside the French coast shook the EU and a stricter regulation, in comparison with the MARPOL, on double hull tankers was adopted. The Prestige accident in 2002 further spurred the EU to put pressure on the IMO to implement the same accelerated phase out scheme of single hulled tankers as the EU had already adopted. This developed into a battle between the EU and the IMO on the jurisdictional right to prevent marine pollution by phasing out single hulled tankers.

The thesis is a descriptive and analytical study of the development of the MARPOL and EU phase out schemes. By presenting the relevant UNCLOS articles it is analyzed how unilateral legislation may prevent single hulled tankers by using the jurisdiction of flag, port, and coastal states. The EU has taken an independent initiative to regulate the phase out stricter than the IMO and chapter 2 examines the jurisdiction of the EU in the field of maritime pollution prevention. The study shows that the EU member states may, by using their flag and port state jurisdiction given to them by the UNCLOS, implement the EU regulation.

Chapter 3 describes how the MARPOL and EU schemes on the phasing out of single hulled tankers developed. These schemes came about during a process lasting a decade when both organizations wanted to prove their efficiency to respond quickly to the problems of oil pollution. Finally, the EU, after political pressure from the EU member states and the public opinion, had the IMO adopting the same phase out scheme as the EU but with some exemptions. The shipping industry is vulnerable to unilateral legislation since shipping is an international business and EU politicians are not considered to be as competent in the maritime field as experts of the IMO. Therefore, the IMO needs to take the initiative back from the EU on all matters concerning marine legislation.

The last chapter analyzes the possible consequences for the shipping industry due to the phasing out of single hulled tankers. The phase out require, among other things, new tonnage to be built and old tonnage to be scrapped. There are many consequences for the shipping industry when new legislation is made and some of them may be very costly for some of the actors in the shipping industry.