Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Pollution of the Sea — Prevention and Compensation pp 113–127Cite as

Origins and Compensation of Marine Pollution — A Survey

  • Conference paper

  • 1486 Accesses

Part of the book series: Hamburg Studies on Maritime Affairs ((HAMBURG,volume 10))

Abstract

Preventing pollution is the best way to protect the marine environment. Because pollution will never be totally eliminated, compensation for pollution damage is an important form of protection. Compensation is necessary for environmental restoration, but it also functions as a deterrent, and thus, has a preventive effect. The polluter-pays-principle, a main concept in environmental law,1 embodies the concept of compensation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. This principle is reflected in Article 3 paragraph 4 Helsinki Convention (Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area, 1992, text published in BGBl. 1994 II p. 1397), Article 2 paragraph 2 (b) OSPAR Convention (Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic, text published in BGBl. 1994 II p. 1360); its objective is to channel the costs of prevention and reparation of environmental damage to the person who is in the best position to prevent such damage and to internalize the costs of pollution damage, see Liability & compensation regimes related to environmental damage: Review by UNEP-Secretariat, p. 27 et seq., 103, available from <www.unep.org/depi/liability and compensation.asp>.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Concerning domestic German law see Erbguth, Entwicklungen der Umwelthaftung: Ansätze eines Haftungsregimes für die Verschmutzung der Meere im deutschen Recht, in: 1. Rostocker Gespräch zum Seerecht — Aktuelle Probleme der Haftung für Schäden aus der Meeresverschmutzung, Schriften des Deutschen Vereins für internationales Seerecht, Reihe A, Heft 84; cf. also Bussek, Schutz der Meere vor Verschmutzung, p. 82 et seq.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Article 1(4) UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, BGBl. 1994 II p. 1798).

    Google Scholar 

  4. For a detailed description of pollution sources and their impacts on the marine environment see OSPAR Commission, Quality Status Report for the North-East Atlantic, 2000; Helsinki Commission, The Baltic Marine Environment 1999–2002, Baltic Sea Environment Proceedings No. 87; cf. Ehlers, The Baltic Sea — Threats and Future Priorities, in: Maritime Safety — Current Problems of Use of the Baltic Sea, European Association of Legislation, ed. by Karpen, Vol. 11 (2005) 13 et seq.

    Google Scholar 

  5. This distinction is made by de La Fayette, Compensation for Environmental Damage in Maritime Liability Regimes, in: International Maritime Environmental Law, ed. by Kirchner (2003) 262; European Commission, White Paper on environmental liability, COM (2000) 66 final, p.16 et seq.

    Google Scholar 

  6. White paper (Note 5 supra).

    Google Scholar 

  7. UNEP (Note 1 supra) 27, defines environmental damage as a change that has a measurable adverse impact on the quality of a particular environment or any of its components, including its use and non-use values, and its ability to support and sustain an acceptable quality of life and a viable ecological balance.

    Google Scholar 

  8. See Directive 2004/35/EC, Preamble, paragraph 15, OJ 2004 L 143, p. 56; cf. White Paper (Note 5 supra) 28.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Cf. Balkin, Some Future Developments in Liability and Compensation for Environmental Damage at Sea, in: The Stockholm Declaration and Law of the Marine Environment, ed. by Nordquist/Moore/Mahmoudi (2003) 437.

    Google Scholar 

  10. BGBl. 1993 II p. 1741.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, BGBl. 2003 II p. 1506.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal, BGBl. 1994 II p. 2703; 2002 II p. 89; 2003 II p. 1626.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and other Matter, 1972, BGBl. 1977 II p. 180.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Article X; de La Fayette, (Note 5 supra) 232, points out that the Contracting Parties have decided that no liability regime is necessary as all dumping of hazardous substances has theoretically been phased out.

    Google Scholar 

  15. For details see UNEP (Note 1 supra) 94 et seq.

    Google Scholar 

  16. CLC; BGBl. 1996 II p. 670; 2002 II p. 943.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Fund Convention, BGBl. 1996 II p. 685; 2002 II p. 943.

    Google Scholar 

  18. HNS Convention, OJ 2002 L 337, p. 55.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Bunkers Convention, OJ L 2002 256, p. 7.

    Google Scholar 

  20. For more details see UNEP (Note 1 supra) 34 et seq., 38, 41; de La Fayette (Note 5 supra) 236 et seq.; Balkin (Note 9 supra) 438 et seq.

    Google Scholar 

  21. See Gehring/Jachtenfuchs, Haftung und Umwelt — Interessenkonflikte im internationalen Weltraum-, Atom-und Seerecht (1988) 195; Gündling, Ölunfälle bei der Ausbeutung des Festlandsockels — Zur Verschmutzung der Meere und ihrer völkerrechtlichen Kontrolle: ZaöRV 1977, 563; UNEP (Note 1 supra) 43.

    Google Scholar 

  22. The agreement is available at <www.opol.org.uk>; for further details see Swan, Ocean Oil and Gas Drilling and the Law (1979) 181 et seq.; Gehring/Jachtenfuchs (Note 27 supra); Bussek (Note 2 supra) 75 et seq.

    Google Scholar 

  23. See for these examples Swan (Note 24 supra) 344.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Convention on Civil Liability for Damage resulting from Activities Dangerous to the Environment, Council of Europe, European Treaty Series No. 150; cf. White Paper (Note 5 supra) 52.

    Google Scholar 

  25. See UNEP (Note 1 supra) 44 et seq.; White Paper (Note 5 supra) 52.

    Google Scholar 

  26. For details see White Paper (Note 5 supra) 25 et seq.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Directive 2004/35/EC of 21 April 2004, OJ 2004 L 143, p. 56; for details see Becker, Einführung in die Richtlinie über Umwelthaftung zur Vermeidung und Sanierung von Umweltschäden: NVwZ 2005, 371 et seq.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Article 2(2); this definition is in line with the proposal made by an UNEP expert group, cf. UNEP (Note 1 supra) 5.

    Google Scholar 

  29. However, the definition of damage to protected species and natural habitats does not include adverse effects resulting from expressly authorised acts, Article 2(1)(a); cf. Becker Einführung in die Richtlinie über Umwelthaftung zur Vermeidung und Sanierung von Umweltschäden: NVwZ 2005 (Note 52 supra) 373.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, OJ 2000 L 327, p. 1.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979, OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992, OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Article 8(4); as far as adverse effects to protected species or natural habitats are concerned the damage itself may be negated in case of authorised activities, cf. Einführung in die Richtlinie über Umwelthaftung zur Vermeidung und Sanierung von Umweltschäden: NVwZ 2005 373 supra Note 56.

    Google Scholar 

  34. In this context neither the compensation schemes for nuclear damage nor for damage from seabed mining, based on Part XI of UNCLOS, are taken into consideration; see for information de La Fayette (Note 5 supra) 249 ff., 253 ff.; Bothe, The Protection of the Marine Environment against the Impacts of Seabed Mining: An Assessment of the New Mining Code of the International Seabed Authority, in: Marine Issues — From a Scientific, Political and Legal Perspective, ed by. Ehlers/Mann-Borgese/Wolfrum (2002) 229 et seq.

    Google Scholar 

  35. This situation is also critizised by de La Fayette (Note 5 supra) 232.

    Google Scholar 

  36. As concerns the problems related to compensation regulations on the high seas cf. Bussek (Note 2 supra) 110.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Cf. Notes 60 and 61 supra.

    Google Scholar 

  38. For criteria to be developed cf. UNEP (Note 1 supra) 117.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Cf. UNEP (Note 1 supra) 110 et seq.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Rightly UNEP (Note 1 supra) 103, points out that this represents a major gap in liability agreements.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Cf. Einführung in die Richtlinie über Umwelthaftung zur Vermeidung und Sanierung von Umweltschäden: NVwZ 2005, 373 Note 56 supra.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Paragraph 4 subparagraph 2 no. 2 a and 3 Federal Water Act, BGBl. 2002 I p. 3167; cf. Hoffmeister/Kokott, Öffentlich-rechtlicher Ausgleich für Umweltschäden in Deutschland und in hoheitsfreien Räumen, Berichte 9/02 des Umweltbundesamtes, p. 91.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Cf. Note 2 supra 3.

    Google Scholar 

  44. UNEP (Note 1 supra) 117, supports the idea of a fund, established by either State or industry as a method of collective reparation in case that restoration measures are not technically feasable or reasonable.

    Google Scholar 

  45. At least in principle such a fee system would be comparable to the German Federal Water Fee Act; cf. Hoffmeister/ Kokott (Note 77 supra) 93.

    Google Scholar 

  46. See Bussek (Note 2 supra) 106 et seq., 122, who proposes a “blanket allowance” for the preservation of the seas.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. German Federal Maritime and Hydrographic Agency, Deutschland

    Peter Ehlers (President)

Authors
  1. Peter Ehlers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law, Mittelweg 187, 20148, Hamburg, Germany

    Jürgen Basedow (LL.M. (Harvard) (LL.M. (Harvard)

  2. Fachbereich Rechtswissenschaft, Universität Hamburg, Schlüterstraße 28, 20146, Hamburg, Germany

    Ulrich Magnus

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2007 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Ehlers, P. (2007). Origins and Compensation of Marine Pollution — A Survey. In: Basedow, J., Magnus, U. (eds) Pollution of the Sea — Prevention and Compensation. Hamburg Studies on Maritime Affairs, vol 10. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-73396-6_9

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation