A comparative analysis of the European and North-American approaches to dealing with major oil spills
- 133 Downloads
The question of what should be the right level of preparedness to react to a major oil spill (i.e. the EXXON VALDEZ spill, the ERIKA spill, and the PRESTIGE spill) is highly debated, especially in the aftermath of such spills. Little research, however, has been conducted with the aim to identify and compare governments’ best practices not only to fund preparedness measures but also to assess the countries’ ability to respond effectively to catastrophic oil spills. It is the author’s belief that important lessons can be learnt from a comparative analysis of countries’ best practices.
To identify countries’ approaches to fund preparedness measures and to examine how those approaches contribute to reducing the impact of a major oil spill into the marine environment.
In depth review through case studies of past responses to major oil spills, contingency plans, and implementing oil pollution legislation in two North-American countries (United States and Canada) and four European countries (United Kingdom, France, Spain and Portugal). Literature review was supplemented with personal interviews and email questionnaires conducted with competent authorities in those countries.
Most countries showed poor levels of performance in responding to oil spills as revealed by case histories. Emergency towing arrangemen ts show similar levels of performance. Respecting the adequacy of contingency planning practices and the oil pollution legislation implemented, only the United States and Canada meet the desired standards.
The review of past spills showed that some difficulties continue or are repeated by responders. These difficulties included lack of expertise to direct emergency towing operations, low efficiency of clean up equipment in rough waters, and low-risk expectations of oil spill contingency plans. A review of the contents of contingency plans demonstrated that the United States and Canada have been successful in setting new standards for the conduct of exercises, development of scenarios and use of computer tools such as sensitivity mapping. Finally, a review of the legislation shows a failure of European countries in implementing sustainable means of financing preparedness measures, for instance, through the “polluter pays” philosophy to what they are committed in international agreements and conventions.
Key wordsoil spills contingency planning response performance polluter pays principle marine pollution by oil
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 3.National Maritime Research Institute.On the Drifting Prevention of Disabled Ships in Rough Sea. Research project 1998–2000. http://www.nmri.go.jp/ocean/towing/towing_e.html (Accessed 20 March 2003).Google Scholar
- 4.Cortes Generales. Diario de Sesiones del Senado. VI Legislatura. Comisiones Número 545.Políticas y Planes de Salvamento Marítimo. 21 December 1999. pp. 52–54. http://www.senado.es/pdf/legis6/ senado/ds/CS0545.PDF (Accessed 10 April 2002).Google Scholar
- 5.Code of Federal Regulations, Title 33, Chapter 1, Part 155,Oil or Hazardous Material Pollution Prevention Regulations for Vessels.Google Scholar
- 6.Frend, M.:The role in the National Contingency Plan of the UK Oil Industry in support of MPCU. In:Conference Proceedings of “Oil Spill Response — The National Contingency Plan”. London: The Institute of Petroleum in association with UK Petroleum Industry Association, British Oil Spill Control Association, The Nautical Institute, 10–11 March 1998, pp. 30–39.Google Scholar
- 8.The Maritime and Coast Guard Agency (MCA).:Annual report and accounts 2001–02. Programme costs. http://www.mcga.gov.uk/annualreport/2001/html/charts/prog_costs.htm (Accessed 26 March 2003).Google Scholar
- 9.British Petroleum (BP).Oil Trade Movements —Table of Oil Imports and Exports 2001. http://www. bpamoco.com/centres/energy2002/pagedownloads/T_oil_imp_exp.pdf (Accessed 12 April 2003).Google Scholar
- 10.The settlement of the oil companies responsible for the Tampa Bay oil spill, occurred in the State of Florida in 1993, would have been a less if non-market values were not taken into account. By 1999, the companies were obliged to pay 2.5 million US dollars compensation for lost recreation services of the injured beaches, waterways and shellfish beds. See: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of the Interior, and Florida Department of Environmental Protection.:Settlement to Clear Way for Restoration Projects in Tampa Bay. NOAA 99R901.Google Scholar