1. Criminalisation Developments in EU, Canada and other locations INTERNATIONAL SALVAGE UNION 8 March 2006 Peter M. Swift

2. Spain rejects Mangouras appeal Presentation to ISU 2004

3. Places of Refuge A Solution Waiting to be Implemented Presentation to ISU 2004 Erika II Package – December 2000 Requires Each Member State to Draw up Emergency Plans for Hosting Ships in Distress in Places of Refuge

4. Port Reception Facilities Presentation to ISU 2004 An International Failure: - Inadequacy of Reception of Annex I wastes still an issue for Tanker Owners - States turning to policing measures w/o first providing the solution (Mediterranean aerial surveillance, Baltic oil tagging) – must return to the source of the problem, not end of pipe solutions A European Concern: Implementation of Directive not uniform – ports allowed to implement w/o direction from state leading to different interpretation of: - Capability of ship to reach next port w/o need for discharging waste - Fee systems increased beyond previous levels - Over-regulation of facilities causing closures, e.g. Italy

5. Criminalisation ”Creeping” Criminalisation is a Concern for all in Shipping

6. Criminalisation A two-fold concern:  Unfair treatment / human rights and  Counterproductive nature of other measures

7. Criminalisation  Vision for Tanker Industry: to be recognised as ”responsible” and to be ”respected”  We have stated and stand by our ”Zero Tolerance” for illegal acts  We sympathise with the victims of shipping accidents and support fully the provision of proper compensation

8. Criminalisation Criminal sanctions for ship-sourced pollution:  Industry objects to criminalising accidental pollution AND condemns illegal discharges  Need clarity in law AND consistency with international law  Penalties should be proportionate AND have parity with other similar offences (ashore)  Suspects must be treated fairly AND in accordance with basic human rights  States should comply with their obligations to provide reception facilities AND places of Refuge

9. Criminalisation Unfair treatment and violation of human rights  Too many cases of unlawful detentions after shipping accidents  Welcome for the joint IMO/ILO Group on Fair Treatment of Seafarers  Too many other unjust practices – unjustified fines, denial of shore leave, prohibition of terminal access and more

10. Criminalisation Counterproductive consequences not recognised:  Destroys “no blame” cultures  Discourages openness and frank reporting  Curtails surveyors’ reports – detracts from ”good practice”  Deters salvors in circumstances when we need them most  Deflects focus for proper casualty investigation and denies benefits of same  Destroys and damages morale of seafarers and others  Dissuades new recruits and accelerates departure of experienced staff  Drives responsible people and companies from the business Is this what the legislators and society are seeking ?

11. Criminalisation What is to be done ? PLENTY !

12. Criminalisation What is being done ? Controlling illegal discharges  Reception facilities: Industry-government forum (Industry, IMO and EMSA)  Industry Guidance on Use of Oily Water Separators and Completion of Oil Record Book  Preparing Guide for treatment of engine room wastes – including means to limit generation of waste, better management of waste, better design and sizing of equipment, (revisions to Marpol), and additional training

13. Criminalisation What is being done ? Industry-wide efforts to:  Remove the threat of criminal sanctions for accidental discharges &  Maintain the Supremacy of International Law

14. Criminalisation Removal of the threat of criminal sanctions for accidental discharges & Maintenance of Supremacy of international law  EU: Action in the High Court in London to test the validity of the 2005 EU Directive on Criminal Sanctions for Ship-Source Pollution and seeking a reference to the European Court of Justice – criminalises accidental pollution, conflicts with existing treaty law obligations under Marpol and UNCLOS, and fails to satisfy the principle of legal certainty  CANADA: Monitoring of Amendments to Migratory Birds and Environmental Protection Acts – conflicts with Marpol and UNCLOS obligations, and includes an assumption of guilt before trial for accidental pollution

15. Criminalisation Conclusions:  We are not perfect AND are not complacent  Criminalisation concerns us all AND is NOT THE SOLUTION  Fair treatment (especially after an accident) AND the detrimental consequences of criminal law MUST be spelled out clearly This is NOT about confrontation – but about reality !

16. www.intertanko.com www.shippingfacts.com www.themaritimefoundation.com