227

CHAPTER VII

MARINE OIL POLLUTION

7.1 INTRODUCTION

Water pollution is a serious problem for the entire world. It threatens the health

and well being of humans, plants and animals. As the world became more industrial and

smaller due to communications and trade, accidental and purposive hazardous dumping

has contributed to the problem of sea pollution. All the water pollution is dangerous to

the health of living organisms but sea and river pollution can be especially detrimental to

the health of humans and animals. Rivers and seas are used as primarily sources of

portable water by populations all over the world. Another serious consequence of this

pollution is the effect of this pollution on trade in the polluted areas.

The world’s seas and oceans cover nearly three quarters of the Earth’s surface and

contain about 1,350 million cubic kilometers of water, over 97% of all water on Earth.

Thus it is easy to think of seas and oceans as an inexhaustible sink for human wastes.

“The sea is a powerful and effective scavenger of many pollutants …. In the North Sea

the strong currents, the high winds and the shallow waters together give a high degree of

accretion and good mixing, which provide good conditions for the assimilation of

degradable effluents such as domestic sewage and certain industrial wastes”1.

The marine pollution has developed into a serious environmental problem and

there is little need to emphasize this aspect of the issue2. At the same time the protection

of the marine environment and the prevention of marine pollution has become a major

problem of the Law of the Sea.

Pollution by discharge of oil from ships is the major source of marine pollution

attracted the greatest attention of National and International legislation as well as

literature and focused on nuclear pollution. Finally, it became apparent that from a long-

1 The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, 3

rd Report (1972) paras 6 & 7.

2 Cf. e.g. Schacter and Serwer, Report on Marine Pollution and Remedies 65 AJIL 84 (1971); Goldberg

and Menzel, Ocean Pollution, in Hargrove (ed.), “who protects the Oceans”, 37.

228

term point of view it might well be that, failing adequate safeguards, much the same

threat to environmental quality would be presented by numerous hazardous substances

other than oil or nuclear material3.

On the other hand, after pollution from ships, it was dumping at sea that attracted

international attention. The exploration and exploitation of the seabed and land-based

pollution is added to it, the expansion of international concern to new types and sources

of marine pollution is accompanied by a trend in law towards a more comprehensive

regulation of the problem. The effective regulation of a world wide problem necessarily

awaited international organizations capable of formulating and implementing effective

remedies, implementation remains a matter for individual nations; international bodies

are achieving sufficient consensus to produce and procedures to control marine

pollution.4

7.2 MARINE POLLUTION – DEFINITION:

The most widely invoked definition of Marine Pollution is that agreed upon in

1970 by the United Nations group of experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine

Pollution (GESAMP), a body of experts drawn from a number of UN agencies. It became

the generally accepted working definition of marine pollution during the preparations for

the 1972 UN Conference on the Human Environment held at Stockholm. Under this

definition, Marine Pollution is5:

“The introduction by man, directly or indirectly, of substances or energy into the

marine environment including (including estuaries) resulting in such deleterious effects

as harm to living resources, hazards to human health, hindrance to marine activities

including fishing, impairment of quality or use of sea water, and reduction of amenities”.

This definition connects the concept of marine pollution to a human activity

(introduction by man) causing certain undesirable results to the marine environment,

notably

3 Cf. Timagenis, International Control of Dumping at Sea, 2 Anglo-Am. L.R. 157 (1973), where

reference to international evidencing this development. 4John. D. Leeson, Environmental Law, Vol.1 (1995) P.178.

5 See text in UNESCO doc. SC/MD/19, June 1, 1970, Annex IV p. 12;

229

(a) harm to living resources,

(b) hazards to human health,

(c) hindrance to marine activities, including fishing,

(d) impairment of quality of sea water, and

(e) Reduction of amenities.

These basic elements of the definition, i.e. human interference with the marine

environment and the five undesirable effects, appear constantly through the development

of the definition.6

This definition is limited to pollution by man, but it is sufficiently inclusive in its

reference to causes, to embrace thermal pollution arising from the increase in temperature

caused by hydroelectric works. It is also sufficiently inclusive in its reference to effects,

to embrace pollution resulting in the “reduction of amenities” which would certainly

include deterioration of the sea for recreational purposes and might be construed in

include the additional rise in the cost of desalinization of sea water for irrigation that can

be attributed to pollution.

From a scientific as distinguished from a legal, viewpoint, it may be questioned

whether it is worthwhile to labor over definitions of marine pollution, for it is almost

impossible to separate marine pollution from pollution of the Biosphere as a whole.

As we know that pollutants are transferred continuously among the atmosphere,

the water and the soil; the ocean plays the major role in this transfer mechanism through

its influence on world weather patterns. Here again we are confronted with man’s

imperfect knowledge of the plant he inhabits and should remember that may be

dangerous to treat marine pollution separately simply because it is politically convenient

and legally feasible to do so.7

6 “International Control of Marine Pollution” Vol. I by G. R. J. Timagenis, Oceana Publications, Inc. Dobbs

Ferry, New York. P.23. 7 James Barros and Douglas M.Johnston,The International Law of Pollution,(1974)p.7

230

7.3 THE DOCTRINE OF FREEDOM OF THE HIGH SEAS AND THE

PRINCIPLE OF MARINE POLLUTION:

The doctrine of the freedom of the high seas is a typical example of Eurocentric

law. It was devised and developed at a particular period of history to serve the needs the

interests of the rich and powerful Industrial States of Western Europe and United States

of America, it has been aptly remarked by Senator Metcalfe of the U.S.A that “under the

freedom of the seas doctrine there is not much equity, between developed and under-

developed coastal nations” and “a less developed nations is a second class citizen”. In the

U.N. Seabed Committee, the representative of Kenya pointed out in 1970 the developed

countries with less than one-third of the world’s population, had taken 60% of the world

catch of the fish while only 40% had gone to the developing countries8. In the name of

the freedom of the High seas the developed maritime countries have been using high seas

for activities such as naval military operations, dumping radio active water and oil

wastes, testing nuclear weapons and sending submarines equipped with nuclear missiles

near the coasts of other States. The freedom of the Seas was always interpreted by the

technologically advanced and powerful military States as giving them a right to move

across the wide open seas to threaten smaller States or to subjugate and colonize other

people.

Even today, the smaller states are concerned about several activities that take

place on the high seas in the name of the doctrine of the freedom of the seas.9 Further,

“the assumptions on which the freedom of the seas doctrine was based have proved to be

incorrect; the interests which it protected and the force which supported it have all

radically changed”10

. The developing states of Asia, Africa and Latin America were very

critical of the traditional doctrine of the freedom of the seas.

The U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 has endeavored to achieve the

synthesis between the exclusive claims of developing countries and inclusive claims of

major maritime powers. Of these perhaps the most important is that pollution can no

longer be regarded as an implicit freedom of the seas; rather its diligent control from all

8 U.N. Document, A/AC 138/SC, II S.R. 29 March, 1976 P.6

9 R.P. Anand, “Tyranny of the Freedom of the Seas Doctrine”, International Studies, Vol. 12 (1973) PP.

416-442. 10

Ibid, P. 429.

231

sources is now a matter of comprehensive legal obligation affecting the marine

environment as a whole, and not simply the interests of other states. The content of this

obligation is elaborated in more detail by Art.194 and subsequent provisions.

7.4 MARINE POLLUTANTS:

The Marine pollutants can be classified into the following categories:

1. Degradable inputs,

2. Dissipating inputs,

3. Conservative inputs and

4. Solid inputs.

1. Degradable Inputs:

It is composed of organic material which is subject to bacterial attack. Essentially

this is an oxidative process and ultimately breaks down organic compounds such as

Carbon Dioxide, Water and Ammonia. The examples of such inputs are agricultural

wastes, food processing wastes, urban sewages, paper pulp mill wastes containing wood

fibre, chemical industry wastes containing large unstable and readily broken down

molecules and oil spillages.

2. Dissipating Inputs:

A number of industrial discharges into the sea rapidly lose their damaging

properties after they enter the water. The examples are acids, alkalis, cyanide and heat.

3. Conservative Inputs:

Some materials are not subject to bacterial attack and are not easily dissipated, but

are reactive in various ways with plants and animals, sometimes with harmful effects.

Because of their persistence and harmful effects, they are regarded as a very serious

threat. The examples are heavy metals, halogenated hydro carbons and radioactivity.

4. Solid Inputs:

A solid input includes plastics, polythene containers, plastic sheeting, nylon ropes,

nets etc. Finer particulate matter suspended in the water may clog the feeding and

232

respiratory structure of animals; reduce plant photosynthesis by reducing light penetrating

and when it settles on the seabed, smother animals and change the nature of the seabed.

Although it is convenient to consider materials added to the sea as being in the

above categories because of their shared properties and the similarity of the effects they

have, it must be remembered that actual inputs to the sea are rarely so simple in their

constitution.11

The effluent of Power station is chiefly hot water, contains some chlorine injected

into the water at the intake to discourage marine organisms settling in the cooling system

and reducing its efficiency or blocking it. Small amounts of metals are leached from the

cooling system and turbines.

Similarly urban sewage is principally organic but also contains considerable

amounts of metals, oils and greases, detergents and industrial wastes, as well as

pathogens. Similar complexity may exist in particular geographical sites. An

industrialized estuary has a multiplicity of inputs from surrounding industry, often in

great variety, as well as from the urban population. In addition, the estuary receives

whatever is carried by the river flowing into it, which may include pesticides and other

products of agricultural activity over the area of the entire catchments system.

The problem of pollution by Oil:

The 1954 Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil, defined

‘oil’ as meaning crude oil, fuel oil, heavy diesel oil, and lubricating oil and ‘oily’ was

construed accordingly. The 1973 MARPOL Convention includes all petroleum oils

except petrochemicals.

The petroleum oil pollution from tankers and other vessels is a major threat to the

marine environment particularly in semi-enclosed seas, where its effects on birds, marine

life and recreational amenities can be devastating. Particularly vulnerable areas are the

Red Sea, Black Sea, the wider Caribbean, Indonesia and the Philippines, Pakistan and the

Indian West coast, West Africa and the Mediterranean.

11

See R.B. Clark, Marine Pollution, Oxford (1997) P.3.

233

Most pollution is the result of routine uncontrolled discharges. More severe

effects are caused by major accidents from the Torrey Canyon (Scilly Isles, UK) in 1967,

the Amoco Cadiz (English Channel) in 1978 and the Exxon Valdez (Prince William

Sound-Alaska) in 1989.

The Exxon Valdez incident killed about 33,000 birds and 1,000 Otters, caused

considerable damage to shore lines in Prince Williams Sound, polluted marine organisms

and vegetation and disrupted the local fishing industry. The oil slick spread over 3,000

square miles and onto some 350 miles of beaches. Pollution clean-up is a very costly

business and accidents incur higher future insurance premium as well as more direct

financial penalties. The Exxon Valdez clean up has cost the operating company Exxon,

upto $ 2 billion.12

7.5 INTERNATIONAL MONITORING OF MARINE POLLUTION:

Marine pollution has been an area of concern and as early as 1926 attempts were

made to draw up an International Convention to control pollution from ships. However,

the attempts were unsuccessful and for the next 40 years little was done to regulate the

situation. There was little discussion on it at either UNCLOS I or UNCLOS II apart from

the expression of a general obligation on states to prevent pollution of the highseas by oil

and other wastes.13

It was not until the 1960s that it became clear that action needed to be

taken to preserve the marine environment and reduce the level of pollution. This

realization of the need for action coincided with a rapid increase in the number of high

tonnage oil tankers which posed the risk of massive environmental damage.

In April 1967, the Liberian registered tanker, the Torrey Canyon, broke up off the

coast of the UK spilling about 100,000 tons of crude oil into the sea. The environmental

damage resulting from the spill and the high level publicity it received increased the

pressure for new controls to be introduced. The mercury emissions from a Japanese

factory were poisoning fish and it became clear that the threat to the marine environment

came not just from ships.

12

See, Struan Simpson, the Times Guide to the Environment, London, (1990) P. 113. 13

Articles 24 & 25, Convention on the High Seas, Geneva, 1958.

234

In fact, it is generally accepted that there are four main sources of Marine

Pollution:

1. Shipping;

2. Dumping;

3. Sea bed activities;

4. Land-based pollution.

The Torrey Canyon disaster had an immediate effect on the law relating to

liability for the effects of pollution. The International Convention on Civil Liability for

Oil Pollution Damages 1969 (the Civil Liability Convention) and the International

Convention on the establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil

Pollution Damage 1971 (the Fund Convention) impose obligations on the ship-owner to

pay for pollution damage and the cost of any preventive measures taken. The Fund

Convention establishes an International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund which will

compensate victims in the event that the ship-owner is not liable. The fund is financed by

a levy on oil imports. In addition to these measures two private schemes were adopted;

1. The Tanker Owners Voluntary Agreement concerning Liability for Oil

Pollution (TOVALOP)14

. This agreement came into effect in 1969 with the participation

of companies owning 50% of world tanker tonnage, the participation being raised to

almost 99% of world tanker tonnage in 1978.15

2. The Contract Regarding an Interim Supplement to Tanker Liability for Oil

Pollution (CRISTAL)16

. This agreement was concluded among oil companies, in

particular engaged in the production, refining, marketing, storing or terminalling of oil,

and aimed at the compensation of any person who sustains pollution damage, including a

ship-owner who takes pollution preventive measures or incurs costs in taking threat

removal measures.

14

8 ILM 497 (1969). 15

See Introduction to the TOVALOP text published by the International Tanker Owners Pollution

Federation Ltd. (London 1978) p.3. 16

10 ILM 137 (1971).

235

These private schemes mirror the provisions of the conventions and still are of

relevance to those states that are not parties to the conventions17

.

Aside from the question of compensation arrangements it was recognized that

there was a need also for stricter controls on pollution. This was recognized at the

Stockholm Conference and it was resolved that new controls would be introduced. The

Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and other

Matters 1972 (the London Dumping Convention) was signed. Dumping is defined as the

deliberate disposal of waste and the Convention prohibits the dumping of specific

categories of waste. The convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping

from Ships and Aircraft 1972 (the Oslo Dumping Convention) imposes stricter rules in

respect of the North-east Atlantic and the North Sea. The International Convention for the

Prevention of Pollution by Ships 1973 (MARPOL) was signed after the adoption of the

London and Oslo Conventions.

Marine Pollution was a major concern at 1982 UNCLOS III and has a number of

significant provisions relating to marine pollution. Most importantly 1982 UNCLOS III

gives the coastal state rights to make and enforce regulations protecting its territorial sea

and the EEZ and Continental Shelf. Recently such regulations have been coordinated by

regional agreements between neighbouring states and this can be particularly effective

where the continental shelf and EEZs cover the major shipping lanes.

7.6 SOURCES OF MARINE OIL POLLUTION:

The world production of oil is about 3 billion tons per year and half of it is

transported by sea.18

Petroleum is largely formed biogenetically from matter deposited in

shallow seas and subsequently compressed by the over burden of deposited clays and

shales. An intermediate coal-like material formed by bacterial action on the deposits is

known as Kerogen. This may be one of three types formed from i) algae b) marine

plankton or c) higher plants. Hydrogen Sulphide, a typical product of organic decay, may

also be formed.

17

Tim Hiller, Source Book on Public International Law, London (1998) p.820. 18

R.B.Clark, Marine Pollution, Oxford (1997) p. 38.

236

Crude oil is a complex mixture of hydrocarbons with 4-26 or more carbon atoms

in the molecule. Arrangements include straight chains, branched chains or cyclic chains

including aromatic compounds with benzene rings. Some polycyclic aromatic

hydrocarbons are known to be potent carcinogens. Sulphur and vanadium compounds are

also included in crude oil and non hydrocarbons may represent upto 25 per cent of the oil.

Crude oil must be refined before it can be used. Refining is essentially a

distillation process with fractions of cuts taken at different boiling ranges. Light gasoline

is the basis for petrol used in motor vehicles; naphtha provides feed stock for the

petrochemical industry; the residue is used as bunker fuels in ships and power stations

and the higher fractions are used as tars, and so on. Many of the commercial products are

further refined, made into particular formulations and receive additives of other materials

to suit them for their various purposes.

All components of crude oil are degradable by bacteria, although at varying rates,

and a variety of yeasts and fungi can be also metabolize petroleum hydrocarbons. Small

and straight and branched chain compounds degrade most rapidly, cyclic compounds

more slowly High molecular weight compounds, the tars degrade extremely slowly.

Contributory sources of Oil Pollution:

If the dumping of waste in all its forms constitutes the most widespread and

pernicious pollution of the marine environment, pollution by oil attracts the most

attention, if only through the acute impact of oil spills. Even in the context of marine oil

pollution, such disasters contribute only a small proportion of oil spillage or discharge

into the seas. The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution observed that19

“…. 60 per cent of oil reaching the sea consists of discharges from the land, for

example by means of effluents in rivers, or by means of the direct deposition of

hydrocarbons in the atmosphere (originating for example in motor vehicle exhausts)

Tanker operations, either accidents or deliberate discharges account for about 20 per cent

of the oil reaching the sea. The remaining 20 percent appears to come largely through

natural seepages and from discharges resulting from general shipping operations”.

19

See, The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, 8th

Report, (1981) Paragraph 11.3.

237

1. Discharge from Tankers:

An important source of oil is the regular or routine discharge of oil from tanker

operations. After a tanker has unloaded, its cargo of oil has to take on seawater as ballast

for the journey to the oil fields. The ballast water is usually stored in the cargo

compartments which previously contained the oil. When a tanker is unloaded, it cannot

be completely clean as some oil is left on the bottom and sides of the tank. This oil called

clingage, amounts to about 0.2% of the tank contents – the exact amount depends on the

type of oil, the geometry of the tank and the temperature. In addition some oil is left in

the pipe lines of the tanker. So that the total retained after unloading is about 0.3% of the

total cargo. When the tank is ballasted with water, some of this oil mixes with water.

In the normal cleaning process the whole contents of the tank are pumped over-

board and then the tank is further washed by means of rotating jets of water under high

pressure which can, if necessary be heated, or perhaps have the addition of an

emulsifying chemical. The whole of this oily water is then pumped over the side; the tank

is clean and can be refilled with sea water so that when the vessel arrives at the loading

port the ballast can be discharged without polluting the harbour. It can be seen that the

discharge of the 0.3% of the tank capacity represents 0.3% of the world volume of oil

carried by sea in total a very large amount.20

The oily condition of the shores along tanker

routes became intolerable and the major oil companies owning large tanker fleets decided

to investigate how best the problem could be solved. Finally they developed the method

of cleaning tank commonly known as load-on-top or LOT.

In the load-on-top system, cargo compartments are cleaned by high pressure jets

of water. The oily water is retained in the compartment until the oil floats to the top; the

water underneath containing only a little oil is then discharge to sea and the oil is

transferred to a slop tank. This process is continued until all the compartments have been

cleaned and the tanker carried only ballast water.

Due to further scientific advancement, some of the major industrial ports of the

world are now having facilities for reception and treatment of oil contaminated water. For

example, oil-polluted water from ships berthed in Skarvikshammen oil harbour in the

20

J. Wardley Smith, the Control of Oil Pollution, London (1983) P.7.

238

port of Gothenburg, Sweden, is pumped directly to reception tanks in the CICLEAN

plant. This well-equipped plant, which began operation in 1981, can receive slops, ballast

and other oil-contaminated waste water from ships and industrial sources. Following

treatment by chemical flocculation, flotation and dual-media filtration, the treated water

must not contain more than 5 parts per million (ppm) of oil.21

With the introduction of

these improved methods of deballasting, the amount of oil entering the sea as a result of

tanker operations has steadily reduced from 1 million tons per year or more in the mid

1970s, to 700,000 tons in 1981, and to 158,000 tons in 1989.22

2. Tanker Accidents:

Spillages associated with tanker accidents cause a lot of ecological and economic

damage, due to the concentrated effect of the slick, which is often near to a shoreline

which affects commercial fisheries and tourism as well as the marine ecosystem.23

With the increasing numbers of tankers on the sea more accidents have occurred,

and has tankers have gone up in size, so the large one have also been involved. The first

major tanker accident, Torrey Canyon, was in 1967 when it ran on to the Seven Stones

Rocks off the South West Coast of England. The vessel was a complete wreck and

100,000 tons of crude oil was lost. This was the world’s largest spill until 12 years later

in March 1978, the Amoco Cadiz, carrying 223,000 tons of Arabian and Kuwait crude oil

grounded off Brittany.

The tanker Exxon Valdez ran around in Prince Williams Sound, Alaska in March,

1989 and spilled 37,000 tones of crude oil, which came ashore on nearly 800 km of coast.

Along with other major oil tanker pollution incidents, the Exxon Valdez incident

illustrated government and industry plans to be wholly insufficient to handle a serious oil

spill. Exxon Valdez highlighted how far research and development into oil spill

containment, response and clean up techniques declined following the last oil crisis and

21

Kenneth Anderson et al., “Reception and treatment facilities for wasteroild and oil-polluted waters from

Marine and Industrial Activities in Gothenburg, Sweden”, Industry and Environment, vol.15, Jan-June,

(1992), pp.40-44. 22

R.B. Clark, Marine Pollution, Oxford (1997) P. 39. 23

B.J. Alloway & D.C. Ayres, Chemical Principles of Environmental Pollution, London (1993) P.276.

239

subsequent budget cutbacks by industry24

. On the other hand, in January 1993, the tanker

Braer was wrecked on the coast of 85,000 tons crude oil which disappeared in the sea

with almost no effect.

Fortunately, such disasters are rare events. Shipping hazards are greatest close to

land and in narrow straits such as the straits of Malacca or the straits of Dover, and near

the entrances to ports where the density of shipping is high. It follows that most tanker

accidents are close to shore and if oil is spilled, coastal oil pollution almost invariably

results.

3. Accidents of the Ships other than oil tankers:

When a ship is in an accident its fuel oil may be lost to the sea. Some cargo ships,

particularly bulk carriers, are now very large and carry as much fuel oil as a 1960 oil

tanker carried crude oil.

4. Off-shore exploration and production:

It is not easy to make accurate estimates of the amount of oil entering the sea from

any of the operation, particularly from drilling and exploration off-shore. The extension

of exploration and production into deeper and deeper water in areas much less favorable

for drilling, such as the North Slope of Alaska and the Arctic Ocean, increase the hazards

and so accidental spills are more likely. Operational spills are now usually the subject of

legislation and so control is much better. On a world wide basis, losses from this source

must be between 100,000 and 150,000 tons per year.

5. Oil spills from Oil wells:

When the equipment at the top of the oil well fails, then the oil under pressure

squirts out in a fountain. Blow-outs are the uncontrolled release of oil from the well; they

are potentially very damaging because of the great quantities of oil that may be released

before the blow-out is brought under control. Great precautions are taken to prevent

them; nevertheless, accidents happen occasionally.

24

Struan Simpson, The Times Guide To The Environment, London (1990) P.114.

240

6. Rivers and other run-off:

The major sources of river borne pollution are industrial and municipal

emissions25

. Domestic wastes and sewage contain a quantity of oils and greases and

depending on the nature, industrial wastes may also contain a considerable quantity of

petroleum hydrocarbons. Every time it rains, iridescence caused by oil and petrol can be

seen on the roads. This is washed down drains and into water courses and eventually

reaches the sea. Garage fore courts sustain a large amount of spilled oil which is washed

into the drains. According to the figures published by United Nations Environment

Programme (UNEP) in 1992, municipal run-off contributes the largest input of petroleum

to the marine environment26

.

7. Natural Seeps:

There is every reason to believe on geological evidence that natural oil seeps have

been active on land, as well as in the ocean for millennia. A number of oil seeps in

coastal waters have been studied extensively over the past decade in the Gulf of Mexico,

and California, and in Arctic regions27

. R.D. Wilson has made a long and thorough

examination of all records of oil seeps and has made an estimate of the total amount.

According to him, a range within which the true figure must lay, from a minimum of 0.2

mt up to a maximum of 6.0 million tons (mt) per year. This is not uniformly distributed

as some 45% comes from a few high seepage areas of the world. His best estimate for an

annual figure is 600,000 tons28

.

8. Atmospheric fall out:

The incomplete combustion of petrol or diesel in motor vehicles results in

petroleum hydrocarbons being released into the atmosphere. Incomplete combustion of

25

UNEP, Industry and Environment, Vol. 15, Jan-June (1992).

26 Ibid. P.2.

27 Richard A. Geyer; Marine Environmental Pollution, 1, Hydrocarbons, Amsterdam (1967).

28 R.D. Wilson, “Estimates of the Annual input from Natural Marine Seepage”, Input, fates and Effects of

Petroleum in the Marine Environment, Vol.1, Ocean Affairs Board, National Academy of Sciences,

Washington (1973).

241

gas flared-off at oil platforms is another major source. These hydrocarbons are washed

out in rain, either directly or indirectly by contributing to river run-off.

9. Other Sources:

Oil refineries are under severe pressure to minimize the oil content of waste water

discharged to sea. Most achieve a standard of five ppm or less. Formerly, refineries used

a steam cracking process and the waste water from them contained up to 100 ppm of oil.

A few such refineries still exist but they are being phased out.

The dredging spoil, which is usually dumped at sea, is contaminated with oil.

Various kinds of solid municipal and natural wastes that are dumped at sea may also

contain petroleum hydrocarbons.

All shipping may need to take on ballast water when traveling unladen or in bad

whether. Ballistic tanks take up valuable cargo space and are limited in size, so additional

ballast may be carried in empty fuel tanks. When the ballast water is pumped overboard it

carries oil into the sea. In addition, all shipping needs to pump out bilge water which

invariably contains oil from the ship engines. This oil can be removed by separators,

which is required in some sea areas under the International convention for the Prevention

of Pollution from ships, 1973. But there are undoubtedly many illegal discharges of oily

bilge water. Individually the quantity of oil released may be small, but since all shipping

contributes, the total amount of oil entering the sea is considerable.

7.7. Impact of oil Pollution:

To understand the impact of oil pollution in the marine environment, analyze the

physical and chemical properties of petroleum.

Crude oil is complex mixture of hydrocarbons of varying molecular weight and

structure comprising three main chemical groups, paraffin, naphtha and aromatic. These

hydrocarbons range from simple, highly volatile substances to complex waxes and

asphaltic compounds which cannot be distilled. Oxygen, Nitrogen, sulphur, vanadium,

nickel, mineral salts etc., may all be present in various combinations29

. The exact

29

J. Wardley Smith, The Control Oil Pollution, London (1983) P.25.

242

composition of crude oil varies from one field to another. The composition is also varies

during the life of a single oil field. Even crude petroleum from different wells in the same

field or from different producing depths within the same well may show variation in their

hydrocarbons components30

.

There are a number of effects which occur when oil falls into water. It spreads

some evaporates, some dissolves, some oxidizes, some is changed by bacteria, its density

increases effect all oils.

The effects of oil pollution can be discussed under two main categories:

1. Effects of oil on marine organisms & communities,

2. Economic and other effects.

1. Effects of Oil on Marine Organisms:

A. General:

Hydrocarbons tend to accumulate at the air-sea-interface. Oil slicks and other

surface films may act as media for the accumulation of materials such as trace metals,

vitamins, amino acids and some lipophilic pollutants such as DDT residues and PCBs31

.

The most obvious effects of any large spillage are mechanical. The heavier oils

and mousse-like emulsions clog or blanker surfaces and fine structures are inhibiting

movement and therefore the respiration and feeding of small animals. Sedentary forms

are at the mercy of stranded oil, although barnacles seem to be able to continue their

activities even when quite a thick layer covers the rocks to which they are attached.

Winkles and other small mobile animals may become over weighted by such clinging oil

and be carried a way waves or currents to a less suitable habitat, although they may settle

and live quite successfully on dried oil, even to the point of grazing it away. The small

seaweeds may similarly become encrusted and torn away by waves. Thinner or non

emulsified oils usually fail to adhere to living surfaces, which are covered by a mucous

film in marine animals or a mucilaginous slime in sea weeds. They may neverthless stick

30

Donald C. Malins, effects of Petroleum on Arctic and Sub arctic Marine Environment and Organisms,

Vol.1, New York (1977) P.19. 31

Ibid, p. 193.

243

to the horny covering of shells, penetrate feathers or fur and cling to some top-shore

seaweeds or more terrestrial plants32

.

B. Plankton:

Studies of the response of whole plankton communities in the natural

environment following oil spills have yielded conflicting results but do not support the

gloomy predictions from the laboratory studies. There is abundant evidence that freshly

spilled crude oils contain low-boiling substances which are actually toxic to plankton

organisms. Evaporative losses and the rapid effects are short-lasting, even for high

toxicity, solvent – emulsifiers of the aromatic type. The only plank tonic species which

may conceivably be in any ecologically – significant danger from toxicants associated

with crude oil are those which form fairly localized aggregations33

. Arrow worms, fish

eggs and larvae may come into this category.

C. Fish and shellfish populations:

If the oil spill is very large and that a substantial proportion of the toxic

components of the oil has not evaporated but were dissolved in the water where the eggs

and larvae of fish and shellfish are concentrated, there will be massive reduction in the

fish and shellfish population. One of the few cases where spilled oil was shown to kill

large numbers of fish was at Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts in 1968. In this case the oil

was highly toxic Light fuel spilt directly into turbulent shallow water. The Amoco Cadiz

oil spill in March 1978 is also of interest in this respect. This ship was wrecked on the

Brittany coast and lost its entire cargo of 100,000 tons of light Arabian and 123,000 tons

of light Iranian crude oil over a period of some two weeks. Rough seas dispersed the oil

in the sub-littoral zone and dead fish were seen for some 10 km around the wreck.

Virtually all of the fish killed belonged to inshore species34

.

There have been reports of tumours and fin erosion in fish from areas chronically

polluted by oil and tumours and precancerous conditions in bivalves collected in such

areas. Such pathological states occur naturally but their incidence is increased in any

32

A. Nelson – Smith, Oil Pollution and Marine Ecology, London (1972) P. 101. 33

J. Wardley – Smith, The Control of Oil Pollution, London (1983), P.51. 34

Ibid, P.56.

244

polluted waters. Most of the harmful effects of oil on fisheries refer to shell fisheries

either intertidally or in shallow water, and the damage may persist for years. A spillage of

700 tons of diesel fuel oil in Buzzard’s Bay, in 1969 contaminated shell fish beds, salt

marshes and beaches and the oil became incorporated in the sublittoral sediment. Some

eight months after the accident, an area of 20 square kilometers was polluted. Effects on

crab populations were still obvious seven years later. In addition following the grounding

of the Arrow in Chedabucto Bay, Nova Scottia in 1970, 8000 tons of Bunker C

contaminated 240 km of shore line. Populations of the clam Mya arenaria were still

adversely affected six years later35

.

D. Marine Mammals:

Seals have been oiled on a number of occasions, for example, elephant seals and

California sea lions following the Santa Barbara incident36

and grey seals on Skomer

Island following an oil spill of undermined origin in 1974 and the Christos Bitas accident

in 1978. Effects on health and survival of adult seals appear to have been small but in the

case of the Skomer seals some oiled pups died.

Sea otters are exceptional among sea mammals. Unlike seals and Cetaceans,

which rely on subcutaneous blubber to provide thermal insulation, sea otters rely on their

dense fur which functions in a similar way to the plumage of a sea-bird and they are

similarly vulnerable to floating oil. A thousand or more were killed in the Exxon Valdez

oil spill, in 1989.

E. Sea-birds:

Birds are particularly vulnerable to oil pollution because they encounter it floating

on the water surface, and the other more aquatic species in particular are accustomed to

avoid hazards by diving which them to become progressively embroiled with floating oil-

35

R.B. Clark, The long term effects of oil pollution on marine populations Communities, and ecosystems,

London (1982). 36

Donald. C. Malins, Effect of Petroleum on Arctic and Sub arctic Marine Environment and Organisms,

Vol. 2, New York (1977), PP. 399-410.

245

slicks, it has been suggested that the more aerial may also settle on slicks because they

make the water calm, or resemble fish-shoals or other likely sources of food37

.

The species most commonly affected are auks: guillemots, razorbill and puffins

and some diving sea ducks; scoters, velvet scotters, long-tailed ducks and elders. If liquid

oil contaminates a bird’s plumage, its water repellant properties are lost. If the bird

remains on the sea, water penetrates the plumage and displaces the air trapped between

the feathers and the skin. This air layer provides buoyancy and thermal insulation. With

its loss, the plumage becomes water logged and the birds may sink and drown. Death

may also be due to the loss of thermal insulation which results in rapid exhaustion of

energy reserves, if they smear oil on their eggs it blocks the pores in the shell through

which respiration takes place. Thus the embryo is poisoned and asphyxiated38

.

Effects on the shore life:

Rocky shores are high energy beaches and stranded oil is quickly removed by

wave action and water movement. With an exposed limpet/barnacle - dominated shore

such as is common in north-west Europe, some oils and dispersants can cause substantial

limpet drop off39

. When the limpets have gone, there is an invasion of the stringy green

weed followed by the brown weed. The extensive weed growth in turn tends to smother

and prevent the settlement of barnacles and other species of winkles, top shells and dog

whelks commonly retract into their shells under the influence of oils and dispersants and

are then liable to be washed away by tidal action. Re-colonization of shores by adults has

been observed40

.

Mangroves are trees or bushes growing up to the extreme high water mark on

sheltered shores and in estuaries throughout the tropics reaching their greatest luxuriance

in parts of South East Asia. They are feeding and breeding grounds for a variety of fish,

crustaceans and mollusks, and the trunks and prop roots usually support a varied fauna of

oysters, snails, barnacles, crabs and other invertebrates. Mangrove leaves are an

37

R. Johnston, Seabirds and Pollution, London (1976) pp. 403-502. 38

Donald. C. Malins, Effect of Petroleum on Arctic and Sub arctic Marine Environment and Organisms,

Vol. 2, New York (1977) pp. 359-398. 39

B. Dicks, Environmental Pollution, (1973) pp. 5, 219-229. 40

J.M. Baker, Marine Ecology and oil Pollution, (1976) pp. 55-66.

246

important source of the detritus upon which many marine food chains are based, some

effects of petroleum hydrocarbons on mangrove systems reported in the literature have

been summarized by Baker et al41

. An overall impression is that following severe oil

spills, the acute short term effects are likely to be trapping of oil, high mortalities of

invertebrates, defilation of mangroves, and death of seedlings. As is the case with many

salt marsh plants, mangroves have oxygen diffusion pathways supplying the roots in their

anaerobic environment. Oxygen enters these pathways through pores on aerial breathing

roots or pneumatophores, and it has been discovered that oiling of pneumatophores

damages mangroves by interfering with oxygen supplies to the root system.

2. Economic and other Effects:

A. Fisheries:

The direct and indirect influence of oil spillages on commercially exploited shell

fish or fin-fish must also have economic effects. Sea fish may be rendered unsaleable

because they are unhealthy or tainted or not caught at all because driven away from

normal fishing grounds. In countries where fish provides a large proportion of the protein

intake, such as Portugal and many islands in the Far East the decline or disappearance of

stocks could Obviously have disastrous effects on the health of much of the population.

Optimism about human survival in the face of accelerating population increase is based

largely on the assumption that production of food from the sea can be greatly increased.

Pollution, particularly of coastal waters will make such efforts more difficult. Oil is of

course only one form of marine pollution but it is becoming the most serious42

.

B. The Tourist Industry:

In many countries tourism is acquiring a greater economic importance than

fishing. At the time of the Torrey Canyon stranding, tourism in Corwall was worth

around 40 million pounds, while the countries’ fisheries yielded only 3 million pounds,

much of it from lobsters. Severe pollution resulting from a major accident in the vicinity

of a resort is a difficult matter. It may well be beyond the means of the local community

to deal with it and is generally treated as a national emergency calling for national

41

J.M. Baker et al, Petroleum and the Marine Environment, London (1981), pp. 679- 704. 42

A. Nelson – Smith, Oil Pollution and Marine Ecology, London (1972), pp. 166-167.

247

response. Tanker Wrecks, like those of the Torrey Canyon, Betelgeuse, Arrow and

Amoco Candiz are in this category43

.

C. Hazards to Life and Property:

Some petroleum hydrocarbons are toxic to humans and there are a few cases on

record of children being seriously ill or even dying after inadvertently swallowing

kerosene (Paraffin) oil includes Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH), some of

which are known carcinogens. But humans have an extremely low taste threshold for

petroleum hydrocarbons and the taste is particularly repulsive. Therefore there is little

risk of humans unknowingly receiving measurable doses of these toxins from

contaminated food or drinking water.

A spillage of petrol or other white spirit may present or serious fire hazard. There

is an extreme danger of fire or explosion abroad a stranded ship whose part-emptied tanks

contain a mixture of hydro vapours and air which can easily be ignited by sparks from

grinding metal, damaged electrical circuits or overheated engines.

7.8 OIL POLLUTION IN DIFFERENT SEAS:

1. Mediterranean Sea:

All parts of the Mediterranean are chronically polluted with tar balls, a high value

of 500 square kilometers has been recorded south of Italy and many tourist beaches are

irritatingly contaminated with speeks of torry oil. The main sources of oil pollution are de

ballasting and tank washing operations of oil tankers and the discharge of oily bilge water

by other shipping. Some 250 million tons of oil are transported every year through the

Mediterranean, about 150 million tons per year of this from North Africa to European

ports. The cross Mediterranean journey is too short to allow efficient operation of the

load-on-top system, and there have been inadequate slop reception facilities in ports. A

ban on oily wastes in 1976 and stricter enforcement proved effective and the quantity of

floating tar in the eastern Mediterranean declined.

43

R.B.Clark, Marine Pollution, Oxford (1997), p. 60.

248

As a result of oil pollution, tainting of a variety of fish and bivalves, rendering

them unmarketable, has been reported from the neighborhood of oil ports in Spain,

France, Italy and the former Yugoslavia. Spiny lobsters have been killed by oil pollution

around Bizerk in Tunisia. The Bay of Izmir and the sea of Marmora, on the Turkish coast

have suffered adverse effects from oil, and the spawning grounds of bonito and mackerel

have been damaged. The most serious effect of oil pollution has been noted in the Gulf of

Naples, Caligari and the Venetial lagoon, where fish populations have been reduced. The

Bay of Muggia at Trieste once rich in fish is now descrined as being biologically almost a

desert because of the impact of petrochemical wastes44

.

2. The Black Sea:

The black sea is connected to the Mediterranean Sea through narrow channels –

the Bospherus which is 0.7 km wide at its narrowest and 3.5 km at its widest and the

Dardanelles. Its surface area is 4,23,000 sq. km. but its drainage area is five times larger

touching partially or entirely 22 countries in Europe and Asia. These are the countries

through which the rivers the Danube, the Dnieper, the Dniester, the den and the Kuban-

flow and empty into black sea. These rivers, the Danube in particular bring in huge

quantities of nitrate and phosphate which are run offs from agricultural land in Germany

and Austria as well as 48% of the 1, 10,000 tones of oil entering the sea. In addition,

untreated urban sewage and atmospheric fall out contribute their share to the nutrient

load.

3. The Caribbean Sea:

The greater Caribbean area includes the Caribbean Sea and the Gulf of Mexico.

The principal oil producing areas are Trinidad and Tobago, Venezuela and the Gulf of

Mexico. Nearly one-third of the production is from off shore oil fields and there are more

than 2000 fixed off shore platforms in the U.S. sector of the Gulf alone. Blow-cuts,

overflows pipelines fractures and other accidents at the platforms are major source of oil

pollution in the area. One of the largest oil spills in history was that following the blow

out of the lxtoc field in the Bay of Campeche off the Mexican coast.

44

R.B.Clark, Marine Pollution, Oxford (1997).

249

There is increasing evidence that at least some species of coral reefs are

susceptible to oil pollution. Studies made after a large oil spill from a ruptured storage

tank at a refinery near the Panama Canal in 1986 showed that numbers of corals, total

coral cover and species diversity were significantly reduced with increasing amount of

oiling.

4. The North Sea:

The total area of the North Sea is 575,000 sq. km. The North Sea has a large

resident bird population and the coasts provide wintering grounds for very large numbers

of shore and sea birds. The dense flocks of birds are vulnerable to oil pollution and there

are numerous casualties each winter. The straits of Dover are too shallow to allow the

passage of a fully laden large oil tanker, so the North has been spared catastrophic oil

spills, although it has had its share of tanker accidents. The worst case was in 1955 when

the tanker Gerd Maersk grounded near the mouth of the River Elbe and spilled 9000 tons

of crude oil on the mud flats occupied by roosting waders, estimates of the number of

birds killed ranged from 50,000 to 500,000. In February 1969, a few hundred tones of

fuel oil drifted among the Dutch islands and through the Waddenzee, killing 35,000 –

41,000 birds. The largest oil spill was in the 1977 blow-out of a well in the Ekofisk field

in the Norwegian sector of the North Sea in which 20,000 to 30,000 tons of crude oil

were discharged, but the oil dissipated without any detectable effect45

.

5. The Caspian Sea:

The Caspian Sea is by far the world’s largest landlocked body of water. The

sediments on the eastern coast are highly contaminated with oil. The Tengiz oil field in

Kazakhstan is close to the coast and storm surges flooding the coastal oil and gas field

carry oil back into the sea. Off shore gas and oil deposits have been discovered in the

Northern Caspian Sea and are likely to be exploited. Although there is some oil

contamination in the Volga delta area derived from industry at Astra khan, oil pollution is

not generally a serious problem in the Northern Caspian now.

45

R.B. Clark, Marine Pollution, Oxford (1997).

250

There are many natural oil seeps in the Southern Caspian and the Azor baijan

coast is the site of a major oil industry with numerous off shore oil wells, together with

refineries and petrochemical plants on the coast. This development has been accompanied

by serious oil pollution. In the mid 1960’s it was estimated that 1 million per year of oil

and petroleum products were lost to sea from various sources. In the 1970’s and 1980, oil

shores were reported off most of the Western coast of the Southern Caspian and as far the

Eastern coast near the Apsheran peninsula. Tar balls are common in bottom sediments

near operating wells and in several areas, sediments are severely contaminated with

petroleum Hydrocarbons.

In 1972, a series of measures was announced to provide sewage treatment for

towns on the Volga, to treat industrial wastes and to reduce oil pollution in the Azarbaijan

region. These measures have not proved effective, however and waster discharges and

contamination levels in the Caspian remains high46

.

7.9 MEASURES TO CONTROL OIL POLLUTION:

An oil slick does not remain in one place but travels downwind at 3-4 per cent of

the wind speed. In enclosed waters and estuaries tides and water currents have a greater

influence on the movement of an oil slick. If the oil becomes incorporated in the water

column its movement is determined by water currents. This happened following the

wreck the tanker Braer on the South Coast of Shell and in January 1993 and much of the

oil was carried south east in the fair Island current, not, as forecast blown North-east by

the wind towards the coast of Norway. When a slick encounters land it is stranded on the

shore with well-known consequences.

The modes of controlling the oil pollution in the sea can be broadly divided into

four categories:-

1. Mechanical Methods,

2. Emulsifiers and dispersants, Absorbents, burning etc.

3. Removal by biological agencies,

4. Beach Cleaning.

46

Ibid, P.146.

251

1. Mechanical Methods:

A. Use of Booms:

Oil spill on the water is much easier to deal with as a thick mass covering a small

area than as a wide spread or broken slick, so that the first action to take once every effort

has been made to stop or control the flow it self is to contain the oil. In docks and other

enclosed waters this has been achieved traditionally with spill booms, which may just be

baulks of timber, connected end to end and having joints sealed with sacking or similar

flexible material47

. More modern versions usually consist of a buoyant tube from which

hangs a weighted skirt; for flexibility and ease of control, they are manufactured in

sections joined by hinged oil-tight links. Buoyancy may be provided by a multi cellular

filling such as plastic foam or a sheaf of smaller tubes sealed at intervals, which prevents

from becoming ineffective if punctured, or by inflation with air; the latter is used mostly

in light weight foldaway booms held for emergencies, but in one Warne design intended

for permanent sitting, the air chambers are linked across the hinge-points so that the

whole boom can be deflated from one end and sunk to allow a ship to pass, for example

into or out of an unloading berth. It is a useful precaution to surround the jetty head at

which oil is being transferred with a boom which includes at least the landward side of

the vessel48

.

A boom can be used

(i) To prevent oil from spreading,

(ii) To collect and concentrate floating oil,

(iii) To keep oil from entering, polluting a harbor or even shore line.

Booms can work well but their limitations must be remembered and their

replacement which is a skilled operation must be carried out with great care49

.

47

A. Nelson – Smith, Oil Pollution and Marine Ecology, London (1972), p.177. 48

Ibid, P. 178. 49

J. Wardley Smith, The Control of Oil Pollution, London (1983) P.110.

252

B. Skimmers:

A skimmer is a device to collect the spill oil in water. They exploit the difference

in physical behavior that exists between oil and water – mainly difference in gravity,

adhesion to a solid surface and absorption into porous material. These differences and

combinations of them have given rise to the basic designs of skimmers for use on rivers,

in endorsed waters, harbours estuaries and open seas.

Although a considerable degree of ingenuity has been shown in inventing devices

for the recovery of oil from water surfaces, most of those produced rely upon relatively

few principles. For convenience, it is possible to divide these into groups, although there

is a certain amount of overlap between them.

Group I : Adhesive surface devices, skimmers that rely on the adhesion of oil to a solid

surface, as for example, discs of metal or other material that are rotated in a vertical plane

with par of the lower half of the disc below the surface of the water. Oil adheres to the

disc and can run or be scraped off as it is carried above the surface of the water and then

subsequently collected.

Group II: continuous belts device, skimmers that rely on adhesion to a continuous

flexible belt drawn through the oil /water interface. Oil adhering to the belt can then be

scraped from it for collection. This group also includes skimmers that use continuous belt

of absorbent material from which the oil can subsequently be recovered by squeezing.

Group III: Centrifugal devices, it relies upon increasing the effect of gravity by creating a

vortex to increase the thickness of the oil layer at a point from which it can be pumped.

Group IV: Weir devices, these are devices in which the oil is separated from the water by

passage over a weir. This group includes devices with weirs ranging in length from a few

centimeters up to 10 m, devices with multiple weirs, and devices with a variety of

arrangements intended to keep the weir aligned with the sea surface.

Group V: An omnibus group including devices based upon other principles or a

combination of one or more of the other devices.

253

In addition to the above groups of devices there is another system known as the

spring sweep system, designed for oil recovery. None of the skimmers described above

has capacity large enough to contain all the oil that is, or should be, recovered from even

a medium sized spill. There is, thus the need for ancillary equipment to transfer this oil to

a storage vessel prior to recovery ashore or other ultimate disposal that may be on a site

remote from the spill or the oil recovery operation50

.

2. Use of Absorbent, Dispersants, Emulsifiers and sinking, gelling and burning of

spilt Oil:

Oil Absorbents: These are things which absorb the oil and not the water, and which can

be spread over the floating oil, removed, wrung out and used again. It can be used in a

number of ways. If the material floats, and almost all of the suitable material do float,

then it could be used as a powder. In considering the different materials that can be used,

it is convenient to divide them into groups of inorganic, natural organic material and

synthetic materials. Glass wool, Vermiculite, or other exfoliated micas, organic ash or

pumice and the manufactured insulated material, mineral wool or rock, wool or inorganic

absorbents, straw, hay, reeds, sea grass, peal, sawdust and gorse together with other

available local material such as bagasse or dried palm fronds act as natural organic

absorbents. Foams of poly urethane, of polyether, of urea formaldehyde fibres made of

various materials, nylon, polyethylene etc. and shavings and granules of a wide range of

polyester materials from synthetic group of absorbents.

Gelling: One of the reasons for using particular absorbents is that they tend to

immobilize the oil and prevent it from spreading rapidly over the water surface.

Therefore it would seem to be a possible method to prevent or reduce the spreading of oil

if the oil could be persuaded to coagulate or become gelly like. It is clear that it is

impossible to develop any form of chemical which could be used after the oil have

actually been spilt on to the water surface. It might be possible to gell the oil while it was

still in the tank of the vessel. Another ingenious alternative is to spray the oil with a

50

Ibid, P. 151.

254

liquid which is ferromagnetic and miscible with the oil51

. This enables the oil to be

collected from the water surface using magnetic sweeps.

Sinking Oil: It is possible to get ride of the floating oil by making it heavier and sinking

it. This is done by distributing over it some powdered or granular solid so that the

combined density of the solid together with the oil would be sufficient to make the oil

sink. The material of the powder should be aleophilic so that it will attach itself firmly to

the oil. It should also be of high density so that a minimum amount of material is

required. The particle size is also important. The powder should be dense, finely ground

and free-flowing. The British Government drew up a number of working rules regarding

sinking oil52

.

1. Oil should not be sunk where there are currents likely to move the sunken oil

either in the direction of amenity beaches or of shellfish grounds.

2. Oil should not be sunk where the bottom is likely to be trawled.

3. Oil should not be sunk if it is likely to fall on shellfish beds or spawning grounds.

The use of sinking material has less to recommend it as it merely removes the oil

to a situation where it is less obvious, although still within the marine environment

and very largely beyond human control.

Emulsifiers and Dispersants:

An emulsion is a dispersion of one liquid (in the form of fine droplets or

suspension) in a second immiscible liquid. Petroleum and sea water emulsions can be of

two types: oil droplets in seawater (oil-in-water) and seawater droplets in oil (water-in-

oil). This tendency of oil and seawater to form emulsions is important in the treatment of

spilled petroleum in the ocean. Oil-in-sea water emulsions are not stable however

continuous agitation such as occurs in most arctic and sub arctic exposed surface waters

will tend to maintain emulsions and facilitate dispersion. The oil droplets tend to coalesce

51

Ibid, P.170. 52

Ibid, P.176.

255

and return to the sea surface to form a slick. The emulsion can be stabilized by adding

emusifiers53

(detergents or dispersion).

The aim of treatment with emulsifiers and dispersants is to break up a mass of oil

and as the density of these additives is usually close to that of oil and water, the particles

tend to be dispersed throughout the water column. Basically, all dispersants (which are

surface active agents in suitable carrying media) work by reducing the oil/water

interfacial tension, thus promoting droplet formation, once the oil has been dispersed, the

natural motion of the sea is usually sufficient to distribute the particles over a large

volume, thus preventing their reforming into a slick. The bacteria in the sea which attack

the oil can do so only at the oil/water interface. Hence the smaller the particles, the larger

the surface area exposed to the sea and the higher the rate of biodegradation or

decomposition of the oil. Thus the use of dispersants quickly removes the oil from the

surface of the water, distributing it in small particles throughout the upper few meters in a

far which is readily susceptible to attack by the organisms naturally present in the sea.

Burning:

Crude oil, Kerosene, gasoline, petrol, etc. are highly inflammable, so that when

oil is split on the surface of the sea and floats about in a large slick, the suggestion is

frequently made that it should be disposed of by burning. The oil in the Torrey Canyon,

the ship was bombed, the oil was released and some 20,000 tons of oil were burnt. This

was done because the tanker containing the oil was firmly lodged in such a position it

could not be dragged off or the oil pumped out of the ship54

.

3. Removal by Biological Agencies:

Parker, Free grade and Hatchard in 1971 observed in Plankton from waters

polluted by Torrey Canyen the presence of substances whose fluorescence spectra

resembled that of crude oil and suggested a content of 0.1 – 1.0% on dry weight.

Subsequent experiments with copepods and barnacle larvae, using a suspension of oil

labeled with a fluorescent tracer, showed that these animals had indeed ingested

53

D.C. Malins, Effect of Petroleum on Arctic and Sub arctic Marine Environments and organisms, Vol. 1,

London (1977) P.116. 54

J. Wardley – Smith, The Control of Oil Pollution, London (1983), p. 165.

256

relatively large quantities of oil and can apparently excrete it unchanged into faecal

pellets. Oil once bound into faecal pellets is effectively immobilized. It was also detected

that some oil passing through the gut of mussel is expelled in the form of firmly bound

faeces. Limpets are capable of scraping away stranded oil, hardened on to intertidal

rocks, during the normal course of their browsing. Cchitons also are having similar

capability55

.

Bacteria can be utilized almost all natural organic materials and a wide variety of

synthetic ones, oil being an organic compound is subjected to bacterial degradation. The

rate of bacterial action depends on temperature oxygen availability and other factors, if

these become limiting the rate of bacterial action falls56

.

Microbial degradation of oil is undoubtedly the most important process involved

in weathering and eventual disappearance of petroleum from the marine environment.

Bacteria, yeasts, and molds attack gaseous, liquid and solid hydrocarbons transforming

them into more soluble and usually more reactive compounds that in turn are broken

down by microorganisms into simpler compounds and eventually to carbon dioxide and

water57

. Oil which is properly dispersed and weathered is more susceptible to

microbiological attack than large coherent masses.

Numerous types of organisms are involved in hydrocarbon breakdown but those

more commonly isolated are Gram negative rods such as Pseudo Monds and Alcaligenes.

Other isolates include Micrococcus Coryne bacteria, Mycobacterium, Nocardia, Candida

and Penicillium58

. The Aliphatic Hydrocarbons are attacked more readily than the

Naphthenic compounds and aromatic compounds are the least susceptible microbial

attack59

.

55

A. Nelson – Smith, Oil Pollution and Marine Ecology, London (1972), p.205. 56

R. B. Clark, Marine Oil Pollution, Oxford (1997), P.2. 57

D.C. Malins, Op. cit. P. 235. 58

J. Wadley Smith, Op. cit. P. 38. 59

J. B. Davis, Petroleum Microbiology, New York (1967), P.604.

257

Experiments using oil and sinker mixers placed on the seabed have indicated that

sunken oil is attacked by microbes but degradation is extremely slow and takes place only

at the oil/water surface60

.

4. Beach Cleaning:

Bioremediation is a method of beach cleaning, which involves spraying the

stranded oil with nutrients, including phosphates and nitrates, to increase the rate of

bacterial degradation on the oil. This technique was tested on a large scale in Alaska

following the Exxen Valdez spill. The various techniques of cleaning beaches are as

follows:-

i) Rocks, harbour walls and similar surface may be cleaned by high pressure water

or steam, or by dispersants. If chemical agents are used they must be accompanied by a

large volume of water in which the oil can be dispersed.

ii) On broken, rocky shores with boulders and stones of various sizes, low

pressure water trickled across the beach for two or three days can be used to wash the oil

to the water-line where it may be recovered or dispersed in the sea.

iii) The only means of cleaning pebble or sand beaches is to remove the surface

layers of the substratum either manually or by bulldozer.

These are drastic treatments and the damaging effects on the fauna and flora can

be reduced by using straw or cut vegetation as an absorbent to mop-up much of the oil.

On sheltered rocky shores with a good algal growth a large amount of oil is trapped in the

seaweeds, which can be cut and gathered.

7.10 INTERNATIONAL LEGAL CONTROL OF MARINE OIL POLLUTION:

The international conventions warn the states to take the necessary measures to

prevent the sea pollution from happening and to cooperate in meeting its dangerous

effects. The recurrence in the 1960’s and 1970’s of almost cata strophic oil spills from

giant oil tankers aground i.e. The Torrey Canyon of the southern coast of the U.K. in

March 1967 or otherwise incurring damage. The result was to underscore the deficiencies

60

P. McKenzie, Degradation of Oil by Marine Micro Organisms (1975).

258

of International Maritime Law with respect to the possibilities of such pollution. It leads

to the legislation the Canadian Arctic Waters Pollution Act, 1970 or administrative action

by states for the purpose of establishing controls in pollution zones extending for one

hundred miles or more offshore. Another problem is that the seabed might be used for

navigation, fisheries and other uses of the superjacent waters, apart from other hazards of

a wide ranging nature. During the period 1969-71 three instruments were adopted,

represented a substantial addition to the corpus of the law of sea.

1. The 1954 London Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by oil:

This convention was successively amended until its replacement in 1973 by the

news MARPOL convention, but some forty states remain bound by the older treaty. The

1954 convention employed several techniques for minimizing operational discharges of

oil. It controlled their location, by defining prohibited areas and excluding coastal zones,

it controlled the need for discharges, by setting construction and equipment standards

intended to reduce the volume of waste oil, or to separate oil from ballast water, and by

calling on governments to provide port discharge facilities. As the convention began to

influence the construction of tankers, so it was possible to introduce progressively stricter

standards, including under a 1969 amendment, the so-called load on top system which

enabled tankers to discharge oily residues to land based reception facilities. This

convention was not successful, for two reasons:

i) The enforcement record of flag states was not strong; many had

insufficient interest in pursuing enforcement vigorously in areas beyond

their territorial jurisdiction and they were in any case confronted with

practical problems of collecting evidence and bringing proceedings against

ships which rarely entered their ports.

ii) Not all flag states were parties to the convention, nor did the 1958 High

Seas convention, with its requirement only to take account of existing

treaty. Provisions compel states to apply the London convention. Some

flags of convenience were thus able to avoid the more onerous regulations,

which coastal states could do little to enforce.

259

2. The Intervention Convention of 1969:

On 29th

November, 1969 two conventions were adopted at Brussels to deal with

oil pollution casualties of Torrey Canyon genre, namely the International Convention

relating to the Intervention on the High seas in cases on Oil Pollution Casualties and the

International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage. The Intervention

Convention is of limited scope.

The 1969 Intervention Convention permits parties to take:

“such measures on the high seas as may be necessary to prevent, mitigate or

eliminate grave and imminent danger to their coast line or related interests from pollution

or threat of pollution of the sea by oil, following up on a maritime casualty or acts related

to such a casualty which may reasonably be expected to result in major harmful

consequences61

”.

This article places significant limitations on the coastal state’s right of

intervention. First it applies only to cases of Maritime casualties, defined as,

“a collision of ships, stranding or other incident of navigation or other occurrence

on board a ship or external to it resulting in material damage or imminent threat of

material damage to a ship or cargo62

”.

This definition would not cover operational pollution, however serious, a

dumping at sea, even if illegal. Moreover no measures may be taken against warships or

government ships under the convention, although in such cases a defense of necessary

might nevertheless be relied upon.

Secondly the reference to grave and imminent danger of pollution resulting in

major harmful consequences were intended to a high threshold of probability and of

harm, so as to avoid the danger of precipitate action by coastal states causing undue

interference with shipping beyond the territorial sea. These harmful consequences include

direct effects on coastal activities such as fishing, tourist attractions, public health, and

61

Article 1(1) of the Intervention Convention, 1969. 62

Article 2 (1) of the Intervention Convention, 1969.

260

the well-being of the area concerned, including conservation of living marine resources

and of wild life63

.

Thirdly the measures which coastal states are entitled to take are not specified by

the intervention, convention, but depend on what is necessary for their protection and

must be proportionate to the risk and nature of likely damage64

.

The Intervention Convention was supplemented subsequently by a Protocol

relating to Intervention on the High Seas in cases of Marine Pollution by Substances

other than Oil, adopted at London in November 1973. This applied to pollutants and also

hazards or injurious products other than oil, so that the expression marine pollution is

wider than its literal sense, as it covers injury and harm to humans and marine sources,

damage to amenities and interference with the use of the sea.

3. The Liability Convention of 1969 and the 1971 Convention on the Establishment

Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage (the Fund Convention):

The liability Convention applied exclusively to pollution damage caused in the

territorial sea of the coastal states. The liability convention channels liability not to the

operators of the vessel, or to the cargo owner, but to the ship owner65

who alone is

responsible for the safe and efficient operation and seaworthiness of the vessel. This

liability is strict, rather than liability based upon fault, but such liability was one of a

qualified character, for no liability for pollution damage attachment to the owner if he

proved that the damage

i) resulted from war, hostilities, civil war, insurrection or some unavoidable

natural phenomenon; or

ii) was caused by an act or omission with intend to cause damage by a third

party or

63

Article 2 (4) of the Intervention Convention, 1969. 64

Article 5 of the Intervention Convention, 1969. 65

Article 3.

261

iii) Was wholly caused by the negligence or wrongful act of a government

authority responsible for maintaining lights or providing navigational

aids66

.

The owner is, however entitled in most cases to limit his liability, according to a

formula related to the tonnage of the ship, and to an overall total67

. These limits allowed

significantly greater sums to be recovered for oil pollution than for other forms of

damage covered by other maritime liability convention in 1969, but they are now

insufficient. The important purpose of 1984 protocol is to ensure that they are

substantially increased. As with nuclear accidents, the capacity of the insurance market to

bear this liability is a significant factor in determining the overall amount, but another is

the share of the total loss to be borne by the shipowner68

. Under the 1969 convention the

owner was not entitled to limit liability if the incident occurred as a result of his actual

fault; the 1984 convention redefine, this to cover intentional damage or recklessness. One

calculation indicates that under the 1969 convention the ship owners share would

represent 47% of total costs of an oil spill, and 68% under the 1984 Protocol69

.

The main purpose of the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund (IOPC

Fund) established in 1971 is to provide additional compensation so that with in the limits

of the Funds total liability, the victims are fully and adequately compensated70

.

The convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage and Convention on

the Establishment of an International Fund for Oil Pollution damage with protocols 1992

and the convention on Civil Liability for Damage Resulting from activities Dangerous to

the Environment 1993 replace the above said 1969 and 1971 Brussels Conventions.

4. The MARPOL Convention:

The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships

(MARPOL) was adopted in 1973 in London. It was subsequently, revised in 1978 to

66

Article 3 (2) and 3 (3). 67

Article 5. 68

Abe cassis and Jar show, Oil Pollution from Ships, London (1985) P. 125. 69

Ibid, P. 241. 70

Articles 4 (1) (c).

262

facilities entry into force71

. The parties presently comprise eighty five percent of the gross

registered tonnage of the world’s merchant fleet. The MARPOL conventions approach to

the regulation of oil pollution is broadly similar to the 1954 convention in relying mainly

on technical measures to limit oil discharges. It also sets new construction standards,

however which are stringent for new vessels. The discharge of small quantities of oil is

still permitted, but only if it takes place enroute, more than 50 miles from land and not in

special areas listed in the convention as regards oil pollution include the Mediterranean,

the Black Sea, the Baltic, the Red Sea, and the Persian Gulf all enclosed or semi-enclosed

seas, where more stringent standards are necessary. The Gulf of Aden and the Antarctic

have subsequently been added to the list.

In MARPOL a much effective scheme of enforcement and compliance was

adopted in respect to pressure from coastal states dissatisfied with the observance of 1954

treaty. This scheme involves the co-operation of the coastal states, port states and flag

states in a system of certification, inspection and reporting whose purpose are to make the

operation of the defective vessels difficult or impossible and to facilitate the performance

by flag states their primary jurisdiction to prosecute and enforce, applicable laws. This

scheme has made the MARPOL convention a major advance on the 1954 treaty and

which provides evidence of the impact independent inspection can have in securing

compliance with environment protection treaties.

5. UN Law of the Sea Convention (UNCLOS III) 1982:

The 1982 UNCLOS on marine environment represent the culmination of a

process of International Lawmaking which has affected a number of fundamental

changes in the International Law of the Sea. Out of these the most important is that

pollution can no longer be regarded as an implicit freedom of the seas; rather its diligent

control from all sources is now a matter of comprehensive legal obligation affecting the

marine environment as a whole and not simply the interests of other states. The content of

this obligation is elaborated in mere detail by Article 194 and subsequent provisions. It is

evident from the convention, first that its protection extends not only to states and their

marine environment, but to it as a whole including the high seas. Moreover, the

71

O’ Connel, the International Law of the Sea, Oxford (1984) P.1003.

263

environment for this purpose includes rare and fragile ecosystems as well as the habitat of

the depleted, threatened or endangered species and other forms of marine life72

. The

obligation of states is thus not confined to the protection of economic interests, private

property or the human use of the sea implied in the Conventions definition of pollution73

.

It applies to all sources of marine pollution including ships, land based sources, sea-bed

operations, dumping and atmospheric pollution and provides a framework for a series of

treaties both global and regional on each of these topics.

The important Articles 208, 210 and 211 of the Convention seems to be that they

have the effect of incorporating by implication the 1972 London Dumping Convention

and the 1973/78 MARPOL Convention and quite possibly other treaties, agreed and

adopted by a preponderance of maritime states into the primary obligation of states to

prevent pollution.

A dominant theme of the UNCLOS III conference was the failure of the

traditional structure of jurisdiction over ships and maritime areas to protect the interests

of those coastal states whose proximity to shipping routes made them particularly

vulnerable. The 1982 UNCLOS address these problems by extending the enforcement of

powers of coastal and port states at the expense of the flag states exclusive authority, and

by redefining and Strengthening the latter’s obligations towards the protection of the

marine environment. The 1982 UNCLOS makes radical changes in the exclusive

character of the flag state jurisdiction, but leaves intact the central principle of earlier law

that the flag state has responsibility for the regulation and control of pollution from its

ships. This duty is redefined, however, in terms requiring greater uniformity in the

content of regulations.

The 1982 UNCLOS excludes from the coastal states jurisdiction the right to

regulate construction, design equipment and manning standards for ships, unless giving

effect to international rules and standards. The reason being that if every state sets its own

standards on these matters ships could not freely navigate in the territorial sea of other

states.

72

Article 194 (5). 73

Article 1 (4).

264

Article 198 of the 1982 UNCLOS indicate that once they are aware of imminent

of actual pollution of the marine environment, states must give immediate notification to

other likely to be affected. In addition it requires states to co-operate, in accordance with

their capabilities, in eliminating the effects of such pollution, in preventing or minimizing

the damage and in developing contingency plans74

. Article 221 of 1982 UNCLOS

recognizes the right of intervention of the coastal beyond the territorial sea. It assumes

that the right of intervention when there is merely actual or threatened damage which

may reasonably be expected to result in major harmful consequences to the coastal states

interests.

Article 235 (1) of the 1982 UNCLOS affirms the preposition that states are

responsible for the fulfillment of their international obligation concerning the protection

and preservation of marine environment and goes on to add that they shall be liable in

accordance with international law. This responsibility extends to flag stages in respect of

their vessels and to coastal states in respect of activities which they permit within their

jurisdiction or control.

The 1982 UNCLOS has in many respects codified the existing rules of customary

and conventional law and has proved largely uncontroversial in its approach to protection

and preservation of the marine environment. An acceptable balance of interest between

maritime states and coastal states appears to have been achieved. But it is more doubtful

whether the conventions carefully structured coastal and port state jurisdiction has in

reality had much impact on the control and reduction of pollution from ships, although

the EEZ regime does have significant implications for dumping at sea and the

conservation of living resources.

6. The 1990 Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and co-operation:

Article 7 of the 1990 convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and

Co-operation a global instrument adopted by IMO following the Exxon Valdez disaster in

Alaska further commits parties to respond to request for assistance from states likely to

be affected by oil pollution IMO must be informed of major incidents75

, and under

74

Article 199. 75

Article 5 (3).

265

Article 12, it is given responsibility for co-ordinating and facilitating co-operation on

various matters including the provision request of technical assistance and advice for

states faced with major oil pollution incidents. Parties may also seek IMO’s assistance in

arranging financial support for response costs76

. Although not in force, the 1990

convention has provided for the basis for the IMO co-ordination of technical support and

financial assistance for governments dealing with serious marine pollution during the

conflict in the Persian Gulf in January, 1991. Further co-ordination is provided regionally

by centers established with the assistance of IMO and UNEP. The 1990 convention

applies the basic principles of controlling pollution emergencies in more detailed form to

all pollution incidents caused by ships, off shore installation and port handling facilities,

which threaten the marine environment or the coastline or related interests of individual

states. The parties must take all appropriate measures to respond to such incidents.

The primary responsibility for responding effectively thus fall in most cases on

the relevant coastal states, flag states also have a responsibility for ensuring that their

vessels are adequately prepared to deal with emergencies. Article 3 of the convention

requires the parties to ensure that vessels flying their flag have on board an oil pollution

emergency plan in accordance with IMO provisions. For this purpose the convention

provides that vessels are subject to port state inspection under existing international

arrangements. The 1990 convention also provides for states to require masters of ships

and aircraft to report casualties and pollution observed at sea.

7.11 REGIONAL LEGAL CONTROL OF MARINE OIL POLLUTION:

The 1982 UNCLOS was intended to be a comprehensive restatement of almost all

aspects of the Law of the Sea. Its basic objective is to establish a legal order for the seas

and oceans which will facilitate international communication, and will promote the

peaceful use of seas and oceans, the equitable and efficient utilization of their resources,

the conservation of their living resources and the study, protection and preservation of the

marine environment.

States shall co-operate on a global basis and as appropriate on a regional basis,

directly or through competent international organizations, in formulating and elaborating

76

Article 7 (2).

266

international rules standards and recommended practices and procedures consistent with

this Convention, for the protection and preservation of the marine environment, taking

into account characteristic regional centers. Nowhere does the Convention specify what is

meant by regional although the term is clearly something less than global. A region is

defined by the context in which the issue arises, it offers one approach in its reference to

enclosed or semi-enclosed seas, defined as; a gulf basin or sea surrounded by two or more

states and connected to another sea or the ocean by a narrow inlet or consisting entirely or

primarily of the territorial seas and exclusive economic zones of two or more coastal

states77

. a number of treaties concerned with protection and of the marine environment

are regional in this sense notably these relating to Mediterranean, the Baltic, the North

sea, the Red sea, and Persian Gulf, what makes these areas special is their relative

ecological sensitivity and separation from the marine environment of adjacent oceans.

Some of the UNEP regional seas treaties relate to oceanic coastal areas where the

only factor connecting participants is their location on a common coastline, rather than

any identity of interest or shared ecological problems. The conventions dealing with

Pacific Coast of South America78

, the Atlantic coast of Africa79

and the Indian Ocean80

fall into this category. Others in the Carribean81

or South Pacific82

are largely defined by

the proximity and shared interests of a number of island states.

Marine Regulations:

The regional arrangements are simply a means of implementing policies which

are necessary in the interests of a specific community of states and which can best be

tackled on a regional basis. Co-operation in cases of pollution emergencies or in the

exploitation of fishing stocks are good examples, because the range of states affected is

77

Article 122, UNCLOS III, 1982. 78

1981 Lima Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment and Coastal Areas of the South

East Pacific. 79

1981 Abidjan Convention for Co-operation in the Protection and Development of the Marine and Coastal

Environment of West and Central Africa. 80

1985 Nairobi Convention for the Protection, Management and Development of the Marine and Coastal

Environment of East Africa. 81

1983 Cartagena Convention for the Protection and Development of the Marine Environment of the Wider

Carribean. 82

1986 Noumea Convention for the protection of the Natural Resources and Environment of the South

Pacific Region.

267

relatively limited. In other cases, such as enclosed or semi enclosed seas or Arctic waters,

physical characteristics may dictate the regional application of more onerous standards of

pollution prevention than would suffice for oceanic areas. This factor is the main

justification for special regional rules governing the discharge of pollution from ships or

the dumping of waste at sea83

.

Regional Seas Agreements:

The regional Seas agreements fall into two main groups, which are

i) those concerned with enclosed or semi enclosed seas in the Northern

Hemisphere where the major problems are those of industrial pollution

and land based activities, and

ii) a group of UNEP sponsored treaties of less detailed character which

establish a broadly uniform pattern of principles for a majority of

developing countries in the Southern hemisphere.

The number of states involved in these regional seas treaties, and in other UNEP

regional seas programs, is such that they cannot be dismissed as special cases; they

represent a substantial body of practice of more general significance for the law of the

marine environment as a whole.

1. The North Sea and North-East Atlantic:

This area is not covered by a one comprehensive treaty, but by a series of

agreements dealing with specific issues. As a result there is significant overlapping

coverage and a particular need for co-ordination among the institutions created to service

each treaty. The 1969 Bonn Agreement for co-operation in dealing with pollution of the

North Sea by oil was replaced in 1983 by a revised agreement which deals with pollution

emergencies and co-operation. A comparable agreement of 1971 Copenhagen Agreement

concerning co-operation in taking measures against Pollution of the Sea by Oil makes

similar provision for co-operation among Nordic states. The 1990 Lisbon Agreement of

co-operation for the protection of the North-East Atlantic against Pollution is also

83

Articles 211 (6) and 234, UNCLOS III, 1982.

268

important in this respect. The 1972 Oslo Dumping Convention, amended by subsequent

protocols, applies to a wider area which extends to the North-East Atlantic, the North

Sea, and the adjacent Arctic seas. Land based pollution is dealt with by the 1974 Paris

convention, which covers the same area as the Oslo Convention. Both of these treaties

share a common secretariat with the Bonn convention and are replaced by a single

comprehensive frame work agreement in 1992. In addition to these agreements, the series

of International North Sea Conference (INSC) has defined increasingly stringent political

objectives for comprehensive pollution control and reduction in the North-Sea. The

declarations of these conferences are not treaties, but the principle of good faith may

entail a significant commitment to ensure effective implementation.

2. The Baltic and Mediterranean: 84

The 1974 Helsinki Convention for the protection of Marine Environment of the

Baltic Area was the first regional seas treaty to adopt a comprehensive approach to

Marine Pollution. It sets particularly stringent standards for dumping at sea, and applies

rules modeled on the MARPOL convention to pollution from ships. It also deals with

airborne and land-based sources of pollution. This convention was on important influence

on the formulation of the Marine Pollution Provisions of the 1982 UNCLOS, and of the

first of UNEP’s regional seas treaties, the 1976 Barcelona convention for the protection

of the Mediterranean Sea. Like the Helsinki Convention the latter agreement follows the

concept of a comprehensive frame work model, although in somewhat different form. In

this case separate protocols deal with land based sources of marine pollution, dumping

and specially protected areas. The Barcelona Convention is unusual in having to

accommodate not only the interests of developed northern hemisphere industrialized

economies but also the less developed countries on its southern and eastern shores.

3. Other UNEP Regional Seas Treaties:

UNEP’s regional seas programme initiated in 197485

, covers ten areas where

regional action plans are operative or under development. Apart from the Mediterranean

these include the Kuwait Action Plan Region (covering the Arabian Gulf), the West and

84

Park, the Law of the Sea in the 1980s, Honolulu, (1980), P. 493. 85

UNEP, Environmental Law in the UNEP, Nairobi (1990).

269

Central Africa Region, the wider Caribbean, the East Asian seas Regions, the south East

Pacific, the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden, the South Pacific, Eastern Africa and the South

Asia Seas. Most of these action plans make provision for environmental assessment,

management legislation, and institutional and financial arrangements. They are of

particular significance for developing states in facilitating co-operation and the provision

of assistance in the management of Marine Pollution problems in regions where expertise

and facilities may be lacking. Most of the regional programme includes arrangements for

combating major incidents of marine pollution, and the regional treaties all have

protocols on this subject.

The pattern established by the Barcelona convention, most of the regional seas

programmes are now supported by frame work conventions.

These apply in the Persian Gulf, the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden, the East African

side of the Indian Ocean, the South Pacific, the Caribbean, and the West African side of

the South Atlantic. Their geographical scope includes the territorial sea and exclusive

economic zones of the parties.

The Regional seas Programme has proved its flexibility as a modal for facilitating

co-operation, co-ordination, training and technical assistance, enabling new protocols and

institutions to be added as necessary, focusing attention on regional pollution problems

and their inter relationship and stimulating research.

Regional Seas Agreement and the European Union (EU):

The UN has adopted a series of Decisions and other actions specifically designed

to prevent pollution of the high seas. Many of those actions have implemented or been

based upon international conventions in the negotiation of which the EU and some or all

of its Member States have played active role.

(i) The Paris Convention:

In 1975, the European Council concluded the Convention of Paris on behalf of the

EU86

. The Convention relates to land-based pollution of the North Eastern portions of the

86

Council Decision 75/437/EEC, OJ 1975 L 194/5.

270

Atlantic and Arctic oceans. It obliges the contracting parties, including the EU, to take

active steps to prevent the pollution of the relevant waters. Many of the same issues were

previously considered in a Dumping Convention held in Oslo in 1972, and the Paris

Convention is also closely related to agreements reached in Bonn in 1969 and 1983

regarding oil pollution of the North Sea. All of these agreements are now scheduled to be

replaced by a comprehensive new convention.

The Paris Convention creates two principal lists of pollutants, which are

comparable to the black and grey lists found in some EU water pollution legislation also.

The convention’s first list includes such substances as mercury, cadmium,

persistent synthetics, organohalogen compounds, and persistent oils and hydrocarbons of

petroleum origin. The second list includes organic compounds of phosphorus, silicon and

tin, as well as such substances as copper, lead, nickel, and non-persistent oils and

hydrocarbons. There are also separate provisions regarding radioactive materials.

(ii) The protocol to the Barcelona Convention:

In 1977, the EU approved the 1974 Barcelona Convention for the Protection of

the Mediterranean Sea. The Barcelona Convention related principally to pollution from

vessels and aircraft87

.

In 1980, a protocol to the Barcelona Convention was adopted with respect to land-

based pollution. The EU participated in the discussions which led to the protocol, and

formally adopted it in 198388

. Its provisions are similar to those of the Paris Convention,

including two lists of substances to which different priority levels are assigned. The

Barcelona lists are somewhat more comprehensive than those adopted in Paris.

(iii) The Barcelona Convention:

The Council adhered to the Barcelona Convention on behalf of the EEC in 197789

.

The Convention includes broad measures to protect the Mediterranean Sea against

various forms of dumping from vessels and aircraft. It contains monitoring and other

87

Council Decision 77/585/EEC, OJ 1983 L 240/61. 88

Council Decision 83/101/EEC, OJ 1983 L 67/1. 89

Council Decision 77/585/EEC, OJ 1977 L 240/1.

271

requirements, and establishes an arbitration procedure in the event of disputes between

contracting states. The obligations cover vessels and aircraft registered in one of the

countries, or flying its flag, or loading within its territory, or dumping within its territorial

waters. The parties are obliged to impose a system of permits for dumping and to

maintain various records. The contracting parties to the Barcelona Convention meet

periodically to discuss supplemental and revised rules.

(iv) The Bonn and Helsinki Agreements:

The EU has also adopted various rules derived from the Barcelona Convention90

and the Bonn Agreement91

relating to discharges of oil, hydrocarbons, and other

dangerous substances in the Mediterranean and North Seas. It has also adhered to the

Helsinki Convention, as revised for protection of the Baltic Sea92

. In addition, the EU has

created its own information and warning service regarding major spillages of oil and

other substances93

.

(v) The Berne and Watercourse Convention:

The EU has adhered to the Berne Convention for protection of the Rhine. This

includes measures to reduce the level of pollution from various substances, as well as an

arbitration mechanism for the resolution of disputes. There is a Central Commission for

the Navigation of the Rhine (CCNR), with powers to regulate navigation and the

transport of goods along the river. In 1993, the CCNR adopted rules for the transport of

dangerous goods, which are gradually being brought into force by the signatory countries.

The EU’s council has approved on behalf of the EU the 1992 Helsinki

Convention on the Protection and use of Transboundary Watercourses and international

lakes. The convention is applicable on a worldwide basis to transboundary waters

between signatory states, and includes various monitoring and control obligations, as well

as an arbitration procedure in the event of disputes.

90

Council Decision 81/420/EEC, OJ 1981 L 162/4. 91

Council Decision 84/358/EEC, OJ 1981 L 188/7. 92

Council Decision 94/156/EEC, and 94/157/EEC, OJ 1994 L 73/1, 17. 93

Council Decision 86/85/EEC, OJ 1986 L 77/33.

272

(vi) Vessels carrying dangerous or polluting goods:

In 1993, the EU established rules requiring notices and other steps regarding

accidents and other incidents relating to vessels bound for or leaving EU ports and

carrying dangerous or polluting materials94

. The Directive required the Member States to

establish rules under which they would receive basic information about such vessels,

including a checklist of general information about them and their cargoes. It also required

the Member States to impose obligations that such vessels must bear various safety

installations and equipment.

A number of other International Conventions and voluntary agreements are

relevant to oceanic pollution damage caused by, or in connection with, vessels. There is a

Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, established in Brussels in 1969

and with some 87 contracting states, and the 1971 International Convention on the

Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage, with

58 contracting states. Both are supplemented by more recent protocols. There is also a

draft Convention on Compensation for Damage in Connection with the Carriage of

Hazardous and Noxious Substances by Sea, as well as voluntary agreements among

tanker owners and operators to provide compensation for oil spills, known as TOVALOP

(1969) and CRISTAL (1971).

In 1995, the EU adopted rules for pollution prevention and shipboard safety for all

vessels in EU ports or waters, without regard to their cargoes95

. The directive creates

monitoring and compliance obligations, as well as monitoring guidelines, and permits

various sanctions, including the detention of a ship if appropriate.

7.12 POLLUTION CAUSED BY OIL POLLUTION:

The following cases relate to the issue of trade, sea water pollution and certain

nations efforts to correct this pollution. Corporations and Governments have dumped

hazards waste into seas all over the world. The dispersment of hazards waste has

occurred due to chronic industrial waste dumping from factories of plants, accidental

94

Council Directive 93/75/EEC, OJ 1993 L 247/19. 95

Council Directive 95/21/EEC, OJ 1995 L 157/1.

273

spilling of hazardous material, years of dumping of public and private waste, and

industrial projects. The cases in the first section have to do with the accidental dumping

of oil. These cases are the Shetland Oil Spill, and the Exxon Valdez disaster. The next

categories of cases have serious sea water pollution resulting solely from industrial waste

dumping or industrial projects. Theses are the Hong Kong waste fee, the Sellafield

Nuclear Plant and Minamata Disaster. The last category of cases has serious sea water

pollution due to a combination of all types of waste production and dumping mentioned

above. These are Baltic Sea Pollution, Black Sea pollution and tourism, Mediterranean

Pollution and Tourism and the Khain Sea Episode.

1. Shetland Oil Spill:

In January, 1993 an oil tanker ran aground of the Shetland Islands, Scotland in the

United Kingdom. Oil from this tanker spilled into the sea water surrounding the Shetland

Islands. This oil threatened seabirds, salmon, sea-trout, grey seals, otters and other

species on and around the Islands. Trade around these islands had to be suspended for a

time as well. Luckily, rough wave motion in the sea prevented an oil slick from

developing on the water’s surface and the spill broke up quickly. The British government

had chemical dispersants dropped on the affected area by way of planes. The quick action

by the British government and others in the area greatly reduced the potential damage to

the waters surrounding the islands.

Oil spills are one of the most damaging forms of water pollution. The quick action

by government officials and the luck of the rough seas has minimized the damage in the

case of this spill. After this spill, the problem of water pollution in the United Kingdom

has been examined more clearly. The United Kingdom has recognized the value of its

water and is currently working at cleaning it up.

2. The Exxon Valdez Disaster:

In March of 1989, the Exxon Valdez, an oil tanker, hit a reef in the Prince

William Sound, dumping 11 million gallons of crude oil into the sea. The Prince William

Sound, an Island body of water off of Alaska’s southern coast, is home to one of the

274

country’s richest concentrations of wildlife; as well as booming fishing industries and

native villagers. The sound also serves and a thoroughfare for the Alyeska Pipeline’s oil

tankers shipping oil to the consumers of the lower 48 states.

The accident touched off a battle between the native Alaskans and the oil industry

over both the culpability for the accident and the future of the region’s oil transportation

and oil spill readiness. Exxon led the clean up effort with 11,000 workers in the summer

months and expended approximately 1.9 billion dollars. Sea otter rehabilitation centers

were established while salmon and herring fisheries were isolated and closely monitored.

Scientists are still attempting to determine the ecological damage caused by the spill.

Some debate has occurred over the actions of Exxon and the spill response team

concerning this spill. The captain of the ship waited 20 minutes to call the Coast Guard

after hitting the reef. Over 11 million tons of oil spilled into the sound during the next ten

hours at which point the clean up crews finally arrived. The oil slick has spread miles into

the sound at this point, causing suffering and death to fish, otters, birds, and other

animals. Exxon and the captain of the ship have been ordered to pay punitive damages to

the fishermen and coastal communities in the area of the sound.

3. Hong Kong Waste Fee:

In 1995, all of the factories in Hong Kong dumped their detergents, toxic

chemicals, and waste water into the territory’s harbor. This waste has corroded pipes and

dribbled toxic metals into the harbor. This has caused serious water pollution in the Hong

Kong harbor. Environmental legislation was introduced in 1988; however, enforcement

of this legislation never took place. A private group, Enviropeace Ltd., is trying to have

these factories treat their chemical waste in a processing plant.

The government has shown its commitment to cleaning up the water pollution in

Hong Kong by passing this legislation. Enviropeace is a private firm which must be paid

to treat this factory waste. Hong Kong must deal with the question of who will pay for

this treatment. The government has proposed a uniform tariff in the past on all domestic

waste and chemical imports to pay for waste disposal. This program was defeated by a

275

conglomeration of chemical companies. Currently the Hong Kong taxpayer must pay for

the waste treatment plant.

In the past, Hong Kong had pursued economic growth at any cost, including

environmental. Now that its environmental has gotten so bad, the government has begun

a serious effort to clean it up. The government is currently concentrating its efforts on

cleaning up water pollution. The water pollution has become so bad that trade into the

harbor could be inhibited. The government in Hong Kong has realized the value of its

water in and around the harbor and is currently trying to clean it up.

4. Sellafield Nuclear Plant

The Sellafield Nuclear Plant is located on the Northwest coast of the Irish Sea in

England. It is a government owned facility which produces about one-fourth of the

United Kingdom’s energy. Nuclear waste from this facility has turned the Irish Sea into

one of the most radioactive bodies of water in the world. This pollution has the potential

to threaten the health of both the British and Irish people. Fish and shellfish are

contaminated by the radiation and cannot be safely used in trade. The Irish people and

fisherman are the most seriously affected by this radioactivity, however, they receive no

benefits from the plant.

This problem has come to the attention of both the Irish and British authorities.

Concern for the health and well being of the Irish and British people has given this

problem wide spread attention. The Irish Government has outlined a plan of action to

control the pollution resulting from this plant. The British government must also be

involved as the British own the plant and use its energy. The Irish government plans to

use such measures as arbitration, legal discourse, and diplomacy.

In order to control some of the pollution resulting from this plant, British Nuclear

Fuels Limited (BNFL) has opened a clean-up complex at the Sellafield plant. This

complex is part of BNFL’s 2 billion pound waste management program at Sellafield. The

complex is designed to remove radioactivity from the waste. BNFL claims that it is

committed to protecting the environment and making progress in waste management. The

276

British government has probably urged to company to take some sort of role in cleaning

up the Irish Sea in order to mitigate the poor relations between Ireland and Britain

concerning this pollution. A British company, and most likely the British government,

has recognized the need to protect the environment. The health and well-being of humans

are at stake because of this nuclear plant, not to mention the damage to the sea and its

inhabitants. This company and the Irish and British governments have realized the

serious damage that water pollution can cause. They are now taking steps to control it.

5. The Minamata Disaster:

From the years 1932 through 1968, the Chisso Corporation located in Kumamoto,

Japan dumped an estimated 27 tons of mercury compounds into the Minamata Bay (In

Japanese, chisso means nitrogen). Kumamoto is a small town which consists mostly of

farmers and fishermen. After the mercury was dumped into the bay, thousands of people

whose normal diet included fish from the bay developed symptoms of methyl mercury

poisoning. The poisoning resulted from years of environmental destruction and neglect

from the corporation.

In 1907, the villagers of Minamata had hoped to benefit from the Chisso factory.

The villagers, however, received only meanial jobs. By 1925, the corporation was

dumping waste into the bay. The corporation paid off the fishermen in exchange for

polluting their fishing environment. In 1932, the Chisso Corporation moved into

chemical production including drugs, plastics, and perfumes, a chemical called

acetaldehyde was used in this production. Chisso had a monopoly on the mercury based

compound which enabled the company to expand.

A disease was noticed in the region in the 1950’s. The mercury poisoning affected

humans’ limbs, speech, vision and mental capacity. Animals were affected as well. A

river flows into other areas as well. The corporation began to make deals with the victims

which absolved the corporation of any further liability. Victims were still being

compensated as of 1993.

277

In 1973, Japan’s Kumamoto District Court found the corporation guilty of

negligence. In this case, a high court of Japan ruled against sea pollution and in favor of

clean water preservation.

6. Baltic Sea Pollution:

The Baltic Sea has severe water pollution. Nations surrounding the sea have been

dumping untreated human waste, toxic materials, and metal into the sea since the 1960s.

Countries from the former Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc gave little regard to the

possible damage done from this dumping. Specific waste being dumped into the sea

includes factory waste being deposited directly into the sea or rivers which feed directly

into the sea. Another type of waste is agricultural run off from all western European

countries. The environmental pollution in the Baltic Sea can cause irreversible damage to

the sea which is an important economical and recreational source for 80 million people

around the waters.

Now that the Soviet Union has fallen, there is a collective move to clean up the

sea. One group is the Baltic Sea Joint Comprehensive Environment Action Program. The

countries involved in this program include the coastal nations of Sweden, Finland,

Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Russia, Poland, Germany and Denmark and the catchments

area nations of Norway, Belarus, Ukraine, the Czech Republic, and the Slovak Republic.

This program has six components which deal with minimizing waste disposal into the

sea, supporting research to develop other solutions, and encouraging public awareness,

among other things. Due to the serious effects and possible future consequence of the

pollution, the nations around the Baltic Sea have taken serious steps in order to reduce

pollution and solve the waste dumping problem. The Baltic Sea pollution has damaged

the fishing industry and tourism trade which is important to the economies of these

nations. By taking these steps to clean up the Baltic Sea, these nations will to only be

improving their environment, but their economies as well.

278

7. Black Sea Pollution:

In February 1992, members of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS)

met in Moscow to review the problem of environmental damage and ecology. These

nations agreed to promote environmental protection through the drafting and enforcement

of environmental legislation and regulations; harmonize methodology, procedures and

standards of environmental assessment and regulation and make these compatible with

international practice; pursue joint environmental research and protection programs,

including dismantling of chemical and nuclear weapons; create an intestate ecological

information system and a common list of endangered species; form an interstate

ecological council composed of the environment ministers of participating states; and

finance an interstate ecological fund aimed primarily disaster assistance.

Ukraine was not at this meeting in 1992. This nation has suffered greatly at the

hands of Soviet industrialization. It contained many chemical plants which damaged the

environment. The land, air, and seas in the Ukraine are seriously damaged. Sulfides and

chlorates make up the bulk of dangerous contaminates. The number of rivers has declined

from 40,000 to 25,000 as a direct result of ecological misuse. Salt is constantly dumped

into Ukraine’s rivers, causing severe illness to those that must use it.

Ukraine does not wish to participate in the actions of the other CIS nations to

clean up the region. This may cause legal problems for the agreement. Ukraine’s

unwillingness to participate points to the increasing significance of the sovereignty issue

in the CIS and the other CIS states are willing to clean up their environments; the Ukraine

has put the issue on the “back burner”.

8. Mediterranean Pollution:

Years of negligence and building have transformed Italy’s 8,000 kilometers of

coastal region into degraded peripheral areas. The areas have been built without any kind

of urban or environmental planning. These factors have created a catastrophic situation

for the Mediterranean Sea which is a viturally closed body of water and therefore does

not get recycled very often.

279

Tourism, which increases at a rate of 6-10 percent annually, is a major pollutant

of the Mediterranean Sea. Tourists, and subsequently, stores, resorts, summer homes, and

other structures contribute to the presence of polluting substances such as mercury and

arsenic. Mercury and arsenic result form the excessive disposal of nutritious substances

which originate from agricultural, industrial and urban waste.

The principle cause of the pollution resulting from this waste is phosphorous

which causes a proliferation of the vegetation and microscopic algae. The decomposition

of this algae results in a lack of oxygen in deeper parts of the sea causing many fish to die

and emanate unpleasant odors.

This sea pollution is a serious problem for Italy and will eventually affect its

tourism. The European Community has implemented directives relating to water. Italy

ratified one such directive in 1984. Other European agencies have approved plans or

policies relating to the clean up of the Mediterranean Sea. Due to the European directive,

Italy has implemented a decree to regulate the pollution in the Mediterranean Sea but has

not implemented any regulations to stop the pollution. Italy has made a step in the right

direction; however, more can be done.

9. Khain Sea Episode:

The United States has been exporting its hazardous waste since the early 1970s.

this waste exporting has been increasing since then due to the increased difficulty of solid

waste disposal for local jurisdictions. As the price of depositing solid waste in landfills

increased, a popular option for some cities, such as Philadelphia where the notorious ship,

the Khain Sea, first set sail, was to burn trash in incinerators. This reduces its volume,

creating a fine, black and some times toxic ash which must be disposed of. This used to

be placed in municipal landfills, but began to pile up just as the waste had.

In 1984, the addition of regulations for land-based disposal strengthened the

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The new RCRA regulations made it

more costly to maintain the current landfills and open up new ones. In 1986, waste

handlers in Philadelphia subcontracted with a shipping company to transport 13,000 tons

280

of incinerator ash to the Bahamas. The transport ship, Khain Sea, was turned away and

spent the next two years at sea. The ship tried to unload the cargo in the Caribbean and

Central America, only to be turned away. The ship then brought the ash back to

Philadelphia, but was not allowed to unload. The Khain Sea then set sail for Yugoslavia

where it docked and underwent repairs. In 1988, the ship appeared in Singapore without

its cargo. To this day, no one knows what happened to it.

This case brought publicity to the problem of waste dumping in seas. It could be

said that this case was instrumental in bringing about international attempts to control

trade. An international agreement was reached in 1989 concerning transboundary

movements of hazardous waste under the Basel convention. The US signed this in 1990

but still operates under the RCRA law as it conflicts with the convention.96

Pure, unpolluted water is an essential resource to the environmental balance of the

world. Water has life giving properties which are crucial to the world’s global ecosystem.

Water has also be used as a source and a means of trade for hundred of years. In some

areas water transport is the only viable means available. In some areas of the world,

rivers and seas have become so polluted that ecosystem and the health of plants, animals

and humans are threatened. Water pollution also inhibits trade by killing of fish (an

economic resource in some regions) and damaging trade waters. In recent years many

nations have realized the problem of sea and other water pollution. Some of these nations

are taking steps to control or clean up the polluted water.

Specifically sea water pollution can cause many different problems. The

origination and spread of serious disease to humans and animals can result from sea or

river pollution. In some areas, the population only has one source of water. If this water is

polluted, the population has no choice but to use that water. Sea water pollution also

destroys the habitats of many species of fish and other animals. In some nations, fishing

or harvesting of other animals is the main source of income. If sea water pollution

continues at the current rate, fishing industries in many nations will be severely damaged.

96

Sea Water Pollution cases – Jennifer Dopp.

Source: http://www1.american.edu/ted/projects/tedcross/xseap17.htm dated 28-01-2007.

281

7.13 Conclusion:

In 1990 the International Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of

marine Pollution (GESAMP) concluded that: “Man’s finger print is found everywhere in

the oceans. Chemical contamination and litter can now be observed from the poles to the

tropics and beaches to abyssal depths”. The bulk of scientific opinion is that the open

oceans are contaminated, but not yet seriously polluted. But many coastal zones are under

severe threat. This is because coastal waters are generally shallower and less mixed than

areas further from the shore and therefore can assimilate fewer pollutants. But they

receive more pollution because most marine pollution originates on land and reaches the

sea at or near the coast via rivers, pipelines, groundwater seepage or fallout from the

atmosphere.

Since the 1970’s, UNEP, Regional Seas Programme has promoted regional

Marine protection agreements. Many Regional Sea Conventions has now been adopted.

But only few of them have been supplemented by specific protocols on land-based

Marine Pollution and all have been hampered by monitoring and enforcement problems.

UNEP’s 1985 Montreal Guidelines set out legislative elements to be incorporated in

International Agreements. And UNEP is now developing an overall strategy on land

based marine pollution, including specific action to be taken nationally, regionally and

globally. This was recommended by Agenda 21, the global work plan for sustainable

development prepared for the UNCED Earth Summit.

Agenda 21 recognizes the importance of land based sources of marine pollution

and sets out priority actions that nations must take individually, collectively and globally.

These include setting up or strengthening national bodies to co-ordinate integrated

management of economic development on both the landward and seaward side of coasts.

Agenda 21 also stresses the special vulnerability and needs of small island states

particularly when they are developing countries. It suggests that existing regional

agreements controlling land based sources of marine pollution should be reviewed. And it

invites UNEP to organize an Intergovernmental meeting on marine pollution from land

based sources.