Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T10:44:50.486Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Large-scale oil spills and flag-use within the global tanker fleet

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 August 2014

DANA D. MILLER ,
KATHRYN TOOLEY  and
U. RASHID SUMAILA
DANA D. MILLER*
Affiliation:
Fisheries Economics Research Unit, Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, 2202 Main Mall, Vancouver, Canada, V6T 1Z4
KATHRYN TOOLEY
Affiliation:
Fisheries Economics Research Unit, Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, 2202 Main Mall, Vancouver, Canada, V6T 1Z4
U. RASHID SUMAILA
Affiliation:
Fisheries Economics Research Unit, Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, 2202 Main Mall, Vancouver, Canada, V6T 1Z4
*
*Correspondence: Dr D. Miller Tel: +1 604 341 6339 e-mail: d.miller@fisheries.ubc.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Within the global oil shipping sector, flag states that inadequately fulfil obligations to effectively exert jurisdiction over vessels flying their flags have been criticized for facilitating the existence of substandard ships. This paper examines the topic of flag-use and its potential association with oil spill risk. Flags most associated with accidental oil spills were identified through comparing the flag composition of the global oil tanker fleet with that of vessels that have been involved in the 100 largest tanker spills on record. Vessels flying flags of states that have exhibited consistent patterns of failure in compliance with international obligations, defined here as ‘flags of non-compliance’ (FoNCs), were found to be significantly more common amongst the vessels that have been involved in spill incidents. However, this was dependent on how the Liberian flag was qualified throughout the time period considered. If measures are being sought to reduce the risk of tanker involvement in large-scale oil spills further, vessel owners should be deterred from registering with FoNCs that are highly accessible to foreign owners, and political measures should be taken to put pressure on flag states that operate all other FoNCs to improve effective jurisdiction over ships flying these flags.

Keywords

flags of convenienceinternational maritime lawmarine pollutionoil spillsoil tankersopen registers
Type
Papers
Information
Environmental Conservation , Volume 42 , Issue 2 , June 2015 , pp. 119 - 126
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation for Environmental Conservation 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alderton, T. & Winchester, N. (2002 a) Globalisation and de-regulation in the maritime industry. Marine Policy 26: 35–43.Google Scholar
Alderton, T. & Winchester, N. (2002 b) Regulation, representation and the flag market. Journal for Maritime Research 4: 89–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alló, M. & Loureiro, M.L. (2013) Estimating a meta-damage regression model for large accidental oil spills. Ecological Economics 86: 167–175.Google Scholar
Anderson, D. (2002) The effect of port state control on substandard shipping. Maritime Studies 125: 20.Google Scholar
Bergantino, A. & Marlow, P. (1998) Factors influencing the choice of flag: empirical evidence. Maritime Policy and Management 25: 157–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burgherr, P. (2007) In-depth analysis of accidental oil spills from tankers in the context of global spill trends from all sources. Journal of Hazardous Materials 140: 245–256.Google Scholar
D.F. Dickins Associates Ltd (1995) The Double Hull Issue and Oil Spill Risk on the Pacific West Coast. Victoria, Canada: Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks.Google Scholar
D’Andrea, A. (2006) The ‘genuine link’ concept in responsible fisheries: legal aspects and recent developments. FAO Legal Paper 61. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
EC (2009) Directive 2009/16/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on port state control (recast). Official Journal of the European Union L 131/57: 1–44.Google Scholar
EMSA (2005) EMSA works with industry on tankers solution [www document]. URL http://www.emsa.eu.int/ennews20050609144408.html Google Scholar
FAO (2009) Report of the expert consultation on flag state performance. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Report 918. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
FAO (2013) Fisheries and aquaculture: unique vessel identifier (UVI) [www document]. URL http://www.fao.org/fishery/topic/18021/en Google Scholar
Gianni, M. (2008) Real and present danger: flag state failure and maritime security and safety. Report. WWF International and the International Transport Workers’ Federation, Oslo, Norway and London, UK.Google Scholar
Hayashi, M. (2001) Toward the elimination of substandard shipping: the report of the International Commission on Shipping. International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 16: 501.Google Scholar
Höfer, T. (2003) Tanker safety and coastal environment: prestige, erika, and what else? Environmental Science and Pollution Research 10: 1–5.Google Scholar
IMO (1992) Regulation 13F of Annex I of MARPOL 73/98. International Maritime Organization, London, UK.Google Scholar
ITOPF (2012) Oil Tanker Spill Statistics 2012. The International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation Limited, London, UK.Google Scholar
Knapp, S. & Franses, P.H. (2009) Does ratification matter and do major conventions improve safety and decrease pollution in shipping? Marine Policy 33: 826–846.Google Scholar
Llácer, F.J.M. (2003) Open registers: past, present and future. Marine Policy 27: 513–523.Google Scholar
Mansell, J.N.K. (2009) The regulatory regime for discharge of flag state duties: the role of classification societies. In: Flag State Responsibility, pp. 117–152. Heidelberg and Berlin, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar
Board, Marine (1998) Double-Hull Tanker Legislation: An Assessment of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. Washington, DC, USA: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Matlin, D.F. (1990) Re-evaluating the status of flags of convenience under international law. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 23: 1017.Google Scholar
McDorman, T.L. (2000) Regional port state control agreements: some issues of international law. Ocean and Coastal Law Journal 5: 207.Google Scholar
Miller, D.D. & Sumaila, U.R. (2014) Flag use behavior and IUU activity within the international fishing fleet: refining definitions and identifying areas of concern. Marine Policy 44: 204–211.Google Scholar
Paris PSC MoU (2012) Port state control: taking port state control to the next level, Annual Report 2012. Report. The Paris Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control, The Hague, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Peterson, C.H., Rice, S.D., Short, J.W., Esler, D., Bodkin, J.L., Ballachey, B.E. & Irons, D.B. (2003) Long-term ecosystem response to the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Science 302: 2082–2086.Google Scholar
Plaza, F. (1994) Port state control: towards global standardization. 75: 28.Google Scholar
Roat, R. (1980) Promulgation and enforcement of minimum standards for foreign flag ships. Brooklyn Journal of International Law 6: 54.Google Scholar
Sehgal, M. (2010) Open registers: a necessity or mere convenience. Maritime Affairs: Journal of the National Maritime Foundation of India 6: 132–141.Google Scholar
SSY Consultancy & Research Ltd (2001) The cost to users of substandard shipping. Report. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Paris, France.Google Scholar
Thuong, L.T. (1987) From flags of convenience to captive ship registries. Transportation Journal 27: 22–34.Google Scholar
Toh, R.S. & Phang, S.-Y. (1993) Quasi-flag of convenience shipping: the wave of the future. Transportation Journal 33: 31–39.Google Scholar
Tolofari, S.R., Button, K.J. & Pitfield, D.E. (1986) Shipping costs and the controversy over open registry. The Journal of Industrial Economics 34: 409–427.Google Scholar
UNCTAD (2012) Review of Maritime Transport 2012. New York, NY, USA and Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD).Google Scholar
UNCTAD (2013) Review of Maritime Transport 2013. New York, NY, USA and Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD).Google Scholar
USCG (2012) Port State Control in the United States 2012 Annual Report. Department of Homeland Security, United States Coast Guard, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
Yannopoulos, G.N. (1988) The economics of ‘flagging out’. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy 22: 197–207.Google Scholar
Zwinge, T. (2011) Duties of flag states to implement and enforce international standards and regulations - and measures to counter their failure to do so. Journal of International Business and Law 10: 297.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Miller Supplementary Material

Appendix 1

Download Miller Supplementary Material(File)
File 57 KB