The tanker industry and shipping in general have once again found themselves victims of political opportunism and a media feeding frenzy following the loss of the tanker Prestige. The accident was clearly regrettable and sympathies must be extended to those suffering the consequences. But this in no way justifies the action of various European organisations and governments who at best reacted in an arbitrary fashion and at worst flaunted international law.
Let us not forget that Captain Mangouras, wrongly imprisoned in a Spanish gaol, was forced against his better judgement to re-start the tanker's engines and have his stricken vessel towed further into the stormy ocean, where she was finally overcome. He had correctly requested a safe refuge but was turned down point blank by authorities ashore with little knowledge of seamanship or the prevailing weather conditions. If the vessel had not been subjected to these further stresses, the outcome would surely have been very different.
In the days immediately following the loss, a whole range of actions were taken that seem to run contrary to the Law of the Sea Convention and other maritime legislation, primarily by the Spanish whose armed forces boarded several tankers and forced them to alter course.
Now, draconian measures to hasten the phase-out of hundreds of good quality single-skin tankers are all but inevitable and older ships carrying heavy oils have been unilaterally banned from Spanish ports. These vessels are the workhorses of the tanker fleet and most operate without incident throughout their lives.
Intertanko quite rightly observes that the issue of single hulls versus double hulls has received 'unwarranted emphasis' since double hulls were introduced to 'basically provide additional protection against low-energy groundings and collisions, neither of which were factors in this accident.' It points out that limiting the age of any ship 'positively discourages an owner from investing in quality and robustness when ordering a new ship and acts as a major disincentive to maintain the asset in later life.' And it warns against prescribing the carriage of 'heavy oil' (as the legislators understand the term) without 'an appropriate analysis of the consequences'.
Hopefully some good will result from the Prestige accident - namely stricter enforcement of Places of Refuge and Port State Control inspections. Calls for better codes of practice for flag states and their recognised organisations are also likely to be strengthened.
But just as the IMO has done a fine job in rising to the security challenge in record time, so it must stand firm in decrying any breach of international law and insisting on its primacy as the proper forum for regulating shipping.
Reproduction kindly permitted by Seatrade magazine
Date: 16 May 2003