Total Oil Group undecided on Erika appeal
By Andrew Spurrier in Paris Thursday 17 January 2008
THE Total oil group has stopped short of announcing an appeal against its condemnation in the Erika trial for causing pollution, indicating only that it intends to make use of the 10 days allowed it to come to a decision.
It claimed that there were “numerous grounds” for appeal against yesterday’s verdict from the Paris Tribunal de Grande Instance but gave the impression that it might forgo an appeal in an effort to appease French public opinion.
The oil group is widely seen by the French public as the principal instigator of the pollution disaster provoked by the break-up and sinking of the tanker off the Brittany coast in December, 1999.
Apart from the €375,000 ($548,000) fine imposed on it by the trial judge for pollution, Total has been ordered to share with classification society Rina, Erika owner Giuseppe Savarese and technical manager Antonio Pollara damages totalling €192m.
It said afterwards that it was “disappointed” by the judgment, claiming that the court had accepted that the direct cause of the sinking was outside its control.
Total said it was pleased, however, with the acquittal of shipping manager Bertrand Thouilin, the last employee facing charges, and with the acquittal of Total itself on the charge of recklessly endangering human life.
It was critical of the trial judge’s finding that it had failed to exercise due caution in its inspection and vetting of the 25-year-old tanker.
It found it hard to understand how it could be found guilty for shortcomings in a procedure which it had introduced voluntarily to improve its shipping safety standards.
And it warned that the court’s judgment could have an adverse effect on shipping safety in going against the generally accepted interpretation of international maritime law that charterers cannot be held responsible for the structural state of vessels which carry their cargoes. “By assigning liability to Total,” the oil group said, “the court’s verdict could create confusion concerning the responsibilities of the players and have the contradictory effect of making shipping less safe.”
The French shipowners’ organisation Armateurs de France congratulated the court on its condemnation of Messrs Savarese and Pollara and Rina but made no mention of Total.
“The owner, his technical manager and the classification society could not be ignorant of the ship’s grave structural problem and that it was not up to standard,” it said. “In these conditions one can only rejoice at their condemnation. It is exemplary for the improvement of our profession.”
The organisation expressed reservations, however, about the compensation, and in particular the award for the first time in France of damages for general environmental as opposed to specific property damage.
Noting that compensation payments had already been made by the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund, it said that it was not opposed to the payment of additional compensation for environmental damage.
“But should this notion not be defined in its principle and its modalities by the legislator (at international level) rather than by a court?”
There were no such reservations on the part of environmental organisations or the local authorities along the 400 km stretch of the French Atlantic coast polluted by the Erika’s heavy fuel oil cargo.
They generally welcomed the court’s verdict and, in particular, the condemnation of Total.
The only reservations most of them had were over the size of the damages award which fell a long way short of the €500m-€1bn they had been hoping for.
“We hope this judgment will become jurisprudence and snowball throughout the world,” said Greenpeace France.
“International law should be modified to take account of environmental damage. Maritime law, too, should be reformed so that the present system of encouragement of charterers to be irresponsible is rendered impossible.”
Another environmental defence organisation, Robin des Bois, hailed the outcome as very positive.
“This judgment in first instance renders fragile the strategy of dilution of responsibilities followed by the different players in international maritime transport and should, if it is definitive, encourage them to greater rigour in the choice and operation of ships,” it said.
But it took a negative view of the level of damages awarded for environmental damage, which it estimated at €1.3m out of the total €192m awarded.
It said that the negative effects of the pollution on plant, bird and animal life, as well as on the marine food chain and fish stocks, had been underestimated if not forgotten.
“The sea has been sold off cheap,” it claimed. “It is the sales season.” It also questioned the court president’s affirmation that the effects of pollution from the Erika had lasted two years. It said it had been established that, 20 years after the Exxon Valdez oil spill, several species of birds, shellfish, fish and mammals had still to recover their pre-casualty status.
As a result, it said, its principal claim that the guilty parties should be ordered to finance the biological monitoring of the effects of pollution from the Erika until 2019 had not been taken into account.
Recent Comments