The CLCFC Regime

1
The CLC/FC Regime

• An Introduction to the key issue of a possible
  revision to the International regime for the
  liability and compensation for oil spills (CLC/FC
  92)
• Presented by
• John C. Fawcett-Ellis
• General Counsel Regional Manager Asia-Pacific
• Hong Kong (SAR China), 25 February 2005

2
The Current regime

• CLC 92
• FC 92
• Supplementary Fund 2003 enters into force 3
  March 2005
• Key features
• - Channeling of liability to regd owner
• - Strict liability
• - Owners liability insured through PI cover
• - If cost of spill exceeds CLC limits then Fund
  set up by receivers
• - Owners right to limit liability is lost if it
  is proved that the spill was caused by his
  personal act or omission, committed with intent
  to cause such damage, or recklessly and with
  knowledge that such damage would probably result

3
How the regime has already been revised/updated

• 50 increase in limits under CLC and FC
• Third tier of compensation introduced The
  Supplementary Fund will enter into force on 3
  March 2005
• STOPIA voluntary increase in small ships limit
  under CLC

4
Success of the current regime

• Some 90 states signed up to CLC/FC truly
  international
• Protects the victims of oil spills
• Merit of simplicity
• 90 of claims paid out by owners irrespective of
  fault
• Sharing of the cost of spills equally between
  owners and receivers

5
The current debate

• Should a new regime be devised?
• The perception that the SF will upset the
  equitable sharing in the cost of spills
• Addressing the issue of sub-standard shipping

6
INTERTANKOs Position

• NO REVISION - Current regime operates well from
  the perspective of oil spill victims
• Any new regime would result in increases in
  liability for owners and also possibly receivers,
  charterers? producers?
• Sub-standard shipping - Support the IGs
  initiatives but do not support the initiative
  of an IOPCF WG this is IMO territory

7
INTERTANKOs position (cont.)

• Sharing Support STOPIA or a Sharing in the SF
  but not at the 5050 level proposed by the IG
• Understand the need for a regular review

8
Reminder of discussions at Oct 04 IOPCF meetings

• Assembly divided on the issue of revision
• March (14-23) 05 WG It was agreed that the WG
  cannot have an indefinite life must decide on
  concrete proposals to put to the Oct 05 Assembly
  meeting or else recommend the WG dissolves
• Non-revisionists 15 states
• Revisionists 12 states
• Evaluating position 7 states
• Many states did not voice an opinion

9
States that are against revision

• Republic of Korea
• Singapore
• Greece Malta Cyprus
• Russian Federation
• The Philippines
• Malaysia?
• Hong Kong (SAR China)

10
States that are against revision (Cont.)

• Panama Liberia Vanuato
• Tunisia
• Trinidad Tobago
• Mexico
• Norway ?

11
The IOPCF WG March 05

• It is crucial that as many states as possible say
  We support the existing regime - no further
  revision

12
Thank youwww.intertanko.com