SPEECH BY MS JOICE NGELE IN PARLIAMENT DURING THE DEBATE ON THE CIVIL LIABILITY CONVENTION BILL. 12 September 2013 Background The South African coastline is home to some of the most pristine areas and biodiversity. At 2,798 kilometers, it is the second longest coastline in Africa (After Somalia at 3,025 km) and one of the longest coastlines in the world. The area of confluence of the warm Indian Ocean and the cold Atlantic Ocean produces a rare marine biodiversity. It also produces the most violent sea conditions of a busy shipping route, making the Cape of Storms the most sensitive of the busiest shipping routes in the world. South Africa, at the southernmost tip of Africa is especially disadvantaged in that there is minimal capacity and marine equipment available in the region to intervene in cases of marine incidents. We thus have to ensure that there is adequate capacity to monitor the coastline as well as to intervene and manage in cases of incidents. The variety of ships that round the Cape varies from Very Large Crude Carriers (VLCC’s), large container vessels carrying a variety of dangerous good and substances, chemical tankers with dangerous substances, bulk carriers with large quantities of bunker fuels, scrap vessels on the way to the breakers, etc. Each of these vessels has a particular risk profile and requires a particular approach in dealing with it. This is complicated by the fact that these vessels are ordinarily on transit in our waters. Even the ships that call in our ports are foreign owned and largely manned by foreign crews. Of the companies purporting to be South African and owning ships, all of those ships are registered in foreign lands where they pay their taxes. The exposure to the country is huge, considering the fact that there is very little economic benefit normally realised by these activities. No employment, no tax income, but a huge risk should an incident occur. This is the story of this country. And this is the case for the entire African continent. Over the past few years we have seen ships that had nothing to do with our country and the economy, foundering on our shores. Mr Speaker, just as a demonstration, in 2009, a vessel carrying coal from Durban to Gilbratar in the Mediterrenean grounded in Cape Town due to the failure of its engines in heavy seas. As it turned out, it was not insured and the owners ran away leaving the country with a bill of over R70 million. In 2011, the Barge Margaret, sailing from China to Holland encountered heavy seas and ran aground outside Saldanha Bay. Again it turned out not to have been insured as its insurance was valid only if the barge used the Suez Canal. The ship owner soon ran out of money and the state had to pick up R15 million in wreck reduction costs. In 2011, the vessel Oliva, sailing from Brazil to China, collided head on with a mountain cliff, the Tristan Da Cunha Island breaking into two and spilling thousands of tonnes of fuel oil and closing the South African fishing grounds in the Southern Oceans at a big cost to the fishing companies operating in that area as well as to the economy. In 2011, the Phoenix, a scrap ship from West Africa to India encountering engine problems, uninsured and abandoned by its owners subsequently ran aground in Durban. Umzantsi Afrika kwafuneka ukhuphe amashumi amathathu evayo ezigidi zerandi ukuphipha lomosharha. Somlomo, imeko yezinqanawa kuqoqosho lwethu inzima injalo. Le meko ayiqali ngoku, kudala kwabanje. In 1983, MV “Castillo De Bellver”, carrying about 252 000 tonnes of light crude oil, caught fire about 70 miles north west of Cape Town. The ship drifted off shore and broke in two and sank 24 miles off the coast. This remains one of the second biggest tanker oil spill in the history of pollution from tanker vessel. In 2000, another bulk carried MV “Treasure” also sank in heavy seas off Cape Town, spilling at least 200 tonnes of heavy fuel oil. The incident severely affected two large breeding grounds of African penguins on Robben and Dassen Islands and resulted in the evacuation of 21 000 birds. Ithini ke impendulo yethu. The 1967 oil spill from MV “Torrey Canyon”, which ran aground near the Scilly Isles, Italy, exposed a number of serious shortcomings, in particular the absence of an international regime on liability and compensation in the event of oil spill from tankers. That incident led the International Maritime Organisation to establish a legal framework for compensation for victims of oil pollution from tankers. This framework was called the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage (1969 CLC) and was adopted in 1969. In 1971, an International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution (1971 Fund Convention) was adopted in order to provide a mechanism for raising funds for the Civil Liability Convention. These Conventions were for compensation for damage caused by oil spill from laden tankers (tankers carrying oil as cargo). Both Conventions were respectively amended by the 1992 Protocols (the 1992 CLC and the 1992 Fund Protocol). The amendments were effected in order to increase the amounts of compensation payable to claimants. This is due to the fact that the 1969 convention had a limit of R180 million which has become too small to cater for today’s risk. Because of the South African geographic location, there are many VLCCs passing-by the coastline, and the 1969 limit (R180m) proves to be very minimal and could barely cover oil spill from those tankers. Our government has acceded to the amended convention which is the 1992 protocol in order to gain access to the higher insurance fund in cases of incidents. These amount to R2,5 Billion per incident. The Merchant Shipping (CLC Bill) is meant to get South Africa to participate in the benefits of the higher insurance. One is going to ask, why did it take so long to get these bills in place. The answer lies in the historical context. South Africa was kicked out of the international multilateral organisations and as such could only apply a range of laws modelled on the international instruments and not the actual instruments. This invariably has led to a concoction of acts that we have to be careful they do not present a conflict of what are we trying to do. This specifically affects all laws linked to international obligations. What we are undertaking is that the government risk is properly managed, that all these incidents that have nothing to do with our economy do not end up costing this economy and thus directing resources from well deserving causes. It is thus my submission that the CLC Bill and its Fund Bills be allowed by this house. I thank you.
Posted on: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 15:27:35 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015