In case of a reported oil spill, the port authority holds the polluter liable for all the direct and indirect effects of it. In this case, the polluter is responsible for covering a range of costs from cleaning operations to economic effects of delays that other vessels have registered. presents the financial cost flow of the cleaning operations.
Figure 17. Cleaning cost recovery flow in case of oil spill in the port of Rotterdam
Source: own compilation
shows the cost recovery procedure followed in the port of Rotterdam. The cleaning company take direct contact with the offender to settle the financial issues of the cleaning operation. The RPA intermediates the cost of cleaning operations only if the polluter does not acknowledge his responsibility for the oil spill. In this case the cleaning cost bill is added also the administration cost for the port authority.
The port authorities as well as the other water quality managers in the Netherlands have the legislative means to detain the vessels until the cost of oil spills is covered. For example, if a ship has polluted the waters inside the port of Rotterdam and the captain or the ship owners’ society denies the responsibility for the pollution, it can continue its journey. However, the RPA may bring a law suit against the polluter and if the process is won, the RPA has the legal right to detain the vessel in any port. The detention can be prolonged until the full cost of the cleaning operations and process were paid.
After each intervention, an ex-post investigation is carried. During this evaluation, the operational decisions are evaluated from the perspective of their cost effectiveness. In some cases, the operational decisions are influenced by external factors such as threat to population or wildlife, the environmental impact and potential threat to the port’s image. In these cases, the cost effectiveness of intervention actions is less important.
Share with your friends: |