Forth Ship to Ship Oil Transfer Decision Delayed
Sun., October 30, 2005. 11:08.
Executive urged to step in following "damning" EU court ruling
The UK government will risk breaching EU law if proposals for ship-to-ship transfer of crude oil in the Firth of Forth are given the go ahead without a full environmental assessment. The news follows a recent damning verdict from the European Court of Justice on the failure of the UK to implement the EU Habitats Directive. (1) The decision on the Forth proposal has now been delayed while Department of Transport lawyers examine the ruling to determine if it has implications for the increasingly-controversial proposal which would put delicate ecosystems and the livelihoods of hundreds of people in coastal communities at great risk.
There is growing opposition to the Forth proposal but campaigners have hitherto thought that the lack of regulations governing ship-to-ship oil transfers would leave the door wide open for companies to go ahead despite the extremely serious risks. (2) This latest development puts pressure on Scottish ministers to step in since it is the Executive which is responsible for upholding the Directive and for dealing with the practical consequences of an oil spill. There are several designated areas around the Forth that are protected under the Habitats Directive including Special Areas of Conservation, Special Protection Areas, and a RAMSAR wetland site.
On Friday, Fife Council said that they had been looking into legal mechanisms that may be used to stop the transfers - but expressed concern that there was no such mechanisms. Greens now believe that Scottish ministers should raise objections to the plan which could see oil transferred from smaller ships to large tankers just a few miles from Methil.
Mark Ruskell, Green MSP for Mid Scotland & Fife and Green speaker on the environment, said, "This should be the final nail in the coffin for these ludicrous proposals. The court's ruling clearly brings into question the legality of the ship-to-ship proposal, and also shifts some if not all responsibility to Scottish ministers. Darling's department must accept this project is bad news and work with the Executive to kill off the proposal now or risk breaking EU law again and having to pay the penalty. There is, quite simply, far too much at stake and far too great a risk - companies will simply have to accept the inconvenience of coming into port to transfer oil.
"This European judgment is a damning indictment of the UK government and Executive's half-hearted approach to the protection of our coastal environment. This carelessness puts the livelihoods of hundreds of people and the future of local economies in the Firth area in serious jeopardy - and ship-to-ship oil transfers will heighten this risk considerably. Scottish ministers have a golden opportunity to act now to protect these vulnerable coastal communities."
Scottish Green MSPs around the Forth launched a campaign several months ago to stop the oil threat to the Forth, including writing to Alistair Darling and issuing postcards to the public to send to Darling's office voicing their opposition to the plan. All relevant local councils - Fife, Edinburgh City and East Lothians - are opposing the plans, as are environmental organisations and SNH.
The Greens say that the Forth plan, by Melbourne Marine Services Ltd, is to save the oil companies one day's shipping time as it transfers Russian oil into 'Ultra Large Crude Carriers' en route to the United States and the Far East. Demand for Baltic oil is on the increase and the lack of statutory international regulation has led KIMO International, a local authorities environmental organisation, to call for a moratorium on new non-port ship-to-ship transfers.
Earlier this month, one of Darling's junior ministers indicated to the House of Commons that they were minded to give the plans the go-ahead. (2) A fully laden 'Ultra Large Crude Carrier' is expected to generate £120 million in revenue for the transporting company, and the fees to Forth Ports Authority per transfer will be considerable. It is estimated that there will be 105 of them per year. By contrast there is no direct economic or social benefit to the local economies of the Firth communities.
ENDS
Notes
1. See http://www.curia.eu.int/en/actu/activites/index.htm - ruling dated 20/10/05, Commission versus the United Kingdom, judgment C-6/04.
2. There is no statutory regulation governing ship-to-ship operations - to go-ahead, Melbourne Marine Services would simply have to produce an oil spill contingency plan that fulfils the criteria laid out by the Dept of Transport's Maritime and Coastguard Agency.
3. See also,
http://www.scottishgreens.org.uk/site/id/4841/title/GREENS_CONDEMN_LABOUR_GO_AHEAD_TO_OIL_DANGER_IN_FIRTH_OF_FORTH.html
http://www.scottishgreens.org.uk/site/id/4696/title/GREEN_MSPs_CHALLENGE_DARLING_OVER_OIL_POLLUTION_THREAT_IN_FORTH.html
http://www.kimointernational.org/
Contact the Scottish Greens' press team on 07909 933 074.