Who pays? Oil spill responsibility before the courts in France

A worker, trying to rub the spilled oil of the stone

For the first time in France, people accused of bearing responsibility for an oil spill, are being brought before a penal court. Seven years after the ecological disaster which devastated four hundred kilometres of France's western coast, the Erika trial started in Paris this week.

In 1999, the Erika, a twenty five year old, single hulled, rusty oil tanker, was transporting thirty tons of heavy fuel when it sank off the coast of Brittany.

Jail terms and fines worth hundreds of millions of Euros are at stake in this trial, which is expected to last four months. Radio France International's Nick Champeaux went to the first hearings, and he filed this report from Paris.

The damage caused by the Erika disaster to the fishing and tourism industries is huge. Under current international agreements, a total amount of one hundred and eighty million Euros can be paid by the International Oil Pollution Compensation fund, or IOPC fund. But plaintiffs claim the damage caused by the oil spill far exceeds that amount. That's why along with environmental organisations, the French State, as well as many authorities in Western France, have brought the case to the courts. Jean Yves Le Drian is president of the Brittany Regional Council.

"What we want is that the companies pay the sums which correspond to their degree of responsibility, they have to pay their share, at a time when everyone is talking about concepts such as ecological pacts and eco-responsibilities, we really don't think that taxpayers should be asked to pay the price."

The worst effects of the oil spill reflected by docked boats

The ecological damage caused by the Erika is also significant: tens of thousands of birds covered in oil for instance. That's why lawyers argued this week, that in addition to the damage that is easy to evaluate, the harm done to the environment also calls for compensation. In French law, the notion of ecological damage is new. But lawyer Jean Pierre Mignard says it is needed. For weeks and weeks following the wreck, local volunteers mopped-up patches of oil from soiled beaches, and their relation to nature, as a result, has been altered, Mignard explains.

"I think that the inhabitants will never trust nature the way they used to, so the damage was also a moral one. From a judicial point of view, if for instance someone is assaulted, that can may recover from his or her wounds, but the trauma will take longer to disappear, this is the judicial concept of moral prejudice."

The court hearings will last four months, because the case is a complex one. The Erika officially belonged to a company from Malta, controlled by two Liberian companies, the shares of which were owned by an Italian banker based in London, and the ship's captain was Indian. The problem is that none of the defendants are prepared to pay. The Indian captain did not show up at the trial, and Total, the French oil giant, says it is not responsible because it merely under-contracted the vessel. Yves Marie Dalibard is communications director for TOTAL.

"At the time there was one vessel available, it was the Erika, it had all the required certificates, we didn't try to strike a good deal, we have under-contracted the ship at the price of the market."

Crab heavily olluted by oil spill

On Tuesday however, the plaintiffs produced an internal 1998 memo, in other words before the wreck, which proved that Total was aware of its liability in the event of shipwrecks. Lawyer Alexandre Varaut.

"Total people knew that they were taking a risk under-contracting such a rusty boat, they knew they had to inspect these vessels, but they didn't do anything, they chose a ship which wasn't sea worthy. We knew as early as 1999 that this memo would be important, that's why we asked the authorities to go and seize it, before it disappeared…"

What also came as an embarrassment for Total is that the first hearings coincided with the release of the company's profits for the year 2006: 12,5 Billion Euros. Meanwhile Rina, the Italian company that granted the Erika its sea worthy certificate, argues it can not be taken to court, because Malta enjoys immunity. Olivier Metzner is the lawyer defending Rina.

"My line of defence is that Rina was contracted by Malta, and that Rina did its job, it respected the rules. The contract that Rina signed is a "Republic of Malta" document."

The judge rejected the argument.

Many decisions have been made since the Erika disaster to reinforce maritime safety: single hulled oil tankers are no longer allowed, and old vessels must be inspected each year. These European laws were named after the Erika disaster, and an Erika 3 package is currently being discussed. But we need to go much further, plaintiffs warned, because profits still come before maritime safety, they argued. Proof is, accidents are still taking place, for instance the Napoli off the coast of England several weeks ago. The Erika trial is scheduled to last until the 13th of June.