PARIS, Feb 12 (Reuters) – A trial into one of France’s worst environmental disasters opens on Monday with oil giant Total facing charges over toxic fuel spills that washed ashore following the sinking of the tanker Erika in 1999.
Total is among 15 organisations and individuals charged over the spill that poured 20,000 tonnes of oil into the sea, polluted 400 km (250 miles) of coastline and caused damage valued at up to 1 billion euros ($1.30 billion).
The Erika, a rusting, Maltese-registered tanker, broke in two and sank in heavy seas in the Bay of Biscay some 70 km off the French coast on Dec. 12 1999.
Its 26 crew members were winched to safety by helicopter and its cargo of fuel started to sweep ashore almost two weeks later, killing between 60,000-300,000 birds — the most serious impact on sea birds ever recorded due to an oil spill.Source
Most of the sea birds were Guillemots. 
This is a trial I will be following. With 15 defendants, the trial will be massive in scope and expense.
The conservation group Friends of the Earth is a plaintiff in the case. The following is from their site:
TotalFina claim in its Health Safety and Environment Charter: “No economic priority shall overrule considerations of health and safety at work and respect for the environment.” But TotalFina is far behind the rest of the oil industry in not employing rigorous criteria when chartering ships.
Shell inspects its tankers on an annual basis. It inspected Erika in May 1998 and again in January 1999 and decided on both occasions that she was not fit for use. Due to poor performance, BP also removed the Erika from its list of acceptable ships in May 1999.
A preliminary report by the French government states that TotalFina did not employ as rigorous criteria for the chartering of Erika as it does for the chartering of ships destined for longer voyages. It also found that lower standards are employed when selecting vessels to carry black products (fuel, tar). These are more polluting but cheaper than white products (naptha, kerosine, gasoline)which need better quality and cleaner cisterns for their transportation.
Two international convention have come unders scrutiny because of this case:
Despite being responsible for the oil, TotalFina, one of the richest corporations in the world, is not legally liable for any of the damage it has caused.
Two international conventions, adopted under the auspices of the International Maritime Organisation, govern liability and compensation for oil spills from ships. Under the International Convention on Civil Liability, liability for the Erika disaster is placed on Tevere Shipping, the ship owner. The International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage provides an additional system of compensation.The owners of the cargo contribute to the fund (FIPOL) set up by this Convention.
There are large political, environmental and legal matters at issue in this important case. It will be one to watch.
Pingback: The Erika Trial « GUANO ISLAND
The ERIKA case is now once again before the French Courts. This case involves a boat owned by an Italian and certified by RINA a Government authorized certification Italian agency. At the center of the case is the opacity surrounding the ownership of the ERIKA and the inexplicable certification of the boat by RINA.
The experts’ report in this case as it was submitted to the Dunkirk Commercial Court in 2005 sheds an interesting light on the deficiencies of the certification procedures by RINA.
It is bizarre that the Italian authorities did not investigate criminally RINA following this report or even suspend RINA’s right to grant certification pending legal proceedings.
For more information visit http://www.changingtheclimate.be
Some really interesting elements on the disaster I found on the net… I want to share them…
“An experts’ report communicated to the Dunkirk Court in 2005 does not see TOTAL as a guilty party. Based on the facts and removed from emotional acumen the Experts Report shows that if the ERIKA sunk it is because of the wrongful practices and gross negligence of others and in particular of the RINA – the Italian authority in charge of certifying the boat’s seaworthiness – and of the independent inspector who was in charge of supervising structural works that never happened on the boat…but were paid for. ”
“Why was the 225 pages Inspector’s report so adamantly positive in respect to the ERIKA’s seaworthiness? How could the RINA grant full five years certification given the levels of corrosion that the ERIKA suffered? All these mysteries are of course enhanced by the fact that M. Paolillo, the Inspector, is unable to provide the specific details of each measurement taken in 1998 as his computer was subsequently stolen (sic!).
The Paolillo Report contains numerous errors and inconsistencies. RINA should have noticed this. RINA didn’t. Instead it granted full certification! No one in Italy seems interested in this case. Why would they be? The ERIKA did not sink off the coast of Italy…”
Why is nobody reacting against this false trial?
Why is nobody saying that all this trial is a mistake?
Why is nobody reacting against the guilt of the RINA and of this inspector negligent??!!
I don’t understand anything… We have to do something, I can’t stand when justice is not done…
Why people don’t say anything?
Why? why? why?
You may know Clara that people don’t like when things got too complicated. They already found a guilty party so they don’t need anymore to search for another one.
You know, if you have someone that is ready to pay for the errors of everybody you won’t try to understand what really happen even if that means letting the true guilty people going freely everywhere and doing another time the same awful actions…