Per W. Schive
Deputy Director General
Department for industry, water management and waste
Ministry of the Environment
NORWAYTHE CO-OPERATION AGREEMENTS ON OIL SPILL COMBATTMENT
IN THE NORTH SEA AND THE BARENTS SEAPAJ Oil Symposium 1997
Abstracts
This paper presents the Bonn Agreement of 1969 which is an agreement of cooperation between the North Sea countries on oil spill combattment. Further it
presents the Copenhagen Agreement of 1970 which is a similar agreement between
the Nordic countries. Finally it presents the bilateral agreement between Norway
and the Russian Federation of 1992, dealing with oil spill combattment in theBarents Sea. After a brief individual presentation of the agreements the paper
focuses on the common features of the agreements, such as the obligation to respondto an oil spill incident and the obligation to assist the other Contracting Parties
when an oil spill incident occurs.
Introduction
The Torrey Canyon oil spill in the English Channel in 1967 led to growing publicawareness and a strong political demand for action with regard to oil spill combattment.
Building up national systems for dealing with oil spill is, however, a strongorganisational, legal and economical challenge. It soon became evident thatinternational co-operation in this field would be of considerable benefit for all thecountries involved, in particular with regard to the possibility for access to more
personnel and equipment in the case of a major oil spill incident.
This paper deals with the co-operation agreements which have been agreed between
the North Sea countries (the Bonn Agreement of 1969), the Nordic countries (theCopenhagen Agreement of 1970) and the bilateral agreement between Norway and theRussian Federation in 1992. The first two of these agreements are at the same time
among the first international agreements on environmental protection. We may saythat they were the introduction to the new field of international co-operation that has
been and still is of growing importance, namely the international co-operation on
environmental issues.

1The primary focus will be on the agreements as such. A consideration of eachagreement and a comparison between them may give a picture of which basic elementsthat generally should be included in international co-operation agreements on oil spill
combattment. However, there will also be a brief evaluation of the agreements on thebasis of how they have functioned, or in other words how they have fulfilled theirobjectives.
II Basic information
1. The Bonn Agreement:
Adopted: 9 June 1969
Contracting Parties: Belgium, Denmark, France, the Netherlands, Norway, United
Kingdom, Sweden, Germany, the European Commission
Entry into force: 1970
Amended: 1983 to include marine pollution from other harmful substances than oil
Secretariat: Permanent secretariat jointly with the Oslo and Paris Commissions.
Located in London.
Characteristics: The objective of the Bonn Agreement is to co-operate in combating
pollution of the marine environment by oil and other harmful substances resulting
from an accident. A particular contingency plan called <<The Bonn Agreement Counter
Pollution Manual>> is adopted under the agreement together with a particularpollution report plan (POL-REP). The primary purpose of the Bonn Agreement Manualand the POL-REP is to secure extensive notification in the case of a major oil pollution
incident and that efficient international co-operation related to the clean-up operationis secured. The Manual also includes a description of each of the Contracting Parties'
domestic emergency services and available equipment.
In order to implement the Agreement, a particular Working Group is established (Bonn- OTSOPA). On annual meetings of the Working Group i.a. joint airborne surveillance
operations are discussed, the statistics on oil spills are compiled, joint exercises areplanned and new methods and technologies for recovery of oil are discussed. A Manualfor Gathering of Evidence has been developed. This is now applied by the prosecuting
authorities of all the Contracting Parties.
2. The Copenhagen Agreement:
Adopted: 16 September 1971
Contracting Parties: Sweden, Denmark, Iceland (from 1993), Finland and Norway.
Entry into force: 1971
Amended: 1993, to include marine pollution from other harmful substances than oil
Secretariat: Rotates every second year between the Contracting Parties (at present:Norway)2

Characteristics: Very similar to the Bonn Agreement. A particular Contingency Plan isadopted and exercises are arranged on a yearly basis. In addition there is a close cooperation and exchange of information related to i.a. different techniques in oil spill
combattement, the use of chemical dispersants, biological remedies, development ofequipment.
3. The Norwegian/Russian Agreement:
Adopted: 16. June 1992
Signatories: the Russian Federation and Norway
Entry into force: 1994.
Characteristics: Different from the other agreements is this a bilateral agreement.
There is no specific Secretariat. The agreement includes the adoption of a joint
contingency plan against oil pollution in the Barents sea (the Plan). The Plan gives
further instructions related to notification, exercises and other consultations. A <<Joint
Planning Group>> is established between the competent authorities for the further
development and implementation of the Agreement and the Plan. Through regularmeetings and exercises it is the task of the Group to maintain, co-ordinate and develop
further the procedures, notification systems, resources and the co-operation. Theauthorities represented in the Group are the Russian Marine Pollution ControlAuthority (MSPCA) which is subordinate to the Russian Ministry of Transport and theNorwegian Pollution Control Authority, subordinate to the Ministry of theEnvironment.
III. Common features:
The agreements contain some common features. The following will give a description
and a brief evaluation of these features.
1. Objective:
The general objective of all the agreements is to guarantee and facilitate assistancebetween the Contracting Parties in the case of a major oil spill. To this end theagreements require co-operation between the competent authorities of the Contracting
Parties in the development of joint contingency plans, exchange of information etc. The
general objective is most explicitly spelled out in the Bonn Agreement where in thepreamble it is stated that the Governments are <<Convinced that an ability to combat
such (oil) pollution as well as active cooperation and mutual assistance among States
are necessary for the protection of their coasts and related interests>>.

3

2. Commitments:
The Contracting Parties accept a number of commitments laid down in the agreements.
The main commitments are the following:a.) to develop and maintain a national system:
Certainly a Party cannot solely base its contingency system on the assistance it may getfrom the other Parties. This may be seen as self-evident. Nevertheless there are laid
down specific provisions in the different agreements for this purpose. The Copenhagen
Agreement states specifically in art.4 that the <<Contracting Parties undertake toestablish a contingency system for the combattment of major oil pollution incidents atsea>> (art. 4.a). The Bonn Agreement says in article 4 that the Contracting Parties<<undertake to inform the other parties i.a. about their national organisation for
dealing with (oil) pollution>> (art 4.a) as well as about <<their national means for
dealing with (oil) pollution, which might be made available for internationalassistance>> (art 4.c). The Norwegian /Russian Agreement also says explicitly that<<the Parties commit themselves, within their capabilities, to the development of
national systems that permit detection and prompt notification of the existence or theimminent possibility of the occurrence of oil pollution incidents, and to providing
adequate means within their power to eliminate the threat posed by such incidents andto minimise the adverse effects to the marine environment and the public health andwelfare>> (art .III).
b.) Information /notification.
Notification in the case of an accident is a basic element. For many purposes it is
crucial that proper notification is communicated to the other Contracting Parties i.a.
for them to be able to make their own evaluation of the situation and prepare forpossible assistance. This relates both to an accident which in the actual situation only
threatens the interests of the Contracting Party concerned, as well as when aContracting Party is aware of an oil spill which threatens the interests of another
Contracting Party. The Bonn Agreement says in article 6.3 that <<The Contracting
Party concerned shall immediately inform all the other Contracting Parties throughtheir competent authorities of its assessments and of any action which it has taken to
deal with the oil or other harmful substances and shall keep these substances underobservation as long as they are present in its zone>>. Art. 5.1 of the Bonn Agreement
covers the other aspect: <<Whenever a Contracting Party is aware of a casualty or thepresence of oil or other harmful substances in the North Sea area likely to constitute aserious threat to the coast or related interests of any other Contracting Party, it shallinform that Party without delay through its competent authority>>. The Copenhagen
Agreement has similar provisions in art. 4, 5 and the Norwegian/Russian Agreement
has similar provisions laid down in art. IV.

4In addition to these notification/information obligations in the case of an accident, there
are other obligations to inform the other Parties for the purpose of enhancing the cooperation. For example the Bonn Agreement says in article 4 (d) that <<ContractingParties undertake to inform the other Contracting Parties about new ways in whichsuch (oil) pollution may be avoided and about new means to deal with it>>.
c.) response/assistance
Certainly a Contracting Party will have an obligation according to all the respective
agreements to respond to any oil pollution incident within their own waters. This is
explicitly laid down in article VII of the Norwegian/Russian agreement: <<The
competent authority of the Party in whose area of responsibility an oil pollution
incident occurs, or whose area of responsibility is affected by such an incident, shalldirect response operation within that area.>> This obligation is not directly spelled out
in the other agreements, but should be considered as built into the agreements.
Another Contacting Party's obligation to assist (see under) should be seen as limited tothe case where the Contracting Party in which area the oil spill occurs, itself has
undertaken a response operation.
The core of all the agreements is that any state may request for assistance from anyother party to the agreement. It is an obligation for the state(s) which receives such arequest to render assistance. The relevant article within the Bonn Agreement (art 7)
contains both these elements: << A Contracting Party requiring assistance to deal with
pollution or the prospective presence of pollution at sea or on its coast may call on thehelp of the other Contracting Parties. Contracting Parties requesting assistance shallspecify the kind of assistance they require. The Contracting Parties called upon for help
in accordance with this article shall use their best endeavours to bring such assistanceas is within their power taking into account, particularly in the case of pollution byharmful substances other than oil, the technological means available to them>>. Suchassistance has been requested according to the Bonn Agreement, for instance in the Sea
Empress incident where France and the Netherlands assisted the United Kingdom.
The Copenhagen Agreement has the same rights and obligations laid down in article 3.
Regarding the call for assistance it, however, includes a specific provision that: <<........
a request (for assistance) shall first be directed towards that state which also can beexpected to be affected by the oil.>> This has to be seen in light of a particulardifference between the Bonn Agreement and the Copenhagen Agreement. The Bonn
Agreement includes only Contracting Parties that shares the same body of water while
this is not the case for the Copenhagen Agreement. In the case of the Copenhagen
Agreement it may be considered acceptable that for instance Finland may refuse toassist Norway if an oil spill in Norwegian waters also threatens to affect Sweden, if
Norway has not first requested assistance from Sweden. Also under the Bonn
Agreement in most cases a request will be directed to another state which also can beaffected from the oil. However, other Contracting Parties cannot refuse to assist eventhis is not the case. The main benefit will be that this avoids any discussion between
the Contracting Parties regarding to whom a request for assistance shall be directed.

5In the Norwegian/Russian Agreement this is certainly not a crucial element because it
has only two parties. On the other hand that agreement contains some more specificelements related to the assistance. For instance in article X it says that <<Requests forassistance by telephone shall be confirmed by telefax, telegraph of facsimile>>. The
reason for such a clause in the agreement itself is mainly because of the potential
language problems between the Parties.
d.) Joint exercises
An important element in order to implement the Agreements and facilitate joint
operations is the obligation to undertake joint exercises. Most explicitly is this laid
down in art. XII of the Norwegian/Russian agreement which says that <<The Parties
shall periodically conduct joint oil pollution response exercises and meetings inaccordance with the provisions of the Plan.>> There are no specific requirements to thisextent in the Bonn Agreement and the Copenhagen Agreement. However, joint
exercises are undertaken on a yearly basis under both agreements and is an importantelement of the co-operation. Therefore there are good reasons to consider this as a
general obligation laid down also within these agreements.
e.) Reimbursement of costs.
An oil spill operation is certainly also costly in terms of economy. There are specificregulations contained in the agreements related to the reimbursement of costs inrelation to a clean-up operation. This is in most detail laid down in the Bonn Agreement.
In art. 9,1 it states that the general rule in the absence of any particular agreement isthat <<Contracting Parties shall bear the costs of their respective actions)). However it
continues that <<if the action was taken by one Contracting Party at the express
request of another Contracting Party, the Contracting Party requesting such assistanceshall reimburse to the assisting Contracting Party the costs of its action (art.9, I a). It
follows further that <<if the action was taken by a Contracting Party on its own
initiative, this Contracting Party shall bear the costs of its action>> (art. 9,1 b) . In art.
10 the Agreement regulates that the costs shall be calculated <<according to the lawand current practise in the assisting country>>. In art. 11 there is a particularprovision that <<Article 9 of this Agreement shall not be interpreted as in any way
prejudicing the rights of Contracting Parties to recover from third parties the costs ofaction to deal with pollution or the threat of pollution under other applicable provisions
and rules of national and international law.>> Such rights follows from i.a. theInternational Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage of 1969 (CLC) andthe International Convention of the Establishment of an International Fund forCompensation for Oil Pollution Damage of 1971 (the Fund Convention). These
provisions may seem rather complicated, but in practise it has not been any problems
between the Contracting Parties related to the costs.
The same principles are laid down in the Norwegian/Russian Agreement. It says in art
XIV that <<The requesting Party shall reimburse the assisting Party for expenses
associated with response resources. The amount shall be reimbursed in accordancewith the rates and currency determined by the assisting Party>>.

6

3. Geographical coverage
The Bonn Agreement and the Norwegian/Russian agreement contain explicitly certain
limitations with regard to the geographical coverage.
Firstly, the two agreements applies only to a limited geographical area. The BonnAgreement applies to the North Sea as defined in art. 2 of the Agreement. TheNorwegian/Russian Agreement is limited to what is called the <<area ofresponsibility>> which in Art. 2 for a Party is defined as <<the waters within theBarents Sea which are the respective Party's internal waters or territorial sea, and thesea area beyond the territorial sea in which that Party exercises its sovereign rights
and jurisdiction in accordance with international law.>>
Further there are also geographical limitations with regard to where each Contracting
Party is considered to have the primary responsibility related to i.a. the obligations torespond to an oil pollution incident and call upon assistance from the other Parties. For
this purpose the Bonn Agreement as laid down in art. 6 divides the North Sea into
specific zones. These zones are defined in the Annex to the Agreement. It is theresponsibility for the respective Contracting Party within whose zone a major oil spill
occurs, to take the necessary steps in accordance with the obligations described above.
In addition to such national zones of responsibility there are for the same purposes
zones of joint responsibility which <<shall be the subject of special technicalarrangements to be concluded between the Parties concerned. These arrangements
shall be communicated to the other Contracting Parties>> (art. 6,4). It must beemphasised that these zones are established solely for the purpose of this Agreement.
The Copenhagen Agreement does not contain any specific limitation regarding
geographical coverage. The main reason is, as mentioned above, that the Contracting
Parties does not share the same body of water. It is not considered to raise any practicaldifficulties in each incident to agree which Contracting Party who has the primary
responsibility. However, Norway and Sweden have a particular agreement regarding
the responsibility in parts of the Oslo fjord where there is a shared body of water.
IV Evaluation and Conclusion
The obvious benefit of an agreement such as those discussed in this paper, is the accessto additional resources in the case of a major oil spill incident. For instance, throughthe co-operation information on a detailed level is developed regarding such as whatkind of recovery booms, offshore and inshore booms, recovery skimmers, heavy oil
recovery systems and pumps that are available from other Contracting Parties if amajor incident should occur. This will save important time in the course of an oil spillrecovery operation. Equally important are the joint exercises and the regular contactthat takes place between the Contracting Parties to discuss common problems andexchange information. The benefit of knowing each other will to a great extent
facilitate any joint operation.
In this manner, the joint activities and co-operation that the agreements entails, ismaybe more important than the specific legal content of the agreements. However,because of this outcome, it may be possible to conclude that the agreements does fulfil
their objective.

7

At the same time the analysis in this paper shows that the three agreements to a large
extent contains the same features and lay down similar rights and obligations. This is
no surprise regarding the Bonn Agreement and the Copenhagen Agreement where thefirst has been the main model for the latter. With regard to the Norwegian/Russian
Agreement, the models have in addition been similar agreements between Russia /USAand Russia/Canada. Because of their similarities and because of their ability to serve
their objectives, a conclusion may be that they could serve as models for the negotiationof international agreements and co-operation regarding oil spill combattment also inother sea areas.

8