Very often, they are not even the last. But, ever so quietly, a phenomenon has grown up around bunker spill liability. While there are special conventions and liability regimes, and even stricter liability insurance limits, for oil cargoes carried on tankers, there is nothing specifically for bunkers. No liability regime, no cap on insurance and no requirement to be insured in the first place. The reason is that, until recently, ships carried comparatively small amounts of bunkers compared to the quantity of oil carried as cargo, and the big spills were all from tankers.
Big spills make big headlines, which is one step on the road to big conventions.
Bunkers, meanwhile, are responsible for only a small number of spills, damage and payouts, so shipping has tended to ignore the issue of liability. Shipowners and their underwriters have always maintained that there is no evidence of any need for a special bunker spill regime. But the draft was the subject of three meetings last year, and has since acquired a momentum of its own which will keep it alive for some time. IMO's Legal Committee seems to be divided on the issue. Those who want the convention point out that IMO's Environmental Protection Committee has already identified the need for an international instrument to regulate bunker spill compensation.