The Erika Case

The “Erika case” deals with the Oil Companies International Maritime Forum (OCIMF) and its lobbying of planned legislation to increase maritime safety arising from the accident of the tanker Erika in 1999.

OCIMF’s lobbying targeted two proposals: the fast phasing-out of single hull tankers, which would have led to a potential shortage of ships for hire, and the planned establishment of a European compensation fund complementary to an already existing American one – which would have caused additional costs to the oil industry. In this case, influence is assessed under the condition of a high degree of conflict between the examined private actors and public actors, and interests that touch upon core political intentions of decision-makers.

Degree of conflict

In the Erika case, the degree of conflict between OCIMF and the involved decision-makers was high. The Erika accident posed a particular problem for the responsible DG TREN (Transport and Energy) of the European Commission, because it was working hard on promoting sea transport due to the overuse of rail, road and air transport (Commission of the European Communities 2001f: 13).

DG TREN had just launched a White Paper in which it announced the promotion of increased levels of maritime transport, due to an overuse of other modes of transport (Commission of the European Communities 2001b). The Erika accident threatened to have a counterproductive effect on these efforts and therefore necessitated the taking of a fast and tough stance on maritime pollution and quick measures. The accident thus resulted in a strong political will at the level of the European institutions to design a legislative framework ensuring maritime safety. The most affected OCIMF member – TotalfinaElf, whose oil had been on the tanker – tried to shape the French government’s as well as the French public’s opinion by cleaning beaches and speaking to public authorities and members of parliament.

However, the