Singapore Drawn Into Growing International Controversy Surrounding Mauritius Oil Spill

As fears mount over the toxic experimental ‘Frankenstein fuel’ that could have leaked into the coral lagoons of Mauritius from a large Japanese bulk carrier 12 weeks ago, fresh questions are being raised about the role of Singapore in the oil spill.

That was the last location that the Wakashio had refueled before crashing into the coral reefs of Mauritius.

Singapore is the world’s premier hub for fueling ships and relies on strong regulations and enforcement to maintain this reputation and position.  Just  6 countries dominate 60% of the ship fueling industry around the world, with Singapore alone supplying 20% of the global market. This is a business worth tens of billions of dollars a year to the Singaporean economy.

Satellite analysis today reveals the last occasions and locations that the Wakashio was refueled. Both were in the Port of Singapore, on June 1 and 2, and then July 13 and 14, and both fuel stops are relevant for the oil spill inquiry taking place in Mauritius.

‘Oil unlike anything we’ve ever seen spilled before’

The involvement of Singapore is particularly relevant given the findings from the first detailed analysis of the oil from the Mauritius spill, which was completed last week.  Last Friday, a team of international scientists revealed the results. They found that the oil contained chemicals that were “unusual,” “complex,” and “surprising.”

Chris Reddy, one of the world’s leading scientists who studies oil spills in marine environments, runs a specialist laboratory at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute in the US that conducts the ‘gold standard’ of oil fingerprinting, (a process called GC-GC). In describing the findings from his research last week, he said, “It’s unlike anything we’ve seen spilled before—that alone demands a closer look.” The joint team of scientists from the US and Australia then called for fresher samples to be given to them for further analysis, as they had so far been relying on samples that had been ten days old in the water from August 16.

This means that that oil samples that would have been retained by authorities in Singapore for bunker fuel testing control reasons will be crucial to understand the impact on the health of people affected and the local environment. The oil spill occurred in a densely populated town of Mauritius called Mahebourg and also poured into a network of important nature reserves containing many endangered species only found in that location.

Under international IMO law covering ship fuels (called bunker fuels), Singapore’s regulations, as well as the usual business operations of the major ship fuelers and oil majors in Singapore, samples of the oil should still be held in Singapore.

Knowing this, an important question needs to be asked - why has Singapore not been asked to support the efforts in Mauritius to fingerprint the oil until now?

Singapore is the one country that has not been mentioned in any of the official update reports on the fingerprinting of the oil, and yet was known as the last place the Wakashio refueled, as highlighted in a Forbes article on August 9.

Scientists’ troubling findings about Wakashio fuel

To date, scientists from four Governments around the world have been trying to understand the risks posed by the oil leaked in Mauritius. This excludes the role of Japanese scientists, none of whom have made any public statement about the nature of the hazard of the oil despite having the largest presence in Mauritius by far. 

This has raised questions both about the motivations and capabilities of the teams being sent by Japan to Mauritius.

Australia

On September 30, the Mauritian Government revealed that the Australian Government (the Australian Maritime Safety Authority or AMSA) were supporting the analysis of the oil spilled in Mauritius’ lagoons. 

The Mauritian Government say they are still waiting for the final report from AMSA.

France

The French Government have had a controversial role in Mauritius. Senior French ministers and officials had met with Mauritian officials just prior to the decision to sink the front section of the Wakashio.

Based on what was in the Wakashio, the location of the sinking now poses a threat to the French (and EU) territory of Reunion Island.  French Minister for Outer Island Territories, Sebastien Lecornu, brought several French experts with him to Mauritius on August 16. A team of these experts were from French water pollution agency, Cedre, who are believed to have conducted some form of preliminary testing of the oil.

Cedre is a non-profit organization, funded with a budget of $5 million a year by public funds from France. It was established in 1979 in response to the Amoco Cadiz Oil Spill that was the worst oil spill in the world at the time, impacting over 350 km of France’s coastline.

Last week, Cedre also called for more samples, amid growing concerns about what was in the oil.

United States

The world’s most advanced institute for oil fingerprinting is in the United States at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. Chris Reddy and Rob Nelson, conducted fingerprinting and released the results last week. In these results, they noted the ‘surprising’ and ‘highly unusual’ traits in the oil that had ‘never been seen in a major oil spill before.’ They then go on to mention that they were only handed a 10-day old sample of oil that had been in the water this long before being collected by Rivieres des Creoles.  

The analysis had been conducted in collaboration with three senior Australian Scientists, Professor Kliti Grice, Associate Professor Monique Gagnon and Alan Scarlett, Director of the Western Australian Organic Isotope Geochemistry Centre (WA-OIGC) and Curtin University in Perth, Australia, respectively.

The two teams used comprehensive two-dimensional gas chromatography (GC×GC), complemented by compound-specific isotope analyses to identify compounds specific to spilled oils. The analyses performed by the two laboratories provide some of the most highly advanced analytical services and scientific support to oil spill responders.

To refine their analysis, the scientists needed samples collected from earlier in the leak, including samples that had not touched the ocean. They have now had to make an appeal to the public for such oil samples, implying that the Japanese scientists, Mauritian Authorities, IMO and ITOPF have not been collaborating in full transparency.

It is not clear why the Government of Mauritius or international organizations (such as the various Japanese scientists, IMO, or ITOPF) had not provided these samples for further analysis, as the location of the oil collected from the Wakashio had already been revealed in Port Louis, and also Singapore should still be holding the fresh samples the Woods Hole team referred to.

United Kingdom

On October 8, the British Government scientists who were on the scene shared an overview of their involvement with the oil spill response in Mauritius. 

Forbes contacted Cefas to ask directly whether Cefas had approached Government of Singapore for samples. On October 13, a spokesperson responded cryptically with “Cefas are working with our partners in Mauritius, focusing our contribution on the long term monitoring plan to assess, report and aid recovery from the oil spill. Mauritian agencies and other international partners continue to work together on other aspects of the recovery.” 

These ‘other aspects’ could refer to the oil fingerprinting, implying that Cefas were not given samples from which to conduct oil fingerprinting analysis as an independent party to the oil spill. Nor does it seem that they had made contact with their Government counterparts in Singapore. It was unclear which ‘other international partners’ Cefas was referring to who were assisting Mauritius to understand the content of the oil. It is important to note the choice of words of ‘international partners’ and not ‘Governments,’ despite multiple Governments having publicly offered Mauritius with assistance on how to respond to a major oil spill.

Who were the ‘international partners’?

So, this means that scientists and Government agencies from the world’s leading oil spill analysis laboratories in the United States, France, the United Kingdom and Australia have all highlighted how unusual the oil spilled in Mauritius is – a type they have never seen before. They also remark how important it is that they obtain samples that were fresher.

And yet, these samples have not been provided. This is not normal. At all.

Especially when two of the most prominent international organizations that handle oil spills - the UN’s IMO and ITOPF - were sent to Mauritius precisely to co-ordinate the oil spill response. This is the most foundational part of an response to a major oil spill (akin to a surgeon assessing the blood type of a patient prior to surgery), and ITOPF practically wrote the guide on oil fingerprinting.

Of all the oil spills that could have occurred, what are the odds that these two organizations (IMO and ITOPF) got their response so badly wrong to the one oil spill where scientists are saying they have never seen an oil like this before?

It has been over 100 days since the oil spill. Why was this information not disclosed earlier in Mauritius?

Satellite analysis points finger at Singapore

Satellite analysis conducted by global maritime analytics firm, Windward, can reveal the last two occasions that the Wakashio was refueled. This satellite analysis reveals exclusively for this article in Forbes the vessels that supplied the oil and where this oil came from.

Both refueling stops occurred within the boundaries of the Port of Singapore.

June 1-2 refueling: The ‘Perl’

The first occurred on June 1 – 2. It took place in a section of the port known as ‘AEBA’ on the far East of Singapore, bordering Indonesia and Malaysia.

The vessel that performed the refueling was called the Perl, and is a Singapore registered vessel, which can clearly be seen alongside the Wakashio during the dates of the refueling.

July 13-14 refueling: The ‘Pearl Mimosa’

The second time the Wakashio returned to Singapore was on July 13-14.  It is unclear how much fuel was put in during this second refueling stop. However, given that the the Wakashio was being filled for the long three month journey to and from Brazil, it was likely that this refueling stop would have filled the vessels’ tanks, given that the shipowners reported 3800 tons of oil being on board the Capesize bulk tanker 12 days onwards from the Singapore fuel stop.

Fuel for a ship’s operations can be as high as 75% of the cost of operating a vessel, and a bulk carrier the size of the Wakashio (a Capesize) would be consuming between 50 and 100 tons a day. 

The vessel that refueled the Wakashio on this occasion was the Pearl Mimosa. The Pearl Mimosa was again, a Singapore-registered refueling vessel. Satellite imagery shows the two vessels side by side.

It also shows the Pearl Mimosa (and earlier the Perl), travelling to the Petrochemical Island on the Singapore island of Sebarok, which was been built up as a multi-billion dollar specialized petrochemical hub focused on ship fuel oil.

The location of the refueling was within the Port boundaries of Singapore. This means that the refueling operations would have been subject to the strict Port of Singapore laws. The Port of Singapore has 45 suppliers of ship fuel oil registered with it, and has strict guidelines about the quality of the oil (called bunker fuel). Suppliers of ship fuels in Singapore must own and operate at least two bunker tankers capable of running on duel-fuels in a push by Singapore to promote the use of cleaner marine fuels.

These strict guidelines also mean that if an oil is subject to investigation (as the Wakashio’s is), then samples from these last two fueling stops should be kept aside.

In response to Forbes on October 13, a spokesperson from the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA) highlighted the detailed protocols that Singapore has in place to ensure compliance with its strict regulations.

“All bunker suppliers and bunker craft operators delivering bunkers in the Port of Singapore are licensed by the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA). The licensing criteria requires compliance with SS 648 and SS 600. Under SS 648, all bunker tankers are required to deliver bunkers to ocean-going ships via a mass flow meter (MFM). The standard also stipulates that regular checks be conducted on the MFMs to ensure that they are functioning properly. MPA will either have officers present to oversee these verifications or require the test reports to be submitted.”

The sophistication of the Singapore operation can be seen of a video taken of the Sebarok petrochemical island complex where the fuel from the Wakashio originated from.

“SS 648 also includes a provision for bunker buyers to lodge quality and quantity disputes.” The spokesperson then goes on to describe the process for how Singapore handles such investigations.

“MPA investigates all such complaints it receives and takes actions against errant suppliers if required. In addition, MPA carries out monthly quality tests on the bunkers supplied in the Port of Singapore to ensure that the quality of bunkers are in compliance with ISO 8217 requirements. Samples of bunkers supplied by bunker tankers are randomly collected by MPA and sent for independent tests to ensure the quality of bunkers in the Port of Singapore.”

So it is clear that it is not too late for Singapore to act. Unless there are reasons why Singapore would not wish to support the investigation in Mauritius.

Growing maritime piracy around Singapore

While Singapore has strong fueling and sampling protocols, the growing piracy around its port, surrounded by both Malaysia and Indonesia, pose a particular hazard to ship traffic.

This means that if the Wakashio been sailing with a skeleton crew (it only had 20 crew of the permitted 24 for a bulk carrier this size and age), then questions needs to be asked about Singapore’ inspection regime.

If it also turns out that the Wakashio had additional particular vulnerabilities (e.g., risk to hacking of the electronic navigation systems, risk of engine failure, vessel communication systems being out of order) or other violations, why did Singapore not flag these as issues when the vessel were in the port. Was Singapore conducting independent inspections on board vessels, or relying on self-assessments by crew?

With bulk carriers being particularly at risk of being boarded during piracy events (of the 16 vessels that were boarded last year in piracy incidents, 8 were bulk carriers and 5 were oil tankers, including one oil supertanker), there needed to have been tighter maritime security protocols between Singapore, Mauritius, private shipping lines and maritime security firms.

Who knew what?

This is now raises additional questions about the conduct of four actors who are all present on the ground in Mauritius: the IMO, ITOPF, Japan P&I Club and Mitsui OSK Lines (MOL).

The IMO

The IMO was brought to Mauritius under an IMO Agreement for Oil Spills called the OPRC 90. This means they were responsible for coordinating the international aspects of the oil spill, and promptly assumed that position in Mauritius with their representative visibly positioning the organization as lead coordinator in meetings across the country and among  local media. Serious shortcomings have already been identified with the IMO’s response in Mauritius. However, no senior member of the IMO has appeared on the record to answer or be held accountable for this conduct (if anything, the IMO issued a statement saying an entire team was supporting their representative on the ground). 

There has been no statement about how much the cost of the IMO mission to Mauritius was, and who paid for this. But this is only the tip of the iceberg of the irreparable damage that IMO involvement may have had in Mauritius.

Multiple requests to the IMO about their handling of the oil spill response have gone unanswered to (other questions were responded to), raising even more questions about the lack of transparency of this United Nations Agency, and attracting the ire of leading figures within Mauritius who have directly questioned the independence of the IMO. 

Angry former President of Mauritius

Appearing on BBC News on September 17, former President of Mauritius and internationally renown biodiversity scientist, Dr Ameenah Gurib-Fakim who led Mauritius’ work at the 2015 Paris Agreement, called for greater accountability from the IMO.

“We heard from the representatives of the IMO that Mauritius should not be receiving too many independent scientists as it would overwhelm the country. Come on!  

We need the Wakashio investigation to be backed by independent science, we need the best brains in this field to come forward to help us, and also, we were very disappointed by the statements made by the representative of the IMO.  

One of the statements he made was that if there was anyone who would suffer from cancer it would be him, as he had been exposed to Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) for thirty years. This is completely out of place. We were shocked by this!”

The IMO has relations with all countries around the world, including Singapore. Singapore was elected for a fourteenth consecutive two-year term on the powerful IMO Council. Why weren’t calls made to Singapore to ask for collaboration over the oil samples, if this truly such an unusual batch of oil?

The IMO representative knew this was an unusual oil. See remarks just before 2 minutes in this video (link below) that was broadcast to the national media in Mauritius.

As this is still a very live issue (the Woods Hole and Curtin University report was only made public on Friday), has the IMO made those calls yet to Singapore? It is not too late for Singapore to support Mauritius in its investigation, and the IMO confirmed to Forbes that it is still offering Mauritius assistance with the oil spill.

Detailed IMO guidance on how to collect oil samples

On October 12, a spokesperson from the IMO finally admitted that the IMO are deeply involved with the regulation of fuel samples for ship oil.

The spokesperson pointed to the three specific laws that the IMO Environment Committee (that regulates ship fuels) had voted on, and is relevant for the Wakashio inquiry:

• 9 November 2018: a 14-page detailed document about how to take ship oil samples that was voted on by the powerful Environment committee of the IMO, entitled ‘Guidance on Best Practice For Fuel Oil Suppliers For Assuring the Quality of Fuel Oil Delivered To Ships.’ The document name is MEPC 1/Circ 875.
• 16 July 2019: Oil sampling points became mandatory and was introduced as IMO law by the IMO’s Environment Committee, under Marpol Annex VI (an international law on ship emissions pollution). The 8 page law was approved on 16 July 2019, amended Marpol Annex VI regulations 18.8.2 and 14.8, and was called MEPC 1/Circ 882.
• 17 July 2009: The IMO introduced very specific laws on how ship bunker fuels should be labelled using tamper proof security seals, and that these sample need to be kept safely on board for at least 12 months. This is known as Resolution MEPC 182(59) and has been in force for over a decade.

What happened to these samples? These are exactly the samples that Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution would need to complete its analysis.

To understand the level of detail the IMO went to in drafting the law, here are some excerpts.

“A sample of the fuel delivered to the ship should be obtained at the receiving ship’s inlet bunker manifold and should be drawn continuously throughout the bunker delivery period. The retained sample should be of sufficient quantity to perform the tests required but should not be less than 400 ml. The container should be filled to 90% ± 5% capacity and sealed.”

The IMO’s regulations (which are international shipping law) then goes on to describe how these samples need to be stored with tamper proof security seals.

“Immediately following collection of the retained sample, a tamper proof security seal with a unique means of identification should be installed by the supplier’s representative in the presence of the ship’s representative. A label containing the following information should be secured to the retained sample container: 1. location at which, and the method by which, the sample was drawn; 2. date of commencement of delivery; 3. name of bunker tanker/bunker installation; 4. name and IMO number of the receiving ship; 5. signatures and names of the supplier’s representative and the ship’s representative; 6. details of seal identification; and 7. bunker grade. To facilitate cross-reference details of the seal, identification may also be recorded on the bunker delivery note.”

The Bunker Delivery Note is a specific type of document needed to record the sample of oil.

“These samples should still be available for analysis given the IMO’s guidelines. “Pursuant to regulation 18.8.1 of Annex VI of MARPOL 73/78, the retained sample should be retained under the ship’s control until the fuel oil is substantially consumed, but in any case for a period of not less than 12 months from the time of delivery.” The Wakashio was on Mauritius’ reefs for 21 days before the vessel split in two, and the stern still sits on the reefs. These samples should be in the possession of the Mauritian authorities somewhere.

So there are actually very detailed laws for how samples should be collected and stored, contrary to the original views of the IMO spokesperson. 

If the global UN shipping agency does not know how to respond to a major oil spill, it should not have been in Mauritius in the first place undermining the response. 

Unless there was something else that the IMO did not want exposed.

These bunker samples are likely in the possession of the Mauritian authorities. The question is why haven’t these samples been sent for analysis, given last week’s findings?

It is also important to note that both Panama and Japan hold an inordinate amount of influence over the IMO as two of only ten ‘Tier A’ countries in the IMO Council. The Wakashio was registered in Panama, and owned by large Japanese interests. Two countries who have strong vested interests in the outcome of any inquiry into the Wakashio, or the fuel used. Authorities in Panama on the ground in Mauritius have already been criticized by Mauritian opposition leaders for issuing inaccurate statements so far.

ITOPF

ITOPF (the International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation Limited) is a relic from the oil tanker age. It was set up in 1968 by oil tanker owners to limit the amount they had to pay out in the event of an oil spill by having a third party agency that could be sent out to help manage the oil spill.

However, by 1997, the London-based ITOPF was forced to morph its mission as this oil tanker agreement expired. It broadened its scope to include oil spills from all other vessels too. In the last fifty years, it has responded to over 800 incidents in 100 countries (of the 1800 oil spills that occurred over this time), including several landmark oil spill cases. Despite having this broader mandate beyond oil tankers, it is curious that ITOPF does not publish data on oil spills from bulk carriers like the Wakashio.

Today, its main funders are the large shipowners and the 13 main shipping insurance companies, that act as a cartel and have had several competition investigations launched against them by the European Commission in the last 10 years alone. 

ITOPF had already mentioned that the Japan P&I Club had requested that they support Mauritius (the press release on August 18 said, “ITOPF was mobilized at the request of Japan P&I Club”).

So ITOPF was not a neutral body in Mauritius – it was funded by the Japan P&I Club (the Wakashio’s insurer).

It is also important to note that the Japan P&I Club sits on the Board of ITOPF. This makes ITOPF an organization which has a stake in the outcome of any investigation, and whose primary interest is not for the benefit of the population or environment of Mauritius. Their Board members had very real financial outcomes riding on the findings that ITOPF itself would uncover.

And yet, ITOPF seemed to have conveniently ‘forgotten’ how to conduct oil spill fingerprinting that scientists from around the world immediately picked up on.

Questions to both the British Chief Executive, Dr Karen Purnell, and the media teams at ITOPF have not been responded to, despite the high profile nature of the Wakashio oil spill, and where specific issues with ITOPF’s response were first highlighted months ago. The conduct of such an organization in Mauritius will need to be investigated. It is unacceptable for an organization to offer to support a poorer island nation, and yet conduct themselves without the transparency demanded of them, when handling an oil spill that has now proven to be ‘unlike one ever seen before.’

With the world’s leading oil spill scientists having to rely on third party organizations from which to obtain oil samples, rather than from ITOPF directly, some serious questions need to be asked about what ITOPF knows about this oil, and why it is being so secretive about the contents.

With the frustration of international scientists seeking to help Mauritius being unable to obtain fresh samples of the oil, why didn’t ITOPF contact the suppliers in Singapore? 

What is the world not being told about this oil spill?

Japan P&I Club

The most secretive group on the ground in Mauritius has been the Japan P&I Club. They were the insurers of the Wakashio bulk carrier.

What is also notable is that even though the Wakashio was registered as a total constructive loss on July 25, the day it grounded on the reefs of Mauritius, the details of the insurance were updated on 7 August 2020. This was the day after oil started leaking from the Wakashio. 

The inception date of an insurance policy is defined as the date that an insurance coverage begins.

This raises questions about who had been insuring the vessel at the moment the vessel hit the reef in Mauritius. There will need to be some serious questions asked about the conduct of Japanese businesses as part of the full investigation.

It is also interesting to note that insurance details for the Wakashio have now been removed from several maritime databases.

This is very surprising, considering that similar details are available for vessels that were deemed total constructive losses at the same period.  For example, the sinking of the Panama-resgistered Gulf Livestock 1 on September 2 with the loss of 40 crew and 6000 live cattle.

Again, why was this information removed for the Wakashio?

The Japan P&I Club were responsible for the salvage and oil spill clean up, and yet the Wakashio was controversially sunk. What does this mean for the liability of the Japan P&I Club?

In a statement on August 25, the owners of the vessel had claimed that they had been forced to sink the vessel ‘as instructed by local authorities.’ This is a clever play on words as they do not specify which local authority instructed them to do this, nor the advice provided by the Japan P&I Club, who were responsible for financing the salvage operation. It is important to note that the Chair of the National Crisis Committee in Mauritius was the Prime Minister of Mauritius, Pravind Jugnauth.

There has been international outrage over the decision to sink the bow of the Wakashio, where Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd among other NGOs have asked whether international ship pollution laws were broken. The IMO have not responded to questions about this.

It also turns out that the elections in Mauritius are been legally contested and are subject to a major judicial review, amid widespread allegations of electoral fraud. So if it turns out that the current Prime Minister of Mauritius was not elected legitimately, questions will need to be asked about the advice and instructions given by the Japan P&I Club to the civil service of Mauritius.

In addition to the salvage operation, the Japan P&I Club funded a highly secretive cleanup operation.   This cleanup operation deliberately ignored all of Mauritius’ leading independent scientists, even though the leak occurred in an internationally protected biological hotspot, Pointe D’Esny and Blue Bay Marine Park. 

As a result this could have led to the harmful algae bloom that was seen on September 5 in Blue Bay Marine Park and subsequently on September 20 around Le Morne toward the South West of the island.

With scientists from Woods Hole calling for setbacks to be permitted to better understand the impact of the oil spill, the conduct of Japan P&I Club who funded French-based Le Floch Depollution and Dubai-based Greek company Polyeco, will now be under deep scrutiny.

All three companies do not have deep local knowledge of Mauritius, but clearly knew there was something about the oil that needed to be rapidly removed through the clean up. 

What else could explain why there was such a rush and lack of transparency with the cleanup operation, despite questions being asked very early on about this operation, and Mauritian experts neutral from Government being brushed aside.

Mitsui OSK Lines (MOL)

Mitsui OSK Lines is the world’s second largest shipping company. With the way that the ship insurance market works, it is actually ship owners (not independent insurance companies) that insure ships.

So the capital that is used largely comes from the big shipping lines. In Japan, the three biggest shipping companies are MOL, NYK Line and K Line (full names being Mitsui OSK Lines, Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha and Nippon Yusen). 

All three have formed a $3 billion a year partnership to create a new container network called ONE. This is one of the biggest container lines in the world to take on Danish shipping giant Maersk, French shipping giant CMA-CGM and the Mediterranean Shipping Company, and represents 7% of the global container market with over 250 large container ships.

It turns out that MOL has strong representation on the Board of the Japan P&I Club. It has the highest number of members as directors. Of the 22 external Board members, almost 20% (four) are senior executives from MOL.

In addition, the global CEO and President of MOL, Junichiro Ikeda, is the Deputy Chairman of the Japan P&I Club.

So how independent was the Japan P&I Club in its conduct in Mauritius? Japan P&I Club sits on the board of ITOPF. And as one of Japan’s most influential companies, MOL would have had access to the corridors of power in Tokyo. 

This becomes even more relevant as the charterer of the Wakashio was MOL.

It also turned out that MOL had also paid for the fuel in the Wakashio.

This was confirmed by a spokesperson for MOL on September 28, who said, “Providing enough fuel so a vessel has enough fuel until she can bunker next time and paying for such for time-chartered ships are included in the Charterers (vessel operator) role.”

With more and more questions being asked about the fuel used in the Wakashio, what did MOL know about the oil that was placed in the Wakashio and leaked around the lagoon of Mauritius?

Wakashio spill linked to Shipping Climate Change Talks

The gravity of the situation has serious implications for Mauritius. But the implications extend far beyond the shores of the Indian Ocean island.

The IMO are in the midst of a major set of negotiations over climate targets for ship emissions. These have gone badly off track, and has left the IMO in a position that effectively says, ‘trust us, we know what we are doing,’ with very little independent oversight

To understand how serious this is, we need to rewind back five years.  In 2015, almost 190 Governments signed up to the Paris Agreement – one of the fastest adopted set of international laws of all time.  In 2016, the IMO (a UN Agency) decided to opt out of the Paris Agreement. Under pressure from NGOs, they reluctantly agreed to a ‘voluntary’ agreement in 2018, which that they called a ‘historic agreement’ for shipping.

Yet just two weeks ago, the IMO broke this historic agreement. One of the main countries driving the breakup of this agreement was Japan – both as Chair of the Environment Committee as well as the architect of a weak set of proposals that gave an impression of meeting strict targets but was actually a weak proposal full of technical jargon (e.g., EEXI, EEDI) and with no enforcement for a decade.

The pattern of false promises by the global shipping industry as it continues to entrap workers on ships and undermine the environment is raising deeper questions about how global shipping is regulated and whether a major overhaul of the sector is needed by the G20 - and this time not led by industry insiders.

The Mauritius story serves as a warning that there are still ‘dark forces’ at play in the oil and shipping industries that appear to be willing to stop at nothing to prevent the truth from being revealed, and that they are willing to risk the human health, lives and the environment of poorer island nation populations.

So much for the new model of ethical capitalism that business leaders have loudly called for.

It is not too late for the truth to come out over the Wakashio, but as the complex web of relationships in global shipping is unveiled, it is clear such an investigation requires a professional and independent set of experts operating on the ground with the interests of Mauritius at heart.