By Claire Warrender

PROPOSALS BY the UK Government to boost the regulation of potentially hazardous ship-to-ship (STS) oil transfers in UK waters would do little to protect the Firth of Forth from any future applications from operators, it has been claimed.

The Courier can reveal that just four months after controversial plans to transfer millions of tonnes of crude oil between ships off the Fife coast were rejected, draft regulations drawn up by Westminster do not seek to ban STS operations within statutory harbour areas, such as the Forth estuary.

Rather, the preferred option to go before the Environment Minister later this year is to ban transfer operations in UK territorial seas, excluding statutory harbour areas.

Of the three options looked at by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA), none considered preventing STS oil transfers within harbour areas.

Although there would be a requirement to ensure any programme of transfer operations would not “significantly impact upon European sites” and environmental consent would have to be sought, those who campaigned vigorously against the previous application by SPT Marine Services have said the draft regulations do not go far enough.

There is particular anger that harbour authorities such as Forth Ports would still be able to approve an STS transfer application while standing to benefit financially from it.

The paper is now out for consultation and Fife Council is preparing a response as a matter of urgency.

Council solicitor Andrew Ferguson said it was disappointing that the MCA had not even considered the option of banning transfer operations within statutory harbour areas, and that the council’s views would be shared with the City of Edinburgh and East Lothian councils who also opposed the application by SPT Marine Services.

“In terms of these regulations, if they come in as drafted, applications would have to be run through the Secretary of State at Westminster to make sure he’s happy, but Forth Ports would still make the decision subject to these checks and balances and would still stand to benefit from it,” said Mr Ferguson.

Central Fife MSP Tricia Marwick, who last year took the fight against STS transfers in the Forth to the European Parliament, said she was both angry and shocked that areas such as the Firth of Forth could still be under threat.

“It appears to me that the MCA still intend there will be ship-to- ship transfers within inshore waters,” she said.

“One of the options is to put in additional conditions, but I can’t see anywhere in the document that ship-to-ship oil transfers in areas such as the Firth of Forth would be ruled out in the future.

“This is not what we were led to believe would be happening and it opens the door to Forth Ports to consider future applications to transfer oil ship-to-ship in the Firth of Forth.”

Mrs Marwick will write to the Scottish Government’s rural affairs secretary Richard Lochhead to ask if he intends to respond to the MCA’s consultation.

She added, “I am more and more convinced that these are some of the powers that need to be under the control of the Scottish Government because Westminster simply can’t be trusted.

“It is extremely disappointing and really, really worrying for the people who surround the Firth of Forth that the proposals we spent a long time fighting off could come back in some other form because there is nothing in these draft regulations to stop them.”

Campaigners argued the threat of an environmental disaster from a major spillage would far outweigh the limited economic benefits, and in a surprising move Forth Ports rejected the application at the beginning of February.

However, there were warnings that future proposals could arise and the Government was urged to introduce legislation to ensure that Forth Ports’ role as ultimate decision-maker was addressed.