Civil Judgment

Updated：2004-05-31 Views：1877 
Plaintiff: Guangdong Provincial Oceanic and Fishery Administration.??

Domicile: No. 10, Nancun Road, Guangzhou, Guangdong Province.

Legal Representative: Li Hujiang, director general.

Agent ad Litem: Xu Guangyu, lawyer from Guangdong Zongxin Law Firm.

Agent ad Litem: Zhou Chongyu, lawyer from Guangdong Zongxin Law Firm.

Defendant: Nantong-Tianshun Shipping Co., Ltd.

Domicile: No. 50, Qingnian Dong Road, Nantong, Jiangsu Province.

Legal Representative: She Peng, board chairman.

Agent ad Litem: Lin Yihua, Chen Yusheng, lawyers from Guangdong Yonghang Law Firm.

Defendant: Yangzhou-Yuyang Shipping Co.,Ltd.

Domicile: No. 32, Siwangting Road, Yangzhou, Jiangsu Province.

Legal Representative: Song Xingting, board chairman.

Agent ad Litem: Chen Xiangyong, Yuan Hui, lawyers from Wang Jing & CO. Law Firm.

Defendant: Tianjin-Kobe International Marine Shipping Co., Ltd.

Domicile: Room 2, No. 70, Xihao Road, Heping District, Tianjing.

Legal Representative: Song Xingting, board chairman.

Agent ad Litem: Chen Xiangyong, Yuan Hui, lawyers from Wang Jing & CO. Law Firm.

Defendant: China Shipowners?? P&I Association.

Domicile: Ritan Bussiness Building, No.15A, Guanghua Road, Jianguomen Wai Avenue, Beijing. 

Legal Representative: Chen Zhongbiao, board chairman.

Agent ad Litem: Chen Xiangyong, Yuan Hui, lawyers from Wang Jing & CO. Law Firm.



     The Plaintiff, Guangdong Provincial Oceanic and Fishery Administration, brought up a complain to this court in July 2nd, 2001, on a dispute over compensation fund for oil pollution damage, versusing Nantong-Tianshun Shipping Co.,Ltd (hereinafter referred to as Tianshun Co.), Yangzhou-Yuyang Shipping Co.,Ltd (hereinafter referred to as Yuyang Co.), Tianjin-Kobe International Marine Shipping Co., Ltd (hereinafter referred to as Kobe Co.) and China Shipowners?? P&I Association. This court set up a collegiate bench in accordance with law and calls together the parties to exchange evidences in the court on September 26. On September 27, pretrial conference was convoked and the cases was tried openly. The following persons presented themselves on the court: Xu Guangyu and Zhou Chongyu, the agents ad litem of the plaintiff, Lin Yihua, the agent ad litem of the defendant Tianshun Co., and Chen Xiangyong and Yuan Hui, the agents ad litem of the defendants Kobe Co., Yuyang Co. and China Shipowners?? P&I Association. On October 31, 2001, this court ruled for suspending the action in accordance with law, on the reason that the trial of this case had to consider the judgment (2001) GMF No. 109 and the judgment (2001) GMF No.163 on damage compensation of ship collision Tianshun Co., Kobe Co. and Yuyang Co., which had not reached a conclusion at that time. Guangdong Supreme People??s Court ruled Tianshun Co. of voluntary withdrawing the appeal on September 19, 2002, on the reason that Tianshun Co., took exception to the Civil Judgment (Ref. 2001 GMF No. 109) and the Civil Judgment (Ref. 2001 GMF No. 163) rendered by this court, lodged an appeal but did not pay the acceptance fee in advance according to prescribed time-limit. This court resumed the trail of this case in accordance with the reason discontinuing the action has been removed for the Civil Judgment (Ref. 2001 GMF No. 109) and the Civil Judgment (Ref. 2001 GMF No. 163) have taken effect. Cross-examination has been called on December 9, 2002 and May 19, 2003, on evidences supplied by the parties, evidences obtained by this court and relevant conclusions of judicial expertise.

The plaintiff Guangdong Provincial Oceanic and Fishery Administration states: ship ?°Tongtianshun?± belonging to Tianshun Co. has collided with ship ?°TianShen?± belonging to Kobe Co. at the sea area near Jing Hai, east of Guangdong. By the collision, Tongtianshun ran ground and sank and the oil carried by the ship leaked into the sea, which was grievously polluted the alongshore-sea area from Jing Hai to Shen Quan and from Jing Hai to Jia Zi. In this accident the direct economical loss on nature aquatic products is RMB3,307,300, the economical loss on nature resource of fishery is RMB9,992,190 and the survey fee of losses paid by the plaintiff in the accident is RMB427,600, totally RMB13,656,800. Ship ?°TianShen?± is operated and managed by the defendant Yuyang Co. and the defendant China Shipowners?? P&I Association is the insurer of compensation liability for oil pollution damage made by ?°TianShen?±. The plaintiff asks this court to order the four defendants to compensate, jointly and severally, the plaintiff RMB13,656,800, plus interests (calculating from June 21st, 2001 to the actual paying day on the lending rate of the People??s Bank of China on the corresponding period), and the acceptance fee of this case.  

Within the period of adducing evidences, the plaintiff provides the following evidences: 1. Survey Report on Loss of Fishery Resource Caused by Oil Leaking from ?°Tongtianshun?±(hereinafter referred to as the Survey Report on Loss of Fishery) and its exhibits wrote by Guangdong Provincial Oceanic and Fishery Environmental Monitoring Center (hereinafter referred to as the Monitoring Center); 2. Photos of the polluted sea area; 3. Information of wind farm and weather; 4. Receipts of the survey fee; 5. 10 pieces of Work Qualification of Pollution Survey; 6. Follow Report on Monitoring Loss of Nature Fishery Resource Caused by The Accident of Oil Leaking from ?°Tongtianshun?± (hereinafter referred to as the Follow Report on Monitoring Loss of Fishery) wrote by the Monitoring Center; 7. Annual Report Form for Monitoring & Counting The Fishery Resources in The North Fishery Yard of South Sea in Year 2001; and 8. Annual Report Form for Monitoring & Counting The Fishery Resources on The North Fishery Yard of South Sea in Year 2002. 

    The defendant Tianshun Co. defends: the plaintiff is not the proper subject. As a state administration department, the plaintiff has no right to claim the civil compensation of oil pollution damage. After the collision happened between ?°Tongtianshun?± and ?°TianShen?± in Shantou sea area, ?°Tongtianshun?± beached and sank and Tianshun Co. took effective means for antipollution, including blocking pipes under water, pumping oil and laying antipollution rails, all at once. Thus, actually, the oil pollution accident did not happen. The middle and long-term loss claimed by the plaintiff has not the loss happened yet. On the reason that the plaintiff has not suffered any loss, its claim has not fact basis and its claim on Tianshun Co., bearing the joint and several liability of oil pollution damage, has no law basis either. Therefore, the defendant asks the court to dismiss the plaintiff??s claim on the defendant Tianshun Co. 

Within the period of adducing evidences, the defendant Tianshun Co. provides the following evidences: 1.The copy of Maritime Affairs Report; 2. The Searching and Blocking Report; 3.The Agreement of Pollution-Clean and The Agreement of Pumping Oil, 4.The Scheme of Pumping oil and The Complete Report of Pumping oil, 5.The photos of the scene of the accident, 6. The Survey Report of The Collision Accident wrote by Shantou Maritime Safety Administration.

The defendant Yuyang Co. defends: the plaintiff has no right to claim for the compensation on fishery resource of the State. After the collision, ?°Tongtianshun?± wrongly choose the beaching site, causing the ship sank on the rocks during beaching. The sailors did not block the pipes on the oil cabin before the derelict, thus the collision accident is not the direct reason causing oil leaking from ?°Tongtianshun?±. Suppose the ship leaked oil, wrongly beaching should be the direct reason causing oil pollution, not ship collision. The doctrine of no-fault liability applies in the compensation of pollution damage of sea environment and the subject bearing the liability is the person directly liable on causing the pollution damage. The shipowner of ?°TianShun?±, the ship did not leak oil, is not the subject of legal relation of environment pollution in this case and should not bear the liability of oil pollution. Thus, no effective evidences can proof the pollution loss nether law basis for the plaintiff asking Yuyang Co. to bear the joint and several liability on oil pollution damage. The defendant asks this court to dismiss the plaintiff??s claim on the defendant Yuyang Co.

Within the period of adducing evidences, the defendant Yuyang Co. provides the following evidences:1. Copy of Certificate of Registry of ?°TianShen?±; 2. Copy of Maritime Traffic Accident Report of ?°TianShen?±; 3. Copy of Survey Report of ?°TianShen?±; 4. Evaluation Suggestion on Survey Report of Fishery Loss written by expertise He Ruiqiang (hereinafter referred to as the Evaluation Suggestion by He Ruiqiang); 5. Communique of Marine Environmental Quality of Guangdong Province in 2001 issued by the plaintiff in April 1, 2002; and 6. Introduction of units directly under the plaintiff and the Monitoring Center which is published on the website of the plaintiff.  

The defendant Kobe Co. defends: Kobe Co. is the registered shipowner of ?°TianShen?±. At the time the collision happened, Kobe Co. had already chartered ?°TianShun?± as a bareboat to Yuyang Co. to operate. During the bareboat charting period, the leaseholder is the occupier and the user of the bareboat. The captain and crew on the ship shall be allocated by the leaseholder and operation of shipping and safety management shall be under care of the leaseholder. Kobe Co. does not bear any liability. The defendant asks this court to dismiss the plaintiff??s claim to Kobe Co.. 

Within the period of adducing evidences, the defendant Kobe Co. provides the following evidences: 1. Copy of Certificate of Shipowner of ?°TianShen?±; 2. Bareboat Charter Party of ?°TianShen?±; 3. Evaluation Suggestion by He Ruiqiang; 4. Communique of Marine Environmental Quality of Guangdong Province in 2001 issued by the plaintiff in April 1, 2002; and 5. Introduction of units directly under the plaintiff and the Monitoring Center which is published on the website of the plaintiff.

The defendant China Shipowners?? P&I Association defends: China Shipowners?? P&I Association is the insurer of oil pollution liability of ?°TianShen?±, but not ?°Tongtianshun?±. In order to prevent ?°TianShen?± from being detained, China Shipowners?? P&I Association has already offered the guarantee of RMB4million to the plaintiff. The shipowner of ?°TianShen?±, the ship did not leak oil, is not the person liable to the oil pollution damage. Moreover, the conditions for China Shipowners?? P&I Association fulfilling the guarantee liability have not been achieved yet till the oil pollution liability being confirmed. On the reason that there is nor fact basis neither law basis for the plaintiff??s claim to China Shipowners?? P&I Association, the defendant asks the court to dismiss the plaintiff??s claim. 

Within the period of adducing evidences, the defendant China Shipowners?? P&I Association provides the following evidences: 1. Copy of Ship Initiation Certificate; 2. Copy of Guarantee Correspondent; 3. Evaluation Suggestion by He Ruiqiang; 4. Communique of Marine Environmental Quality of Guangdong Province in 2001 issued by the plaintiff in April 1, 2002; and 5. Introduction of units directly under the plaintiff and the Monitoring Center which is published on the website of the plaintiff.

During the litigation, being applied by the defendant Tianshun Co., this court transfers documents of oil pollution accident of ?°Tongtianshun?± investigated by Shantou Maritime Safety Administration, including: 1. Reconnaissance Report of The Scene of Ship Pollution Accident; 2. Report of Ship Pollution; 3. Report of Eyewitnesses of The Pollution; 3. Report of Witnesses; 4. Five copies of Record of Inspect and Inquiries, etc. On January 10, 2003, this court entrusted Guangdong Huanan Maritime Center of Judicial Expertise to examine and analyze the Survey Report of Fishery Loss by the Monitoring Center. After the analysis, Guangdong Huanan Maritime Center of Judicial Expertise provided Judicial Expertise Analysis Report of Documentary Evidences and exhibits to this court. This court transfers the evidences referred in the Civil Judgment (Ref. 2001 GMF No. 109) and the Civil Judgment (Ref. 2001 GMF No. 163), which are relevant to this case. 

By cross-examining, except the Copy of Certificate of Ship Owner of ?°TianShen?±, Copy of Certificate of Registry of ?°TianShen?± provided by the defendant Kobe Co. and the defendant Tianshun Co. and the Copy of Ship Initiation Certificate and the Copy of Guarantee Correspondent provided by China Shipowners?? P&I Association, the plaintiff has objections to the other evidences provided by the four defendants. The four defendants have no objection to the evidences provided by each one; however have objections to all the evidences provided by the plaintiff. The plaintiff does not approve the evidences transferred by this court and Judicial Expertise Analysis Report of Documentary Evidences and exhibits, however the four defendants approve the said evidences.  

Because the accident photos which were offered by the plaintiff and the defendant Tianshun Co. cannot reflect the pollution quantize degree of the relevant sea area and the whole situation in an all-round way, the collegiate bench does not hold the photos can be regarded as the basis to get a verdict alone in this case. The collegiate bench confirms the effect of the four evidences without demur by the above-mentioned parties, and the evidence 2 and 3 provided by the defendant Yuyang Co. are verify with the content of the effective judgment made by this court.

Summing up the evidences mentioned above and the condition of the cross-examination, the facts of this case held by collegial bench are as following: 

1. Function of the plaintiff

Based on Project on Function Scheme, Inside Organizations and The Size of Personnel of Guangdong Provincial Oceanic and Aquatic Product Department (YGO[1994] No.60) issued by General Office of People??s Government of Guangdong Province and Project of Reforming Organs in People??s Government of Guangdong Province (YI[2000] No.2) issued by the People??s Government of Guangdong Province and Guangdong Provincial Party Committee, the original name of the plaintiff is ?°Guangdong Provincial Oceanic and Aquatic Product Department?±, which has been changed to ?°Guangdong Provincial Oceanic and Fishery Administration?± in February 2000. It is a department directly under the People??s Government of Guangdong Province, in charge the comprehensive management of seas and fishery all over the province, functioning at comprehensive management of seas, supervising sea environmental protection, executing laws related to fishery administration and sea supervising and enhancing the management of trades on fishery. 

2. Evidences and Facts of the collision in this case

The facts of the ship collision accident which have been held in the Civil Judgment (Ref. 2001 GMF No. 109) and the Civil Judgment (Ref. 2001 GMF No. 163) made by this court on July 24, 2002, are as following: 

On June 16, 2001, ?°Tongtianshun?± left Lanshan Harbor, Shandong Province to Sanya Harbor, carrying 7,390 tonsss of gypsum. On June 20, 2001, ?°TianShen?± left Hongkong to Shanghai, carrying 165 containers with totally 1,230.2 tonsss of goods. At time 0500, June 21, both ships shipped to the sea area near Shibei Mountain, east of Guangdong Province. The course heading of ?°Tongtianshun?± was 240??and the speed was 10.5 knot; the course heading of ?°TianShen?± was 71??and the speed was 13.5 knot. It was foggy at that time and the visibility range was bad which was around 1nm to 2nm. Crewmen on both ships were neglect vision watch and did not send watchman, moreover, both ships sailed at full speeds which were beyond the safe speed. Failing to realize the danger of collision as soon as possible, ?°Tongtianshun?± had blindly kept its cause heading and speed till it was away from ?°TianShen?± 0.4 nm; then it turned hard port to dodge ?°TianShen?±. ?°TianShen?± failed to realize the danger and blindly kept its cause heading and speed as well, until the CPA between the two ships was 0.2 nm. It took measures to dodge while finding ?°Tongtianshun?± turning hard port. Since ?°TianShen?± did not replaced naphtha, the ship could not stop even it changed and shut down. At around 0635, since the first collision happened at No.2 cargo bay at the starboard of ?°Tongtianshun?± and left side of the front of ?°TianShen?±, the second collision happened at the starboard buttock of ?°Tongtianshun?± and the port midship of ?°TianShen?±. The site of the collision was N. Lat. 22??58'.0 and E. Lon. 116??33'.8. After the collision happened, the captain of ?°Tongtianshun?± got up to the bridge, finding that water intake was serious in No.2 cargo bay, No.2 cabin at the upper side and No.4 cabin, which was double-deck, at the lower right side. On the reason that the ship deviated to right side in a fast speed and toppling danger was supposed to happen, the captain ordered to beach. During beaching, ?°Tongtianshun?± collided on the rocks at N. Lat. 22??56'. 62 and E.Lon.116??30'.98, then the hull kept sinking. At time 0729, the captain claimed to the derelict and the crew left in two lifeboats. Two hours later, all the crew waiting at the scene were saved by fishing boats nearby.  

After the accident, Tianshun Co. entrusted Guangzhou Sea-Salvage Bureau to search and block the neaped ?°Tongtianshun?± on June 25, 2001. Salvage team closed five water-proof doors on the engine room and temporarily blocked 11 pipes on the oil cabin, such as air pipes and survey pipes. On June 30, 2001, on the Searching and Blocking Report issued by Guangzhou Sea-Salvage Bureau, the disrepair condition of ?°Tongtianshun?± is written: there are a 0.8m long, 3cm width crack under the engine room at the larboard of the ship and a 2.2m-2.5m long, 3cm-10cm width crack in the front of the middle part of No. 2 cabin. According to the diver??s judgment, the two said cracks were made by leaving over the rocks. The outside board of the ship at the front part of the larboard, 3m behind the start point of bilge keelson has been bumped to concave, but damage has not found. There is a 6m-6.5m long crevasse at the front part of the middle of No.2 cabin at the starboard. The crevasse is neat and the outside board has bumped into the hull around 40cm. Both ends of the crevasse wide 10cm and the largest width in the middle is 46cm. It is 3m high from the bilge keelson, from which some gypsum leaked. Being trusted by Guangdong Yonghang Law Firm that retained the agent p.p. of Tianshun Co., Guangdong Marine Engineering Consultants & Surveyors checked and examined ?°Tongtianshun?± and made a Checking Report on July 11, 2001, stating that in the Searching and Blocking Report issued by Guangzhou Sea-Salvage Bureau, the crevasse at the front of the middle part of the starboard can be reasonably ascribed to the collision accident said by the captain and the damages on other parts can be reasonably ascribed to beach accident said by the captain.

 ?°Tongtianshun?± is a steel bulk cargo ship, which is 133.9m long, 18m wide and 9.1m deep. Its total tonsss are 6,633 and net tonsss are 3,339. The mainframe of the ship is internal-combustion engine, with power of 4,027kw. ?°TianShen?± is a steel container ship, which is 109.6m long, 18m wide and 8.3m deep. Its total tonsss are 4,388 and net tonsss are 2,377. The mainframe of the ship is internal-combustion engine, with power of 4,310kw. Before and after the collision in this case, the possessor of ?°Tongtianshun?± is Tianshun Co. and its registered harbor is Nantong, Jiangsu; the possessor of ?°TianShen?± is Kobe Co. and its registered harbor is Tianjing. Tianshen Co. chartered ?°TianShun?± as a bareboat to Yuyang Co. without handling the bareboat charting registration at the ship register department. During the voyage of the accident, both ?°Tongtianshun?± and ?°TianShen?± allocated the qualified crew based on the lowest safety allocation and Eligibility Certificates of Sailors and Seaworthiness Certificates of Ship were in period of validity. 

The Civil Judgment (2001GMF No. 109) and the Civil Judgment (2001 GMF No.163) hold: based on degree of fault, ?°Tongtianshun?± and ?°TianShen?± should share the fault liability of the collision accident in 60% and 40%. Due to no bareboat charter of ?°TianShun?± being registered, the bareboat charter cannot resist the third party in accordance with law and Kobe Co., the possessor of the ship, and Yuyang Co., the actual leaseholder, should bear joint and several liability to the collision fault of ?°TianShun?±. It is appropriate for the captain of ?°Tongtianshun?± to take measures to beach and ground by considering the safety of the ship, the cargoes and people on the ship under the danger conditions. The crew of ?°Tongtianshun?± was unable to expect and avoid the sinking during beaching and running ground. It has no fact basis and law basis for Kobe Co. and Yuyang Co. to claim that the sinking of the ship was caused by fault of improper beaching taken by the crew of ?°Tongtianshun?± and the extra loss should be bore by Tianshun Co., thus the claim should not be supported. The fee for searching and blocking, the fee for pollution cleaning and the fee for oil-pumped paid by Tianshun Co. are the loss caused by the collision and should be compensated jointly and severally by Kobe Co. and Yuyang Co.. Finally, the two judgments order Yuyang Co. and Kobe Co. compensate Tianshun Co. RMB2, 819, 083.03, plus interests, jointly and severally and Tianshun Co. compensates Yuyang Co. RMB274, 026.42, plus interests. The two judgments have taken effect. 

3. Evidences and Facts of Oil Pollution Damage

During the trail, the plaintiff and four defendants consistently confirm that ?°Tianshen?± did not leak oil after the collision accident, neither any evidences prove the oil leaking from ?°TianShen?± in this case. The collegiate bench asserts this fact confirmed by the parties. 

The plaintiff has dispute with the four defendants over the matters that whether ?°Tongtianshun?± leaked oil after the collision accident and the damage degree of oil pollution and both sides provide different evidences severally. 

1). Evidences provided by the plaintiff

In order to prove the facts of oil leaking of ?°Tongtianshun?± and oil pollution damage, the plaintiff provides evidences from eight aspects and the main content is as following:

 (1). In the Survey Report of Fishery Loss and exhibits by Monitoring Center, stating: in the forenoon of June 21, 2001, ?°Tongtianshun?± and ?°TianShun?± collided in the offing of Jing Hai, Huilai County, Jieyang, Guangdong Province. The hull of ?°Tongtianshun?± was broken and the ship grounded on the rocks outside Zishen Harbor (about N. Lat. 22??56'. 68 and E.Lon.116??30'. 94). The fuel on the ship leaked into the sea area where it grounded. With a great amount of oil floating in the offing, a large scale of pollution in this sea area was caused. After the accident happened, the Monitoring Center started the survey to collect evidences and evaluation on June 22, on the fishery resource loss made by the pollution based on relative law and regulations of the country. Investigators went up to the scene by light boats and saw ?°Tongtianshun?± grounded on the rocks outside Zishen Harbor. The desk upwards the hull was above the sea, sloping slightly, and black and brown oil effused to the offing under the water which was near the hull. The water surround the hull floated fuel and the oil belt towards south west of ?°Tongtianshun?± presents dark brown with pungent smell of fuel throwing off on the sea area. June 21, it mainly blew east wind and southeaster on the sea area the accident happened with speed 4-6m/second. Under the effect of wind power, tide and ocean current, the oil leaking from ?°Tongtianshun?± excursed and diffused on the sea area near the sunken ship. On June 22 and 23, the oil pollution excursed to the seacoast of Qianzhan and Shenquan. There is oil drops in gill of dead fish rushed to the beach of Qianzhan by tidewater. Through surveying, no other paroxysmal oil leaking or pollution accident happened near the seacoast area and littoral of Lufeng County, Huilai County and Chaoyang County in a long time before and after June 21, 2001, except ?°Tongtianshun?±.  The surveying and evaluating range is the water area of N. Lat. 22??56'-23??00' and E.Lon.116??12'-116??37', that is, the sea area of Nanhai County-Shenquan- Qianzhan ¨CJinghai seacoast. The Monitoring Center set 22 sampling stages within the surveying area, determining the titer of petroleum in seawater by UV-spectrophotometry with an instrument of Model UV-2501PC produced by Koichi Tanaka Co., Japan. Based on the sample of seawater collected according to the national standard of Sea Monitoring Criterion and Water Quality of Fishery, the pollution situation of the sea area in this accident is analyzed as: oil leaking from ?°Tongtianshun?± caused an obvious hoist on the titer of petroleum in seawater of a large scale of sea area. The titer of petroleum in seawater seriously exceeds the standard (limit of the Water Quality of Fishery) in the water area around Zishen Harbor-Shibei Mountain-Hali Cliff-Mianqian Reefs, where the titer exceeding 10 times is around 130 sq. km. within which the titer exceeding 20 times is around 80 sq. km. On the reason that the accident happened at the time of suspending fishing operations in Summer, the resources of swimming organism within the sea area was evaluated on the basis of fishing resource monitoring data of ocean in Guangdong Province. After the accident happened, the Monitoring Center set up 3 surveying stages in the surveying sea area and rented a resources trend monitoring ship ?°Yuehuilai  41365?± to survey the swimming organism in the scene by trawling through. They analyzed changes of the fishery resources in the surveying area, calculated direct economical loss of sea products in the polluted sea area and carried on expert??s assessment on the loss of natural fishery resource caused by the oil leaking accident, based on Regulation of Calculation Fishery Loss of Pollution Accident in Water Area (F[1996]No.14) issued by Agriculture Ministry. On June 28, the surveying team surveyed the scene and estimated the loss of water products in natural sea area caused by this accident in according to the scene survey and the data of monitoring resources trend. Due to the suspending fishing operation in June and July, no monitoring data of trawl is available. From 1998 to May 2000,the average product is 78.1-103.5kg./hour and the average product in May in these three years is 91.2kg./hour. The average rate of fish obtaining in the surveying pollution area is 22.8kg./hour. Compared with the average rates of near three years, the average rate of fish obtaining drops 67.65-80.26%, that is, 75% on average. The largest parrying rate is estimated as 30% by considering the parrying affect the swimming organism reflects to the polluted environment. Therefore, the loss rate of the swimming organism resource caused by this oil leaking accident is estimated as 45%. Before the pollution, the density of the swimming organism resource is 2.6055 tons/sq. km. which has been calculated by unifying measurement unit. After the pollution, the loss of the swimming organism of the heavy polluted area (80 sq. km) is 93.789tonss(2.6055??0.45??80). The average price of water product in June at Huilai County, the pollution area, is RMB35, 260/tonss, thus the direct economical loss of the swimming organism is RMB3, 307, 300. With abundant natural marine lives resource containing along the coast of Huilai, the product of ocean fishing was 68, 000 tons in 2000. The petroleum that is danger to the ocean organisms mainly includes: dead effect, ecological effect, physiology and behavior effect, peculiar smell effect, etc. The sea area in the accident is an important area for breeding and growing economical fish and shrimps along the seacoast of Guangdong Province and a natural protection area of Xi Shi She, a kind of fish; further, it is a good fishing yard of fishery. Oil pollution kills and wounds a great lot of bait organisms in the water area, causing regional unbalance of the ecology. The infectant would last quite a long time to effect the ecological environment of the water area and cause the parrying affect of the swimming organisms, which would decay the fishery function for a period of time in the sea area of the accident. It needs a long time to recover the ecology environment and marine lives resource polluted by the oil; thus, to recover the fishery resource of this polluted water area to its normal level needs at lease three years. Based on Regulation of Calculation Fishery Loss of Pollution Accident in Water Area by the Ministry of Agriculture, the account of economical loss of the nature fishery resource should not be less then 3 times of the loss of the aquatic products in the directly economical loss. Hereby, the economical loss of natural fishery resource of the water area from Shenquan, Huilai County to Jinghai caused by the oil leaking accident is RMB9, 921, 900, which is calculated on three times of the direct economical loss. From June 22 to July 21, the actual expenses the Monitoring Center paid to survey and track the oil pollution accident is RMB427, 600. The said direct economical loss of the aquatic products, the loss of natural resource and expenses for surveying the losses of pollution are totally RMB13, 656, 800. 

The exhibits of the Survey Report of Fishery Loss by the Monitoring Center are mainly the data related to monitoring records and surveying results, including: list of fees for surveying and monitoring, proof for using boats of fishing administrative department, records of trawl fishing, retail price of the aquatic products provided by International and Commerce Administration Bureau of Huilai County, sample records of monitoring water quality, analysis records of oil in the water, analysis report of monitoring water quality, data of wind form and weather, data of tide and Annual Report Forms for Monitoring & Counting The Fishery Resources (from January 1998 to May 2001). All the exhibits are the basis of the Survey Report made by the Monitoring Center and the data they carry confirm the content of the Survey Report. 



(continue)