Still-Too-Strong

Industry pushes back on STS regulations

The new Regulations for the Environmental Management of Offshore Ship-To-Ship Transfer gazetted at the end of August may still face legal push-back as industry stakeholders seek legal advice on challenging certain aspects.

Companies offering ship-to-ship transfers of liquid bulk cargo at sea now have three months to submit the new required training programmes and six months to deliver an environmental management plan to the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFE) following the promulgation of new environmental management regulations for the sector by Minister Dion George.

After accepting comments on two rounds of draft regulations published in February and July, there was scant time between the deadline for comments on the last version and the gazetting of the new regulations. A comparison between the July draft and the final regulations highlights very few changes.

It is this quick turnaround that has raised collective eyebrows in the industry. “We are concerned that, given the limited time allowed by DFFE for reviewing submissions made by stakeholders in July 2025, the final regulations do not reflect key recommendations,” wrote the Bunker Industry Association South Africa (BIASA) in an issued statement in response to the gazetted requirements for STS operators.

Previously hailed as an economic win for the Eastern Cape, offshore bunkering in Algoa Bay has been at the centre of some controversy over the last few years. After the resumption of operations earlier this year, there is currently one active operator servicing international ships from two bunker barges. 

This means that, in accordance with the new regulations, only two additional operators will be granted access – each permitted to position two bunker barges in the Bay. BIASA has taken issue with this restriction, reminding the Minister that there is a “disproportionate focus on offshore bunkering activities in Algoa Bay (that) overlooks the broader environmental risk posed by approximately 1,500 vessels calling annually at the Ports of Port Elizabeth and Ngqura”.

The initial establishment of the Algoa Bay offshore bunkering station resulted in noted indirect economic activity. Ships choosing to refuel in the Bay often saw it as an ideal opportunity to replenish stores and undertaken crew changes resulting in an overnight boon in Off Port Limits (OPL) activity.

“The OPL sector has benefited from the growth in the offshore bunkering sector in Algoa Bay and OPLASA has noted the new regulations which may minimise the continued growth of STS operations,” says Andrew Hendrikse, Chair of the Off Port Limits Association South Africa (OPLASA).

Pollution incidents

The Minister has consistently emphasised the need to institute regulations that will prevent pollution, protect coastal ecosystems, minimise and mitigate the impacts of a spill.

“These regulations are a decisive step to safeguard our oceans and secure the future of our African Penguin. They set strict standards for offshore ship-to-ship transfers, ensuring that maritime activity can only proceed in a safe and responsible way,” said George, highlighting the need to specifically secure the marine ecosystems within Algoa Bay.

Although there were four reported spill before the closure of bunkering operations by the South African Revenue Services (SARS) in 2023, the Minister himself describes these as “unlikely” events.

“As representatives of a highly regulated industry, BIASA and its members are committed to responsible environmental stewardship and full compliance with both local and international legislation,” notes the industry association.

A maritime mandate

It is worth noting that according to the South African Maritime Safety Authority Act of 1998, SAMSA has the express mandate “to prevent and combat pollution of the marine environment by ships”. The DFFE, on the other hand, has a more overarching responsibility to create legislation aimed at protecting the marine environment.

For the DFFE to create regulations with the kind of specificity included in the regulations for STS transfers at sea appears, on the surface, to overstep their authority. There does not appear to be any similar regulatory framework set by the department to limit the economic activities within a small sector to the extent of restricting the number of permitted operators.

While much of the content and the intention of the DFFE’s regulations should be applauded, there seems to be a distinct disconnect between these regulations and the legislative landscape that provides for SAMSA to fulfil its second objective as outlined in the SAMSA Act.

A more cohesive approach to managing the risks associated with the STS activities would have been for SAMSA and the DFFE to have collaborated on a Marine Notice that referenced national environmental legislation such as the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) to address the issues of concern and establish one set of rules.

The industry does not need contradictory regulations that appear to stifle the growth of a potentially important maritime sector.  

“We believe it is vital that any regulations governing Offshore STS operations align with the principles of fair competition and a free market, ensuring equal opportunity for all potential operators and supporting open market dynamics,” notes BIASA in their issued statement.

Oil spill response capacity

Oil spill response requirements for STS operations is probably one of the most important aspects for mitigating the risks associated with these endeavours. Minister George’s stipulations that a suitable response vessel should be on standby is worthy of scrutiny.

SAMSA’s mandate as mentioned above and the Department of Transport’s legal responsibility to provide for as well as fulfill statutory obligations for marine pollution prevention response along the coastline, support the contention that the need to ensure response capacity appears to rest with the State.

Wording in the National Oil Spill Contingency Plan (NOSCP) released last month for stakeholder comment notes: “The government has a legal obligation to protect the environment through the development and the implementation of the Plan to fulfil this obligation amongst other statutory legislative measures put in place.”

The plan outlines how and where stakeholders will respond to marine spills, and specifically mentions ship-to-ship transfers as well as bunkering.

It includes the establishment of an Incident Management Organisation (IMOrg) for the express purpose of developing and maintaining “operational effectiveness” for response. As such it seems implicit that there should be an operational capacity to deal with oil spills where areas of risk have been identified.

The NOSCP does, however, require that an “offshore installation operator” activates its own Oil Spill Contingency Plan (OSCP) in the event of an incident and notifies SAMSA. Only if the “polluter” is unable to deal with the incident is it handed over to the national structure.

The extent of spills resulting from STS operations is less likely to be as catastrophic as those related to maritime incidents caused by groundings, collisions or sinking. Training, response plans and a capacity to deal with pollution at the source are, of course, vital and already mandatory for operators.

Should a spill from STS operations escalate, however, it seems logical that the NOSCP should include specific contingencies for areas where such operations are permitted. These should include maintaining a database of resources available in the area, specific training exercises aimed at confirming the capacity as well as a consideration of whether dedicated State-contracted capacity in the form of a response vessel should be installed.

It is, after all, stated as SAMSA’s third objective to promote the national maritime interests and the Comprehensive Maritime Transport Policy’s ambitions to establish South Africa as a recognised international maritime centre would be well-served by this capacity.

“We support all efforts to minimise the environmental impacts of the STS sector. OPLASA believes that robust oil abatement response capabilities will benefit the overall growth of the sector in a manner that provides comfort to all. As such, it is imperative to have immediate abatement response available and for the industry to work within existing international benchmarks,” says Hendrikse.

Recent deliberations at several maritime workshops and events have indicated that gaps exist in the country’s ability to respond effectively to major incidents. 

Lessons learned

Ultimately, however, the turbulent rise and fall of the offshore bunkering industry in Algoa Bay provides a noteworthy case study to highlight the challenges associated with developing new opportunities within the Blue Economy.

Enthusiastically launched as a SAMSA-led initiative to position the country’s maritime ambitions within the local economy as well as promote South Africa’s international maritime reputation, little intra-governmental cohesion resulted in misaligned tax legislation that saw the first abrupt closure of the sector in 2023.

In addition, the lack of early environmental engagement saw a moratorium placed on licences while parties, including Transnet National Ports Authority, sought to undertake environmental assessments. Legal action also plagued the sector with several of the early operators ending up in court.

By Colleen Jacka, Editor | Maritime Review Africa

New service links Asia and Africa