Date of publication: 23 April 2026
Sergey Nedelko, Attorney at Law, Counsel, Head of Odesa Office
Source: Client’s Choice 2026: TOP-100 Lawyers of Ukraine
The days when liability for environmental damage was a mere paper formality are finally receding into the past. Approaches to the implementation of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) are progressively transforming, breach control is becoming digitalized, and EU environmental policy is growing increasingly stringent.
At the same time, the practice of the State Environmental Inspectorate of Ukraine (SEI) retains numerous archaisms and instances of erroneous legal application. On the threshold of 2026, it is crucial to understand which norms of international and European law are already in force, what changes have been introduced, and what to expect next.
Digital Transparency
MARPOL remains the bedrock of maritime environmental safety; however, its implementation methods are changing, driven significantly by technological advancement. Notably, while MARPOL still permits the use of paper ship documents, as of 2025, electronic record books (ERBs) have effectively become the standard for vessels operating in EU ports.
Digitalization began as early as October 1, 2020, when amendments to MARPOL (Resolutions MEPC.314(74), MEPC.316(74), and MEPC.317(74)) adopted at the 74th session of the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC74) came into force, allowing the use of electronic record books onboard instead of hard copies.
Formally, their use remains an option for the shipowner. However, since August 2025, with the full implementation of the European Maritime Single Window environment (EMSWe) in the European Union pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2019/1239, the availability of digital data has become critical for expedited port clearance.
Regulation (EU) 2019/1239 mandated all EU Member States to ensure electronic reporting by ships through national EMSWes. While this Regulation did not make electronic record books mandatory under MARPOL per se, it created a digital regulatory environment in which paper logs are gradually losing practical efficiency.
All port reporting in the EU has become electronic, enforcement is built on digital data, and paper logs have become relatively weak evidence of a vessel’s compliance with MARPOL requirements.
Digitalization has also affected other areas of MARPOL application, specifically Directive (EU) 2019/883, which implements MARPOL requirements at the EU port level. It obliges ships to deliver ship-generated waste to port reception facilities and establishes a unified system of control, financing, and reporting to prevent marine pollution.
While this Directive is not undergoing conceptual changes in 2025–2026, its practical application has been significantly transformed through integration with the EMSWe, the launch of which requires an exclusively electronic form for submitting waste notifications.
Strengthening EU Standards
Ship-Source Pollution Directive
Legal regulation of pollution control in the EU underwent fundamental changes in early January 2025, when amendments to the Ship-Source Pollution Directive 2005/35/EC came into force, harmonizing EU legislation with MARPOL standards.
Key innovations include the expansion of the scope of infringements, which now covers not only oil and noxious liquid substances but also sewage, garbage, harmful substances in packaged form, and residues from exhaust gas cleaning systems (scrubbers).
The updated Directive stipulates that when determining the amount of a penalty, competent authorities are obliged to apply a comprehensive approach, considering the degree of fault, the nature and duration of the discharge, damage to human health and the environment, the shipowner’s financial capacity, and the economic benefits derived from the infringement, measures taken to prevent the discharge or minimize its impact, as well as previous violations.
Although Member States have until mid-2027 for full implementation, the Ukrainian maritime business, given the European integration processes, should prepare for the new inspection rules today.
FuelEU Maritime
In early 2025, Regulation (EU) 2023/1805, known as FuelEU Maritime, came into force, establishing requirements for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions onboard ships in EU ports.
The Regulation obliges shipowners to monitor and report the GHG intensity of the energy used on board, consume renewable or low-carbon fuels, and implement clean energy technologies. The first official data must be submitted by January 31, 2026.
For Ukraine, FuelEU Maritime means that vessels involved in transit through or export to the EU must comply with new energy efficiency and reporting standards.
Mediterranean Sea – SECA
Another elevation of EU standards occurred on May 1, 2025, when the Mediterranean Sea officially became a Sulphur Emissions Control Area (SECA) in accordance with Annex VI of MARPOL. This obliges all vessels operating in its waters to use fuel with a sulphur content of no more than 0.1% or to employ equivalent exhaust gas cleaning technologies.
For Ukraine, this innovation has an indirect but tangible impact: a significant portion of Ukrainian export and import routes passes through the Mediterranean, which potentially leads to increased vessel operating costs, freight rates, and environmental compliance requirements for the fleet.
Cutting-Edge Technologies
One of the most progressive pollution control tools is CleanSeaNet – a satellite-based monitoring system for oil spills and other pollutants in European waters, operating under the aegis of the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA).
The system utilizes images from several Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) satellites, which are capable of detecting oil and lubricant slicks on the sea surface regardless of weather or light conditions. Data is processed and sent to national competent authorities for real-time response.
In April 2025, the Court of Appeal of Rouen (France) for the first time found the owner of the tanker GUARDIANS guilty of marine pollution based solely on CleanSeaNet satellite imagery.
This case confirmed that satellite data can serve as independent and virtually the sole evidence in court for establishing liability, rather than merely auxiliary information for initial detection followed by mandatory visual confirmation by inspectors.
Ukrainian Realities: The Arithmetic of Damages
Despite international digitalization, as of the end of 2025, Ukraine maintains an outdated approach to environmental control, often characterized as punitive-fiscal.
The key point of contention is the calculation of damages, which is often not even linked to actual environmental harm. A prime example is the SEI’s approach to calculating the amount of damages resulting from the discharge of bulk liquid cargo into the marine environment.
Misapplication of MARPOL Annex II
MARPOL Annex II establishes requirements, standards, and rules for the discharge of Category X, Y, and Z Noxious Liquid Substances (NLS) – specifically, residues of a certain category of cargo carried on the vessel – into the sea as a result of tank cleaning or deballasting operations. An infringement constitutes non-compliance with the procedures for handling Category X, Y, and Z noxious liquid substances, which are inherently ship-generated waste subject to discharge during a vessel’s normal operation.
Conversely, the SEI erroneously applies the provisions of MARPOL Annex II to any case, including accidental cargo leaks during carriage or cargo operations, which is fundamentally flawed and inconsistent with the legal framework of Annex II.
Calculation of Damages Based on the Quantity of Collected Pollutant
CMU Resolution No. 484 of July 3, 1995, establishes specific rates for each category of pollutants per 1 kg of substance discharged into the sea: X – 1522 USD, Y – 286 USD, and Z – 54 USD. These rates are applicable in the case of operational discharges of Category X, Y, and Z noxious liquid substances from ships resulting from tank cleaning or deballasting.
When calculating the amount of damages, the SEI considers the mass of the substance collected from the water surface and applies the aforementioned rates. However, current legislation provides for such an approach exclusively for oil and petroleum product pollution, not for all other liquid substances (including vegetable and animal oils), which demonstrates the erroneous nature of the SEI’s practice.
Conclusions
Current realities demonstrate a gap between the technological future offered by MARPOL and EU legislation on one side, and the bureaucratic and often archaic present of Ukrainian environmental control on the other.
While the world is moving toward automated emissions monitoring and electronic record books, in Ukraine, the key battle unfolds around calculation formulas and laboratory methodologies that are often not applicable at all.
It is the SEI’s misapplication of international treaties that creates multi-million dollar risks for the maritime business and reputational losses for the country.
