In the recent contentious case of the tanker Castor in which salvors were forced to keep the ship at sea for 3 weeks, towed it the length of the Mediterranean, and were turned away by eight countries. Jean Labescat emphasised that; "salvors frequently need a safe sheltered coastline, not necessarily a port, where temporary repairs or cargo transfer can take place.

No ISU member would wish to jeopardise a port. It presents international bodies, such as the IMO, with a dilemma - How do you interfere with a country's rights to protects it's territory".

Discussion is taking place within the European Community with a view to issuing a directive requiring Governments of coastal states to specify suitable places of refuge around their coastlines that can be used in an emergency with minimum risk of environmental impact. But with the current EEC workload this may be some years away. In Jean Labescats words "The best means of controlling pollution is to keep the pollutant in the ship."

He went on; " The ISU is adamant that a proper inspection of such vessels is essential and salvage plans submitted by experienced salvors should not be dismissed out of hand but considered by a technically competent body. In the case of Castor no proper independent inspection was carried out and decisions to refuse entry to the ship were often made from visual evidence, usually acquired via a helicopter. If a vessel is turned down under such circumstances, that decision must be examined.

In real life there is need for a designated and competent person - such as the Secretary of State's Representative (SOSREP) in the UK, a true professional and not a political figure as in many other countries. There is every indication that the British system has proved to be effective.

The final answer may be an international team of experts working along similar lines that could be called upon in the event of a major maritime casualty."

In the same conference session Britain's SOSREP, Robin Middleton gave a comprehensive and lively account of his responsibilities as the Maritime and Coastguard Agency's first appointed officer in that post.

Already described in the previous paper as a "true professional" he has occupied the post for 2 1/2 years.

The appointment is the result of one, of many recommendations made by Lord Donaldson in his report following the Sea Empress disaster. In a candid description of his responsibilities Robin Middleton made it quite clear that in a marine emergency in British waters he has the ultimate responsibility for decisions that affect controlling the risk of pollution. During a number of incidents he has illustrated how effectively those powers can be applied. As SOSREP he can take control of a salvage operation, making the best use of expert advice, and if necessary direct shipowners and salvors to take specific action.

SOSREP has also been responsible for reviewing and revising the UK Emergency Response Plan and in his talk he outlined the resources put in place by the MCA to meet any environmental threat to the Bristish coastline. These include, counter pollution teams and equipment, chemical emergency teams, surveillance and pollution control aircraft, Emergency Towing Vessels (ETVs) and the backup available from other emergency services. Robin Middleton believes that with the current UK Contingency Plan in place, our current resources and an aggressive Governmental cost recovery scheme, "the UK has the means of preventing an escalation in maritime emergencies."

In another thought provoking paper, Mr Archie Bishop, well known maritime lawyer and Legal Advisor to the ISU, outlined the provisions of the UNESCO Underwater Cultural Heritage Convention - 2001 and its potential impact on salvage.

Although Britain abstained from acceptance of the United Nations Convention, its effect on wrecks of over 100 years old are far reaching. In his presentation Archie Bishop stated that UNESCO estimates that there are 3 million shipwrecks worldwide and that there are 10,000 known wrecks in the waters around Britain. Many of these could be affected by implementation of the convention.

The Underwater Cultural Heritage Convention aims to preserve historic wrecks and artefacts for the benefit of mankind and indicates a preference for preservation in-situ. Under the conditions of the convention, this could have serious and far-reaching implications for commercial salvors, dredging companies and marine civil engineers. The ISU says; "This convention would impose new duties on salvors and others engaged in activities which could, incidentally, disturb or damage artefacts. Our main concern is that the refloating of grounded vessels, the removal of wrecks - often containing pollutants - and other essential salvage services may be impeded by the convention. Activities such as lifting a wreck, dredging an 'exit channel' for a grounded vessel, or jetting to remove the build-up of mud or sand could expose the salvor to significant liabilities under this new international instrument."