Wreck Removal: Key Issues Remain Unresolved

Looking at the prospects for a new Wreck Removal Convention, the Institute of Maritime Law’s Richard Shaw warned that adoption of the draft at the May diplomatic conference in Nairobi was not a foregone conclusion.

He told delegates at the ISU’s Associate Members’ Day that ‘Important issues have still to be resolved.’

Richard Shaw said that the new Convention, if adopted, would provide comfort to harbourmasters and shore authorities asked to provide refuge for marine casualties. He added that the convention provides freedom to contract. A Coastal State may not impose a particular salvor on an owner. On the other hand, this Convention concerns wrecks in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), whereas most wrecks are in inshore waters and the territorial sea. States would be free to apply the Convention in territorial waters but they may not necessarily accept Convention provisions drafted with the EEZ in mind, including the general requirement to act in a proportionate manner.

During his presentation, Skuld Executive Vice President Arthur Pilkington singled out the UK SOSREP system for praise. He urged other governments around the world to adopt such arrangements for casualty response. He made these observations when commenting on the case of the ‘RMS Mulheim’, which grounded near Land’s End in March 2003. There was no legal obligation to remove the wreck, as there was no environmental threat. Bunkers and cargo had been removed. There was no hazard to navigation and removal for aesthetic reasons was not a relevant legal ground. In the event, the vessel broke up on the rocks and became a tourist attraction for a brief period.

In his introduction to the conference ISU President Hans van Rooij said, ‘There is a growing view that lump sum no cure – no pay agreements are inappropriate for substantial wreck removals. The contractor often has little opportunity to carry out a full wreck survey. Even if he does, he can still expect unpleasant surprises. It is not unusual for a project team to discover just how close they were to failure at the very point of success. It is time to recognise that no cure – no pay is inappropriate for multi-million dollar projects. We need a new and fairer wreck removal tendering system.’

Hendrik Land of SvitzerWijsmuller Salvage presented an introductory paper on the salvage of ultra-large vessels. He said, ‘The prospect of rescuing thousands of terrified people from a new generation cruise vessel is a nightmare that most, even in the cruise business, would prefer not to think about. This class of ships tends to operate in remote areas that are also highly sensitive from an environmental standpoint.

‘It would be out of character for a salvor to shy away from a challenge. At the same time, the salvor is an expert in casualty response and, therefore, he has a duty to share concerns about the practicalities of salvage in ‘worst case’ situations involving ultra-large ships. It is important to confront realities, no matter how unpleasant. Our position is that we want to join with other industry sectors and move forward on salvage issues concerning ever larger vessels.’

He added that salvors had adapted to larger ships in the past and would do so again, saying, ‘Salvors are now planning to confront a major casualty event involving, say, a fully laden 12,000 TEU vessel aground at a sensitive location.’

ISU Legal Advisor Archie Bishop said a new regime for environmental salvage would impose greater responsibilities on salvors, which would ‘work to the benefit of all’. ISU Vice-President Arnold Witte made the point that a salvor conferring environmental benefit should share in the value of that benefit.