Keynote address by William O'Neil, Secretary-General, IMO
International Salvage Union, London, 19 March 2003

Good morning Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen,

It is a pleasure for me to welcome you to this Conference being held at IMO. I appreciate the invitation of the International Salvage Union to join you today.

It is no secret that there is a curious ambiguity in the relationship between IMO, which has as its mandate the improvement of maritime safety and the reduction of marine pollution and therefore, the eradication of accidents, and the salvage industry, whose existence depends on dealing with accidents at sea and has by its very nature often been the last hope for ships and seafarers in severe distress at sea.

As the maritime industry's safety record improves, the need for traditional salvage services is changing and it is recognized that the salvage industry has been under considerable operational and financial stress in recent years. Yet the importance of successful intervention in maritime accidents to save lives and to minimise environmental damage, has never been greater. But, at the same time, the sophistication and the expense of the equipment and personnel required to perform modern salvage tasks effectively continues to rise.

Squaring this circle is a fundamental challenge that faces not just the salvage industry but the whole of the maritime world, including national governments. If the maritime community, and indeed the wider community ashore, places a value on having highly complex and capable salvage units on call, ready to act at a moment's notice to help safeguard the environment from the threat of oil spills and other pollution, then suitable mechanisms must be found to pay for them. I know that your industry is in a process of evolution in this respect and a good deal of your discussion today is likely to focus around those issues. The outcome will doubtless have considerable influence far beyond today's meeting.

This Conference comes at a time when questions of maritime safety and the related issues of pollution caused by ships have been receiving considerable attention worldwide, not just in the specialist marine industry press but also in the general media.

The Prestige incident, as we all know, has become something of a cause celebre and its ramifications are being felt far and wide. When that ill fated ship sank and spilled thousands of tons of her cargo of heavy fuel oil into the sea and subsequently onto the Spanish coastline last November, there began a process of analysis and appraisal that already has reached into just about every conceivable related sphere of activity. Direct questions were immediately raised about the technical and operational aspects that led to the incident. The aftermath then very quickly assumed legal, human and highly political dimensions as the ripples from this particular stone began to spread.

With the report on the formal investigation into the causes of the incident not yet being available, I do not propose to speculate on what may or may not have happened. We have all seen the coverage in the press which may direct your line of thought to certain conclusions; however, until we have the formal casualty report the root cause of the sinking will remain unknown.

What I would like to talk about is some of the wider issues that have been raised since the incident, and in particular those in which the salvage community has a special interest. For me the most obvious, yet largely un-stated aspect of the whole Prestige affair has been the confirmation, if any were needed, of the major shift in public opinion that has taken place over the past decade or so. Damage to the environment now commands the headlines and arouses public indignation to a far greater extent than does the loss of the lives of seafarers. That is a fact and can be attributed to pollution having a personal impact on large numbers of individuals, their livelihoods and the local economy. As such, it inevitably shapes the contexts within which all of us concerned with maritime safety have to work.

For the salvage industry, this heightened emphasis on pollution has probably been the most significant agent for change in your business in recent years. Averting environmental disaster has become as integral a part of salvage work as has the more traditional role of saving ships' crews and their cargoes. Not only has this impacted on the skills, techniques and equipment employed by salvage teams, it has also altered the commercial basis on which a great deal of your work is done, notably through the concept of special compensation for cases where the salvor has prevented or minimised damage to the environment, but the value of the salved property is insufficient to provide for a normal salvage award. This concept was initially introduced in the IMO salvage convention of 1989 which came into force in 1996.

At IMO, it is clearly understood that, in any casualty situation, it is the safety of human life that takes the first and immediate priority and then attention can be turned to the ship and pollution prevention. That is why, whatever else may happen, there is a sense of relief and satisfaction when we hear, as we did with the Prestige, that the crew has been evacuated safely - that at least one of the potentially catastrophic consequences of an incident such as this has been averted.

I think most people who are directly involved with the shipping industry have kept this in the proper perspective and have retained an innate sense of the true value of seafarers' lives. I only wish that this view was shared more by the general public, by the wider community of the media and by other opinion formers and politicians. When a ship sinks with loss of life but no pollution, it rapidly becomes yesterday's news, yet pollution issues stay in the headlines forever.

What also rarely merits a mention is that, when the crew has been safely evacuated from what was obviously considered to be a life-threatening situation, a salvage crew will often take its place - stepping into the very jaws of the danger from which the ship's crew has been, thankfully, removed. Even though the salvage team is made up of professionals who understand the risks and who are best able to assess the condition of the vessel, they are still potentially in a position of grave danger and this should never be overlooked in any deliberations about what steps should be taken to deal with the situation.
And that brings to me what is certainly the most important salvage-related issue of all those which were underscored by the Prestige incident, one which has indeed been highlighted by a number of recent ship casualties and which was already under detailed consideration in IMO when tragedy befell the Prestige - I am of course referring to places of refuge.

While, as I mentioned a few minutes ago, we don't know precisely what caused the damage which led the Prestige to sink - and according to a recent report from the American Bureau of Shipping we may never know for sure - we do know, however, that the ship had sufficient structural strength, even after the initial problem had developed, to survive six days of severe punishment from the weather as she was towed out into the Atlantic. And there has been a great deal of informed speculation suggesting that, had she been given access to sheltered waters, it may have been possible to have transferred the cargo and the effects of pollution could have been controlled and minimized.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but this was by no means the first time in recent years that questions over places of refuge have come to prominence in the wake of a tanker accident. The Maritime Safety Committee's working group established in December 2000 to consider post Erika safety-related issues, listed "ports of refuge" among the topics selected for further consideration. To avoid unnecessary complications we subsequently changed the terminology to "places of refuge" but the seed for some positive action to be taken had been sown.

Then, in early January 2001, the Castor incident occurred which ended up with the ship being towed around the Mediterranean for over a month before a place could be found where a successful lightering operation could be carried out. I then determined that the time had come for IMO to undertake, as a matter of priority, a global consideration of this problem and to adopt whatever measures might be required to ensure that ships in distress would be provided with appropriate assistance and facilities as dictated by the circumstances.

This afternoon you will be hearing a presentation from Captain Callsen-Bracker, who is chairman of the IMO Working Group on places of refuge, and he will outline in detail the guidelines on places of refuge which are currently being developed in IMO to provide shipmasters, shipowners, salvors and Governments with a framework within which they can respond effectively and in a timely and pre-determined manner. I will therefore not expand on what is being proposed at this time but will only say that the MSC will deal with the issue at its next meeting this May.
As I mentioned before, hindsight is a wonderful thing and I am certainly not in any way trying to apportion blame on those who have made decisions to keep stricken ships away from their coastlines. In fact the first reaction may naturally be to refuse access and thereby deflect the problem elsewhere. It is obvious that nobody wants a ship with structural damage and a dirty or volatile cargo in their coastal waters, which is passing through and brings them no positive commercial gains. And yet, as we have often seen, there are clear indications that a refusal can result in compounding the problem which ultimately endangers both life, the ship and the environment.

The IMO guidelines will provide a framework within which all factors can be assessed and, taking into account the risks involved, the most appropriate decisions can be made. It is most important that the process should be understood, agreed to and in place prior to an incident occurring so that taking decisions under stressful conditions can be avoided.

The political and technical connotations concerning the sovereignty aspects of the issue are fully understood; however, I am confident that they will not impede progress in providing a suitable solution to what is now accepted as being a global problem.
Another topic which has been before the members of IMO for some time now and which I know is of considerable interest to the salvage community is that of bringing the wreck removal problem to a successful conclusion. The proposed wreck removal convention is intended to provide international rules on the rights and obligations of states and shipowners in dealing with wrecks and drifting or sunken cargo which may pose a hazard to navigation or to the marine environment. The draft convention currently being considered by IMO would clarify matters such as the identification, reporting, locating and removal of hazardous wrecks, in particular those found beyond territorial waters, and the possible need for financial security arrangements to cover liability for costs of their removal.

Although this has been one of the Legal Committee's main priorities for some time now, there are still some major points to be resolved. However, there is a keen interest on the part of the maritime community to have international rules on wreck removal adopted through IMO and the Committee is working diligently to reach a consensus as to the final shape of the prospective convention so that it can be brought to a diplomatic conference as soon as possible.
Ladies and gentlemen - the salvage industry is an indispensable component of the shipping world and, when taking a dispassionate view of what it really is, conjures up a series of different images in my mind:

These images - which may be figments of the imagination - both elate and sadden me and give me concern for the future of salvage operations.
The picture of heroism in the face of outlandish natural phenomena is to be applauded and encouraged. But the hindsight decisions which may place salvors in the position of not taking action and entailing risks and costs, until a clear cut decision on the linkage to environmental damage abatement is established, is very troublesome.

Having expressed these views, which I must say are personal, I continue to admire the professionals in the salvage industry who are represented in this room today. I thank you for the service you are rendering to the shipping industry and encourage you to maintain the competence you clearly demonstrate and to ensure that for the future the expertise needed to deal with ships in distress will be augmented through the continued introduction of young people into your industry.

It has been a pleasure for me to join you at the opening of your Conference and I am sure that you will benefit from the deliberations that will take place during the balance of the day.

Thank you.