(ID: 2017-155) ABSTRACT The navigational and environmental risks posed by ship wrecks have presented a challenge to governments and the maritime industry for decades. In more recent years a consensus has developed worldwide based on assessing these risks and undertaking measures proportional to the severity of those risks. This approach has been formalised in the Nairobi International Convention on the Removal of Wrecks 2007. With recent developments in salvage technology and equipment, the options for pollutant removal from wrecks, and the removal of entire wrecks, are becoming viable for scenarios which were previously deemed infeasible. Together with a general heightened environmental concern worldwide about impacts to the marine environment, decision-making on wreck removal and associated pollutants is under the spotlight. Based on ITOPF’s extensive experience providing advice on pollution mitigation and environmental risks posed by wrecks, this paper examines recent issues in the treatment of wrecks. The authors highlight some key concerns regarding the equitable treatment of wrecks and argue that a more rigorous, technically-based decision making process be adopted and promoted to ensure clarity and consistency for all parties.

What defines a successful response to an incident? Is it dependent upon satisfying potential critics; does it depend on money saved or received in compensation; is it defined by avoiding or mitigating pollution damage; or is it all of the above? Once an incident has occurred the success or otherwise of the response can be predicted based on relatively few key variables. In this paper. For example:Preparedness & Training – i.e. the extent to which a country is prepared for an incident and whether the roles and responsibilities of individuals expected to be involved in the response are clearly defined.Location of the incident – i.e. the country, the culture and reaction to the incident; whether it has occurred off-shore or near-shore etc.Port of Refuge – i.e. whether or not a clear process for dealing with a casualty is pre-established.Trust & Respect – i.e. the extent to which trust exists between the various parties involved in an incident and the level of knowledge and expertise needed to engender respect.Co-operation – i.e. the extent to which parties are willing to co-operate and work together; the degree of realism about what can be achieved, and the level of confidence exhibited by those with ultimate responsibility.Communication – i.e. the effectiveness of the command structure and the lines of communication between parties; willingness to communicate.Cost-control/accountability – i.e. attitude towards cost control and effective use of resources.Compensation – i.e. whether adequate systems are in place to compensate victims of oil pollution damage promptly and fairly; compensation versus punitive fines.3 Ps (Politicians, Press, Public) – i.e. the degree to which these are allowed to drive the response.Willingness to Learn – i.e. the extent to which past incidents are used to inform potential future incidents; realism during exercises and debriefs. This paper will draw upon incidents that ITOPF has attended in its 45 year history to identify patterns of behaviour and the degree to which these variables can influence the outcome of a response. Recognition of the relative importance of these variables ought to form the basis of learning in order to improve the chances of a positive outcome in future incidents.