Морские страховщики, спасатели и судовладельцы – все отмечают важность вопросов, с вязанных с организацией мест (портов) убежища, где могли бы получить помощь суда, терпящие бедствие и угрожающие загрязнением морской среды. Решением проблемы является организация Службы морской помощи (MAS – Maritime Assistance Service) прибрежными государствами, что представляет собой, конечно, непростую задачу, поскольку затрагивает интересы как прибрежных государств, так и населения, проживающего на прибрежных территориях.
В редакционной статье приводятся резолюции ИМО, регулирующие отношения по поводу организации Службы морской помощи и мест убежища, где получают помощь суда, которые в ней нуждаются.
A series of recent incidents where casualty vessels have been delayed in accessing a safe harbour have highlighted the need for designated places of refuge.
Shipowners, salvors and insurers have jointly called for the prompt and proper implementation of international measures to provide a place of refuge for stricken vessels, following a series of incidents where casualty vessels have been delayed in accessing a safe harbour.
The International Chamber of Shipping (ICS) says that it has noted ‘with dismay’ the refusal by some coastal states to make places of refuge available, thereby risking lives and the environment even after the high profile cases of the Stolt Valor and the MSC Flaminia in 2012. The plight of the Maritime Maisie presently off the coast of Japan has brought this subject back into sharp focus. The 44,000 dwt chemical tanker is being held at sea by six tugs after a collision and fire on 29 December 2013. The cargo fire has now been extinguished through the efforts of the salvors in the face of difficult conditions at sea.
The vessel has been seeking a place of refuge in either the Republic of Korea or Japan for more than a month. The salvors have indicated that it is a priority to take the vessel to calm waters to manage the remaining cargo in a safe manner and so to minimise potential damage to the environment. However, neither Japan nor South Korea has been willing to admit the vessel to their waters, according to reports in the maritime press.
The International Union of Marine Insurance (IUMI), the International Salvage Union (ISU) and ICS all recognise that the issue of places of refuge for casualty vessels is sensitive and that the risk of pollution from casualties cannot be completely removed. They also recognise that decisions with regard to handling casualty vessels carry political implications and may impact coastal communities.
At the same time, failure to offer a suitable place of refuge may prevent successful salvage intervention and therefore allow a casualty’s condition to worsen and ultimately lead to pollution that might otherwise have been prevented.
Peter Hinchliffe, ICS Secretary General, said: ‘Guidance on the handling of requests for places of refuge was agreed at IMO but often when a case arises the coastal states concerned take a “not in my backyard” attitude. This is in marked contrast to attitudes to aircraft in need of assistance. This current case shows that recent lessons have simply not been learned.’
Commenting on the matter, President of the ISU, Leendert Muller said: ‘Our members are right on the front line of this issue. Too often they are unable to follow the best course of action which is to take the casualty into shelter, which does not necessarily have to be a port. We have seen infamous cases like Castor and Prestige and more recently the MSC Flaminia and Stolt Valor and now the Maritime Maisie where our members, attending damaged vessels, experienced great difficult)’ in finding an authority willing to accept the casualty.’
Ole Wikborg, President of the IUMI, points out: ‘The potential impact of environmental damage has to be reduced as much as possible and the safety of crews is paramount and we have to minimise material damage to ships and equipment. Coastal states must be able to make the best possible decision to prevent further damage following a maritime accident. Some countries have a system that seems to be functioning. IUMI is of the strong opinion that the prevailing regulations as set out, for example, by IMO and the EU are sufficient but that the necessary steps have to be taken to make the rules work.’
There is already significant relevant legislation in place internationally and regionally that covers the issues. In particular, IMO Resolution A.949, Guidelines on Places of Refuge for ships in need of assistance; Resolution A.950 (23), recommends all coastal States to establish a Maritime Assistance Service. The 1989 Salvage Convention and the European Union vessel traffic monitoring and information
“Coastal states must be able to make the best possible decisions to prevent further damage following a maritime accident”
system prevent member states from issuing an outright refusal to provide a place of refuge and state that safety of human life and the environment are of over-riding concern.
Industry bodies do not see merit in pursuing additional international legislation which will be a lengthy process and will consume resources. Instead they will campaign for better application of, compliance with and enforcement of existing rules and guidance. ISU has already formally presented views on places of refuge to EU member states through the EU Commission; the issue will be raised in IMO for a this year and there will be direct engagement with the governments of individual coastal states.
In short, coastal states should be encouraged to recognise that granting a place of refuge to a casualty vessel may be the most appropriate course. States should establish an authority to assess each case on its merits without political interference. Such an assessment must include a visual inspection and conclude with recommendations for managing and mitigating the risk of any impact on local coastlines and communities. The assumption should be that a Place of Refuge will be granted if needed and that there should be ‘no rejection without inspection’.
Источник: Seaways. – 2014. – March. – Р. 16.