DOCSLIB.ORG

The Coastguard, Emergency Towing Vessels and the Maritime Incident Response Group

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Coastguard, Emergency Towing Vessels and the Maritime Incident Response Group House of Commons Transport Committee The Coastguard, Emergency Towing Vessels and the Maritime Incident Response Group Sixth Report of Session 2010–12 Volume I Volume I: Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence Additional written evidence is contained in Volume II, available on the Committee website at www.parliament.uk/transcom Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 14 June 2011 HC 948 Incorporating HC 752-i Published on 23 June 2011 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £22.00 The Transport Committee The Transport Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Department for Transport and its Associate Public Bodies. Current membership Mrs Louise Ellman (Labour/Co-operative, Liverpool Riverside) (Chair) Steve Baker (Conservative, Wycombe) Jim Dobbin (Labour/Co-operative, Heywood and Middleton) Mr Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow South) Julie Hilling (Labour, Bolton West) Kwasi Kwarteng (Conservative, Spelthorne) Mr John Leech (Liberal Democrat, Manchester Withington) Paul Maynard (Conservative, Blackpool North and Cleveleys) Gavin Shuker (Labour/Co-operative, Luton South) Iain Stewart (Conservative, Milton Keynes South) Julian Sturdy (Conservative, York Outer) The following were also members of the committee during the Parliament. Angie Bray (Conservative, Ealing Central and Acton) Lilian Greenwood (Labour, Nottingham South) Kelvin Hopkins (Labour, Luton North) Angela Smith (Labour, Penistone and Stocksbridge) Powers The committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the internet via www.parliament.uk. Publication The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the internet at http://www.parliament.uk/transcom. A list of Reports of the Committee in the present Parliament is at the back of this volume. Committee staff The current staff of the Committee are Mark Egan (Clerk), Marek Kubala (Second Clerk), David Davies (Committee Specialist), Tony Catinella (Senior Committee Assistant), Edward Faulkner (Committee Assistant), Stewart McIlvenna (Committee Support Assistant) and Hannah Pearce (Media Officer). Contacts All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Transport Committee, House of Commons, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA. The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 6263; the Committee’s email address is [email protected] 1 Contents Report Page Summary 3 1 Introduction 5 Our inquiry 5 Coastguards giving evidence 6 2 The Maritime and Coastguard Agency: funding 8 3 Consultation on the future of HM Coastguard 9 The consultation process 13 Savings 14 Local knowledge in coastguard stations 15 Volunteers 16 Daylight hours 18 Communications technology 19 Resilience 21 Conclusion 21 4 Emergency towing vessels 23 Deployment 23 Commercial tugs 26 Alternative funding sources 27 5 Maritime Incident Response Group 29 Deployment 30 Ships crews 31 A rationalised MIRG 31 Conclusion 33 Conclusions and recommendations 34 Formal Minutes 39 Witnesses 40 List of printed written evidence 41 List of additional written evidence 42 List of unprinted evidence 44 List of Reports from the Committee during the current Parliament 46 3 Summary Her Majesty’s Coastguard provides an essential emergency service around the shores of the United Kingdom. The workload of the Coastguard has increased significantly over the past decade, as our coastlines have become busier and our seas more congested. Both the number of incidents to which the Coastguard has responded, and the number of deaths involved in such incidents, increased by more than 70% between 2000 and 2009. In December 2010 the Department for Transport launched a consultation into proposals, from the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA), to modernise the Coastguard. The MCA proposes a significant reorganisation of the structure of the Coastguard, reducing the 18 Maritime Rescue Co-ordination Centres currently based around the UK coast down to three centres open on a 24-hour basis, and five other centres operating only during ‘daylight hours’. Ten existing regional MRCCs would close. This came in the wake of two other Government announcements with implications for maritime safety. As part of the Spending Review in October 2010, the Government announced it would not renew the existing contract for the UK’s four emergency towing vessels (ETVs). A review of the Maritime Incident Response Group (MIRG), a national fire-fighting-at-sea capability, part-funded by the MCA, was also announced. This Report examines these three separate, yet inter-related, proposals. Taken together, we consider the proposed changes to the co-ordination of the Coastguard and the potential loss of the ETVs and the MIRG to represent a significant restructuring of the country’s marine search and rescue and accident and pollution prevention capabilities. It is therefore regrettable the Department for Transport announced all three sets of proposals with no prior consultation whatsoever and did not consider their combined impact. We cannot support the MCA’s proposals on the future of the Coastguard in their current form. The evidence we have received raises serious concerns that safety will be jeopardised if these proposals proceed. Our main concern about safety is the loss of local knowledge, or ‘situational awareness’, amongst coastguard officers that will inevitably occur under the proposals. Rationalising the number of MRCCs so drastically, in our view, will reduce the quality and rate of exchange of information, particularly at key points when information must be passed swiftly in order to save lives. We are not convinced by the MCA’s assertions that technology can, at present, adequately compensate for the loss of this knowledge. We are also concerned that the proposals risk placing too great a burden of responsibility on volunteer coastguards and pay insufficient attention towards the safety of leisure craft, small fishing vessels and the like (as opposed to the commercial shipping industry), and we have doubts about the statistics used by the MCA to justify its proposals to close several stations at night-time. We are not convinced that the concept of daylight-hour stations should be proceeded with in any future re-organisation of the Coastguard. The strength of opposition against the modernisation proposals we have encountered is such that, if, as the Minister has said, this is a genuine consultation, the proposals cannot be given approval in their current form. The Government should withdraw its proposals and consult on revised plans that address the key issues we have identified: the implications of the potential loss of local knowledge for both safety and volunteering, and the application 4 of upgraded technology. The Government should also demonstrate that the alternative proposals put forward by coastguards have been properly considered when revising its plans for the future of the Coastguard. We strongly condemn the decision to withdraw funding for Emergency Towing Vessels. The decision, which was made against the findings of an independent risk assessment, is unwise and short-sighted. It is, quite literally, inviting disaster. Our evidence strongly suggests that there is no suitable commercial alternative available to the ETVs. We urge the Government to reverse the decision to terminate the provision of ETVs through the MCA. We recognise, however, that there is a strong case for finding other sources of income to help cover the costs of ETVs. We note that the Government is brokering discussions with the ETV working group in pursuit of a solution to this problem. It would be unacceptable for the UK shoreline to lie unprotected if no agreement has been reached by 30 September. In such a scenario, the Government should make exceptional provision by extending the ETV contract over the winter, giving the ETV working group a further six months in which to resolve the issue. We oppose ceasing central funding to the MIRG, which we believe has played an important role in tackling fires at sea in the few years since its inception. Our evidence suggests that while ships’ crews have some training their skills do not match the expertise of the MIRG. It is equally clear that without MCA funding, the MIRG will cease to operate. Local fire services cannot and should not be expected to support a national strategy. We recommend that the Government adopt a rationalised MIRG model which is better calibrated to the risk and more cost-effective than the present arrangement. 5 1 Introduction 1. Her Majesty’s Coastguard provides an essential emergency service around the shores of the United Kingdom. Although not as high-profile as other emergency services, its interventions—to assist those in danger in our waters and on our cliffs and our beaches— can be just as critical. The workload of the Coastguard has been increasing. Our coastlines are far busier than ever, enjoyed by 200 million people a year, and our seas are becoming more congested.1 There are clear signs that weather conditions are also becoming persistently more extreme, with significant weather events becoming more frequent and severe. The Coastguard responded to almost 22,000 incidents in 2009, a 76% increase since 2000. More than 400 people died during such incidents in 2009, a 71% increase over the same period.2 2. The structure and organisation of the Coastguard has recently been subject to considerable public and parliamentary scrutiny. In December 2010 the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA)—the government agency responsible for maritime emergency response—published proposals to modernise the Coastguard which have proved to be controversial. This came in the wake of two other Government announcements with implications for maritime safety. As part of the Spending Review in October 2010, the Government announced it would not renew the existing contract for the UK’s four emergency towing vessels (ETVs).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Future Coastguard Consultation
    Protecting our Seas and Shores in the 21st Century Consultation on proposals for modernising the Coastguard 2010 Coastguard Modernisation Consultation Table of Contents Forewords........................................................................................................3 Executive Summary.........................................................................................7 How to Respond ............................................................................................10 Chapter 1: Protecting our Seas and Shores in the 21st century ....................12 Chapter 2: The Coastguard Today.................................................................14 Chapter 3: Modernising Structures and Systems...........................................19 Chapter 4: The Proposed Structure ...............................................................22 Chapter 5: Strengthening the Coastguard Rescue Service ...........................32 Chapter 6: Improving Efficiency and Value for Money ...................................37 Equality Impact Assessment..........................................................................40 What will happen next....................................................................................41 Annex A The Consultation Criteria................................................................42 Annex B : Glossary of Terms ........................................................................43 Annex C: List of Consultees..........................................................................46
    [Show full text]
  • Marine Safety Act 2003
    Marine Safety Act 2003 CHAPTER 16 CONTENTS 1 Safety directions 2 Fire authorities: power to charge 3 Amendments and repeals 4 Commencement 5Extent 6Short Title Schedule 1 — New Schedule 3A to the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 - Safety Directions Schedule 2 — Minor and Consequential Amendments Schedule 3 — Repeals ELIZABETH II c. 16 Marine Safety Act 2003 2003 CHAPTER 16 An Act to make provision about the giving of directions in respect of ships for purposes relating to safety or pollution and about the taking of action to enforce, in connection with, or in lieu of, directions; to make provision about fire-fighting in connection with marine incidents; and for connected purposes. [10th July 2003] E IT ENACTED by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present BParliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:— 1 Safety directions (1) The following shall be inserted in Part IV of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 (c. 21) (safety) after section 108 (births and deaths)— “108ASafety directions (1) Schedule 3A (safety directions) shall have effect. (2) A provision made by or by virtue of this Act (including one which creates an offence) shall have no effect in so far as it— (a) is inconsistent with the exercise by or on behalf of the Secretary of State of a power under Schedule 3A (safety directions), (b) would interfere with a person’s compliance with a direction under that Schedule, or (c) would interfere with action taken by virtue of that Schedule.” (2) Before Schedule 4 to that Act there shall be inserted new Schedule 3A set out in Schedule 1 to this Act.
    [Show full text]
  • Detailed Prospectus
    The premier distance learning “I warmly recommend this MBA in Shipping & Logistics programme to all maritime specialists MBA for the maritime sector who want to improve their skills, knowledge and understanding of the shipping businesses.” Catalin-Valerica Ancau, AncelorMittal Steel Galati S.A. Detailed Prospectus Start date: 24th September 2012 Application deadline: 10th August 2012 Email: [email protected] Visit: www.mba4shipping.com Scan with QR app Tel: +44 (0)20 3377 3209 / +1 (646) 957 8929 Contents Welcome ................................................ 1 Programme Overview ............................ 2 Why Study this MBA? ............................ 2 Programme Structure ............................ 3 Business Transformation Project ........... 7 Welcome Merits of this MBA.................................. 8 Who Studies this MBA? ....................... 10 Welcome to the MBA in Shipping & Logistics, offered by Lloyd’s Maritime Academy Student Testimonials ............................11 and Middlesex University Business School. Our industry leading programme provides Studying by Distance Learning ............ 13 you with the essential personal and professional qualities required to propel your career into the realms of executive management, especially now that proficient and Programme Faculty ............................. 14 inspiring leaders are needed and valued more than ever. Fee & Commencement Information..... 18 Entry Requirements ............................. 18 Integrating traditional core MBA competencies such as strategic
    [Show full text]
  • MARITIME and COASTGUARD AGENCY Annual Report and Accounts 2008-09 Incorporating Our Plans for 2009-10 and Beyond
    MARITIME AND COASTGUARD AGENCY Annual Report and Accounts 2008-09 Incorporating our plans for 2009-10 and beyond Safer Lives Safer Ships Cleaner Seas 08/09 MARITIME AND COASTGUARD AGENCY Annual Report and Accounts 2008-09 Incorporating our plans for 2009-10 and beyond Presented to the House of Commons pursuant to section 7 of the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000 Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed on 16 July 2009 HC792 London: The Stationery Office £19.15 Our vision is to be a world-class organisation that is committed to preventing loss of life, continuously improving maritime safety, and protecting the marine environment: Safer lives, safer ships, cleaner seas Our shared core values are: Mutual respect and customer focus © Crown Copyright 2009 The text in this document (excluding the Royal Arms and other departmental or agency logos) may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium providing it is reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as Crown copyright and the title of the document specified. Where we have identified any third party copyright material you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. For any other use of this material please write to Office of Public Sector Information, Information Policy Team, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 4DU or e-mail: [email protected] ISBN: 9780102961485 Contents 4 Chief Executive’s Foreword 6 Who We Are 10 Management Commentary 15 Safer Lives 20 Safer Ships 26 Cleaner Seas 28 Financial Review for the Year 30 Remuneration Report 35 Accounts 65 Annexes 82 2009-10 Ministerial Targets Chief Executive’s Foreword I am pleased to present the Maritime and got to grips with a new structure, and our Coastguard Agency’s Annual Report and coastal organisation was hit by strike action Accounts for 2008-2009, incorporating our in March, April, July and over the busy August plans for 2009-2010 and beyond.
    [Show full text]
  • Marine), Wales Marine Pollution, Wales
    Status: This is the original version (as it was originally made). Wales Statutory Instruments are not carried in their revised form on this site. STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS 2011 No. 559 (W.81) ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, WALES LICENSING (MARINE), WALES MARINE POLLUTION, WALES The Marine Licensing (Exempted Activities) (Wales) Order 2011 Made - - - - 25 February 2011 Laid before the National Assembly for Wales - - 1 March 2011 Coming into force - - 6 April 2011 The Welsh Ministers, as the appropriate licensing authority under section 113(4)(b) of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009(1), make the following Order in exercise of the powers conferred by sections 74(1), (2) and (3) and 316(1) of that Act, and by section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972(2). The Welsh Ministers are designated for the purposes of section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 in relation to the prevention, reduction and management of waste(3). In deciding to make this Order, the Welsh Ministers have had regard to the matters mentioned in section 74(4) of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. The Welsh Ministers have carried out a consultation in accordance with section 74(5) of that Act. PART 1 Introductory provisions Title and commencement 1.—(1) The title of this Order is the Marine Licensing (Exempted Activities) (Wales) Order 2011. (2) This Order comes into force on 6 April 2011. (1) 2009 c. 23. (2) 1972 c. 68. (3) Article 3 of the European Communities (Designation) (No.2) Order 2010 [S.I. 2010/1552]. Document Generated: 2011-03-24 Status: This is the original version (as it was originally made).
    [Show full text]
  • Merchant Shipping and Maritime Security Act 1997, Cross Heading: Pollution Control and Marine Safety
    Changes to legislation: There are currently no known outstanding effects for the Merchant Shipping and Maritime Security Act 1997, Cross Heading: Pollution control and marine safety. (See end of Document for details) Merchant Shipping and Maritime Security Act 1997 1997 CHAPTER 28 Pollution control and marine safety 5 Waste reception facilities at harbours. In Part VI of the 1995 Act (prevention of pollution), after Chapter I there is inserted— “CHAPTER IA WASTE RECEPTION FACILITIES AT HARBOURS 130A General. (1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make such provision as he considers appropriate in relation to— (a) the provision at harbours in the United Kingdom of facilities for the reception of waste from ships (in this Chapter referred to as “waste reception facilities”); and (b) the use of waste reception facilities provided at such harbours. (2) In making the regulations, the Secretary of State shall take into account the need to give effect to provisions— (a) which are contained in any international agreement mentioned in section 128(1) which has been ratified by the United Kingdom; and (b) which relate to waste reception facilities. (3) Sections 130B to 130D make further provision with respect to the regulations that may be made under this section. 2 Merchant Shipping and Maritime Security Act 1997 (c. 28) Chapter IA – Waste reception facilities at harbours Document Generated: 2021-08-27 Changes to legislation: There are currently no known outstanding effects for the Merchant Shipping and Maritime Security Act 1997, Cross Heading: Pollution control and marine safety. (See end of Document for details) 130B Waste management plans.
    [Show full text]
  • Shelter from the Storm – the Problem of Places of Refuge for Ships in Distress and Proposals to Remedy the Problem Anthony Morrison University of Wollongong
    University of Wollongong Research Online University of Wollongong Thesis Collection University of Wollongong Thesis Collections 2011 Shelter from the Storm – the problem of places of refuge for ships in distress and proposals to remedy the problem Anthony Morrison University of Wollongong Recommended Citation Morrison, Anthony, Shelter from the Storm – the problem of places of refuge for ships in distress and proposals to remedy the problem, Doctor of Philosopy thesis, University of Wollongong, Faculty of Law, University of Wollongong, 2011. http://ro.uow.edu.au/theses/3218 Research Online is the open access institutional repository for the University of Wollongong. For further information contact Manager Repository Services: [email protected]. Shelter from the Storm –the problem of places of refuge for ships in distress and proposals to remedy the problem. A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the award of the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY from UNIVERSITY OF WOLLONGONG by ANTHONY MORRISON, BA(Sydney), LLM (Hons) (Sydney), Grad Dip Env Law (Sydney), Dip Shipping Law (London) AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL CENTRE FOR OCEAN RESOURCES AND SECURITY (ANCORS) FACULTY OF LAW 2011 iii CERTIFICATION I, Anthony Morrison, declare that this thesis, submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the award of Doctor of Philosophy in the Australian National Centre for Ocean Resources and Security, Faculty of Law, University of Wollongong, is wholly my own work unless otherwise referenced or acknowledged. The document has not been submitted for qualifications at any other academic institution. Anthony Morrison 20 December 2010 v ABSTRACT When a ship gets into difficulties, one of the main options of an owner or master is to seek to put into sheltered waters where the difficulties can be remedied or minimised before proceeding on the voyage.
    [Show full text]
  • MCA Framework Document
    FRAMEWORK DOCUMENT FOR THE MARITIME AND COASTGUARD AGENCY (MCA) June 2014 1 Contents THE AGENCY ............................................................................................................ 4 Main activities/responsibilities ................................................................................. 4 Location .................................................................................................................. 4 ROLES, RESPONSIBILITIES AND ACCOUNTABILITY........................................... 4 The Secretary of State ............................................................................................ 4 The Permanent Secretary ....................................................................................... 5 Agency Owner ........................................................................................................ 6 Chief Executive ....................................................................................................... 6 MCA Executive Board ............................................................................................. 7 Secretary of State’s Representative (SOSREP) ..................................................... 7 Receiver of Wreck ................................................................................................... 8 Sponsor Divisions ................................................................................................... 8 Maritime Administration Board ...............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • April±May 2004 Volume 10 Issue 2 Issn 1478-8586
    APRIL±MAY 2004 THE JOURNAL OF VOLUME 10 ISSUE 2 ISSN 1478-8586 EDITORIAL Comite¨ Maritime International (CMI) 38th International Conference:Vancouver, May/June 2004 DIGEST OF CONTEMPORARY DEVELOPMENTS ANALYSIS AND COMMENT Limitation of liability ^ London Convention 1976 ^ definition of charterer ^ right to limit ^ limitable claims ^ Articles 1(2) and 2(1)(a) CMA CGM SA v Classica Shipping Co Ltd Private international law ^ choice of law ^ Islamic law Shamil Bank of Bahrain EC v Beximco and others Marine insurance ^ duty of utmost good faith ^ misrepresentation ^ pre-contract ^ breach of warranty ^ fraudulent presentation of a claim Eagle Star Insurance Co Ltd v Games Video Co SA and others (The Game Boy) Jurisdiction ^ Brussels Jurisdiction Convention ^ lis pendens ^ application to jurisdiction agreements Erich Gasser GmbH v Misat Srl Jurisdiction ^ English anti-suit injunctions ^ compatibility with Brussels Jurisdiction Convention ^ opinion of Advocate General Turner v Grovit ARTICLES Scope of coverage under the UNCITRAL Draft Instrument PROFESSOR MICHAEL F STURLEY The road to Vancouver ^ the development of theYork-Antwerp Rules RICHARD CORNAH The CMI Review of Marine Insurance PROFESSOR JOHN HARE Places of refuge: the debate moves on RICHARD SHAW INTERNATIONAL AND REGIONALORGANISATIONS European Union,CMI,UNCTAD/UNCITRAL, IMO Book Review APRIL^MAY 2004 VOLUME 10 ISSUE 2 ISSN 1478-8586 CONTENTS EDITORIAL 155 The road toVancouver ^ the development of theYork-Antwerp Rules 113 Comite¨ Maritime International (CMI) RICHARD CORNAH 38th International
    [Show full text]
  • The Coastguard, Emergency Towing Vessels and the Maritime Incident Response Group: Follow Up
    House of Commons Transport Committee The Coastguard, Emergency Towing Vessels and the Maritime Incident Response Group: follow up Sixth Report of Session 2010–12 Volume II Additional written evidence Ordered by the House of Commons to be published 12 September, 22 October, 12, 26 November 2012 Published on 11 December 2012 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited The Transport Committee The Transport Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Department for Transport and its Associate Public Bodies. Current membership Mrs Louise Ellman (Labour/Co-operative, Liverpool Riverside) (Chair) Steve Baker (Conservative, Wycombe) Jim Dobbin (Labour/Co-operative, Heywood and Middleton) Mr Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow South) Julie Hilling (Labour, Bolton West) Kwasi Kwarteng (Conservative, Spelthorne) Mr John Leech (Liberal Democrat, Manchester Withington) Karen Lumley (Conservative, Redditch) Karl McCartney (Conservative, Lincoln) Iain Stewart (Conservative, Milton Keynes South) Graham Stringer (Labour, Blackley and Broughton) The following were also members of the committee during the Parliament. Angie Bray (Conservative, Ealing Central and Acton), Lilian Greenwood (Labour, Nottingham South), Kelvin Hopkins (Labour, Luton North), Paul Maynard, (Conservative, Blackpool North and Cleveleys), Gavin Shuker (Labour/Co- operative, Luton South), Angela Smith (Labour, Penistone and Stocksbridge), Julian Sturdy (Conservative, York Outer) Powers The Committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the internet via www.parliament.uk. Publication The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House.
    [Show full text]
  • Protection of the Environment and the International Salvage Convention, 1989: an Assessment
    Protection of the Environment and the International Salvage Convention, 1989: An Assessment Eghosa O. Ekhator . Abstract This article focuses on the International Salvage Convention and the protection of the environment in salvage operations. The article traces the evolution and history of the law of Salvage to its present status by using the UK as a case study. In essence, the article seeks to ascertain the extent of current international regime on salvage in protecting the environment. The question that this article poses is: Does the International Salvage Convention 1989 accord enough protection to the environment against the backdrop of global efforts to promote environmental protection and sustainable development? The article begins with a brief synopsis of the underlying principles of salvage including the rule of ‘no cure-no pay’ followed by an appraisal of the events that culminated arguably in the development of the International Salvage Convention 1989 to safeguard the environment in the course of salvage operations. A systematic analysis of the defects inherent in the International Salvage Convention 1989 vis-à-vis protection of the environment are analysed and a number of reforms are highlighted. Key terms International Salvage Convention, England, Environmental Protection, Pollution and Environmental Salvage Award DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/mlr.v10i1.3 ______________ Introduction This article focuses on the International Salvage Convention and the protection of the environment in salvage operations. The article traces the evolution and history of the law of Salvage to its present status, and it uses the UK as a case study. The article seeks to ascertain the extent of current international regime on salvage in protecting the environment.
    [Show full text]
  • 3.2Volunteermanagementguidance EROCIPS
    Coastal Pollution Response Management of Volunteers Guidance Manual Product of the Emergency Response to coastal Oil, Chemical and Inert Pollution from Shipping Project Work Package 3.2 Final Supported by the European Union Project co-financed by European Regional Development Fund This publication was written by Steelhenge Consulting Ltd as the contractual completion of Work Package 3.2 of the EROCIPS Project. The principle author was Arthur Rabjohn, Director, Steelhenge Consulting Ltd. Typeset in Arial size 12 is standard text to meet disabilities guidance, every effort has been made to apply the disabilities guidance to this document. Contributed quotes from the following were all approved for use: Barrie Evans – UK Maritime and Coastguard Agency Celeste Sauls – Volunteer North Texas Andrea McConnell – Countryside Council for Wales Natalie Beau – CEDRE John Hayes – Dorset County Council Francisco Renteria – Mexicana Airlines John Arney – Centre for Structured Debriefing Gerry Jackson – Formerly Metropolitan Police Service Bob Haycock – Countryside Council for Wales The contribution of members of the International Association of Emergency Managers (IAEM) discussion list is gratefully acknowledged. CONTENTS Foreword Commissioner Danuta Hubner ........................................................................ 5 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................. 7 A. EROCIPS Project............................................................................................
    [Show full text]