Page 112 - ΝΑΥΤΙΚΑ ΧΡΟΝΙΚΑ - MARTIOS 2023

their powers to select a salvor and an appropri-
ate contract at the shipowner’s expense.
Where time is of the essence, or there is an emer-
gency, LOF remains the ‘contract of preference’
for stakeholders. The ‘no cure-no pay’ princi-
ple provides an additional incentive, and LOF
is simple, effective and straightforward to use.
However, there are concerns over alleged ‘his-
toric’ abuse/misuse, the time taken to assess the
salvage award, and uncertainty over the award
and costs.
The use of “side letters” can lead to further
delays.
Fewer LOF contracts might disincentivise salvors
to continue investing in new technology or equip-
ment, and these costs may eventually shift to the
shipowners and their insurers.
Coastal State ‘intervention’, or the threat of
intervention, was recognised as positively influ-
encing ‘faster or rapid’ decision-making when
lengthy contractual negotiations were ongoing.
Education and training must be targeted at the
appropriate individuals.
expected to remember or recognise the hazards edly at a historic low, confirming a continued The lack of agreed practices and procedures
associated with the cargo carried on board, the decline in its use over recent decades. There was does not mitigate and even contributes towards
occurrence has proven that such an important also evidence of parties entering into alternative the likelihood of delays.
aspect can be overlooked. For the crew’s safety, contractual arrangements leading to delays in There needs to be effective communication and
it is essential to remind them of the hazards of the engagement of salvage services and, in some collaboration between all stakeholders who will
the cargo carried. cases, pollution and wreck liabilities that might have a key role in casualty response.
The risks associated with working in the vicinity otherwise have been avoided. In light of this con-
of a hazardous environment (cargo hold loaded cern, the International Group of P&I clubs has In light of the above findings, the Report’s
with coal) had not been identified, and a risk conducted an independent, impartial and objec- main recommendations are as follows:
assessment was not carried out. In addition, the tive review that investigated the possible direct The International Chamber of Shipping (ICS),
hazards associated with the coal cargo had been and root causes for delay in these circumstances supported by H&M and P&I underwriters, should
overlooked when the booby hatch maintenance and what changes might be made to improve the remind operators of the need to ensure that, in
was carried out. use of LOF. compliance with ISM, their Masters, DPA, or
The final full report was presented to the Group other nominated person(s), as named in the SMS,
Lesson learned and subsequently published in July 2022. In have the appropriate knowledge and experience
The lessons learned from this incident are: addition, a presentation was made at Lloyd’s with regard to the procurement and provision of
– The procedures for entering enclosed in September 2022, and the findings are being salvage services and are given the authority to
spaces should be executed as provided considered in conjunction with Lloyd’s own act promptly and decisively.
by the company’s SMS review of LOF. The ICS may wish to consider submitting a paper
– Relevant drills, training, and information In summary, the review carried out found that: to the IMO’s Marine Safety Committee (MSC)
should be provided as outlined in the com- Delays in the contracting and engagement of sal- requesting that any future amendments to Cir-
pany’s SMS vage services are on the increase and might lead cular 6 (Guidance on the Qualifications, Training
– No entry should be attempted with- to an escalation of a situation to a point where a and Experience Necessary for Undertaking the
out an Enclosed Space Entry Permit significant loss or danger to life might occur. Role of The Designated Person) include refer-
issued prior to entry by the master The unfettered authority of the Master or Des- ence to the provision of salvage services.
or the nominated responsible person ignated Person Ashore (DPA), and their timely All interested parties should identify
and completed by the crew mem- response to an incident, are critical. communication channels with key decision
bers tasked with entering the space. Some of the key stakeholders in a maritime inci- makers in the maritime authorities and endeav-
dent seek greater certainty over costs and often our to keep each other informed of casualty
POTENTIAL FOR DELAYS IN THE opt for a non-LOF contract that can cause delays response assessment, response methodology,
CONTRACTING AND ENGAGEMENT OF whilst parties engage in negotiations for a less contractual options and progress being made.
SALVAGE SERVICES IN MARINE expensive option. Some maritime authorities Any failure to liaise may lead to delays or result
CASUALTIES confirmed that, in circumstances where delays in State intervention with the added risk of being
In 2020, traditional LOF contracts were report- are unreasonable, they would be entitled to use
For more informat ion please co ntact :
gr.marineservices sgs. co m
112 113