Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
News:
Pages: [1]   Go Down
Print
This topic has not yet been rated!
You have not rated this topic. Select a rating:
Author Topic: Marine salvage  (Read 621 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Solomon
Guest
« on: October 12, 2006, 08:29:38 AM »

Marine salvage
Marine salvage is the process of rescuing the hull, equipment or cargo of a shipwreck or abandoned vessel. Generally the crew have lost control of or abandoned the vessel due to sinking, being stranded on rocks or aground on a shallow sea bed, or simply because its means of propulsion has failed and it is drifting with the wind and tide.

"Salvors" are seamen and engineers who carry out salvage to vessels that are not owned by themselves. When salvaging large ships, they may use cranes, floating dry docks and divers to lift and repair ships for short journeys to safety towed by a tugboat. The aim of the salvage may be to repair the vessel at a harbour or dry dock. Another reason for salvage may be to prevent pollution or damage to the marine environment. Alternatively the vessel or valuable parts of the vessel or its cargo may be recovered for its resale value, or for scrap.

Ship salvage and the law
When a ship or boat has been rescued or salvaged without prior agreement between the owner and the salvor, the salvor in some circumstances can legally claim recompense or "salvage rights". Although this rule seems to the disadvantage of the owner of the ship, its purpose is to encourage potential salvors to risk their vessels and use their working time for the benefit of both themselves and the ship owner.

Legal disputes do arise from the claiming of salvage rights. To reduce the risk of a claim after an accident, boat owners or skippers often remain on board and in command of the vessel; they do everything possible to minimise further loss and take no action that implies that the ship seeks rescue. If another vessel offers a tow the skipper negotiates the reward before accepting the offer and providing the tow rope.

Some maritime rescue organisations, such as Britain's Royal National Lifeboat Institution, insist the crews of their lifeboats renounce their right to claim compensation for salvage.

Jetsam are goods that were thrown off a ship, which was in danger, to save the ship. Flotsam are goods that floated off the ship while it was in danger or when it sank. Ligan are goods left in the sea on the wreck or tied to a buoy so that they can be recovered later by the owners. Derelict is abandoned vessels or cargo.

In the United Kingdom under the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, jetsam, flotsam, lagan and all other cargo and wreckage remain the property of their original owners. Anyone removing those goods must inform the Receiver of Wreck to avoid the accusation of theft. As the leisure activity of Wreck diving is common, there are laws to protect historic wrecks of archaeological importance and to protect war graves.

In some circumstances, the ship's master may choose to sign an open form salvage agreement. This is a contingency contract that leaves the value of the salvage operation to be decided at a later date. The best-known open form is the Lloyd's Open Form salvage contract, which was developed by Lloyd's of London and states "no cure - no pay".

The 1910 Brussels Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules with Respect to Assistance and Salvage at Sea reflects the traditional legal principles of marine salvage. The 1989 International Convention on Salvage incorporated the essential provisions of the 1910 Convention, and added some new provisions, as well. The 1989 Salvage Convention entered force on July 14, 1996, with nearly twenty parties. It replaces the 1910 Convention for states which are parties to both where the two conventions' provisions are incompatible.

* Application of Salvage Law and the Law of Finds.pdf (48.67 KB - downloaded 34 times.)
Logged
Solomon
Guest
« Reply #1 on: October 25, 2006, 04:09:39 PM »

Memorandum submitted by the Joint Nautical Archaeology Policy Committee

INTRODUCTION

  1.  The Joint Nautical Archaeology Policy Committee acts as the only UK-wide forum on policy and legislation on the Underwater Cultural Heritage (UCH). Its membership (see below for list) spans archaeological bodies, state heritage agencies, diving organisations and other bodies with direct responsibilities for UCH, representing a wide range of perspectives and substantial amount of expertise.

  2.  JNAPC through its work promotes the wise stewardship of the UK's marine heritage, and has for many years been especially active in development of policy and guidance following the launch of Heritage at Sea in 1988. This has included work on reviewing legislation (eg policy discussion papers such as Heritage Law at Sea and the Interim Report on Marine Heritage Legislation and the Valletta Convention) and promoting guidelines for those who have an impact on the resource through development (JNAPC Code of Practice for Seabed Developers) or through recreational diving and other activities (Underwater Finds?Guidance to Divers, and Wreck Diving?Don't Get Scuttled). We welcome the opportunity to provide a submission to this Committee's inquiry, coming as it does at a time in which legislation for the protection of the marine cultural heritage is under review by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport as part of the widest-ranging reforms of heritage conservation legislation for a generation. We hope that the committee is mindful of the opportunity for their inquiry to influence positively such reforms in the way in which they will apply to the marine environment.

UNDERWATER CULTURAL HERITAGE: AN INTEGRAL PART OF MARINE SUSTAINABILITY

  3.  UK waters represent one of the world's richest marine historic environments, comprising drowned prehistoric terrestrial landscapes, the rich legacy of our maritime history comprising the remains of thousands of historic and ancient shipwrecks, numerous vessels and aircraft from the wars of the 20th century, as well as innumerable human remains of lost civilian and military personnel. The recent re-ignition of interest in the Mary Rose during this summer, which itself was a consequence of new exploration to assess threats from proposed works to deepen the navigation channel to Portsmouth dockyard, illustrates both the cultural value of this heritage, and the pressures it comes under. However, in spite of the constant threats of loss and degradation by both natural and manmade means, the UCH remains both the least managed aspect of the UK's historic environment and the least managed facet of the UK's marine environment. The increasing demands that the nation is making upon our seas serves to increase pressure upon this culturally important, but entirely non-renewable, asset. We believe it should be incumbent on all bodies responsible for the marine environment to ensure their policies and activities seek to secure the careful stewardship of the UCH alongside other environmental assets.

  4.  The Government's recent consultation "Seas of Change" put forward a broadly welcome vision of sustainable development of the marine environment. However, if this vision is to be fulfilled in relation to the underwater cultural heritage there is an urgent need to increase our understanding and ability to manage it. This cannot be done within a vacuum, but must be integrated within the overarching themes and strategies for protection of the whole marine environment. What we believe is urgently needed is the full implementation of the general standards for responsible management of the cultural heritage to which the UK is committed, acknowledging its exceptional international significance, and giving it equal weight with other environmental conservation issues. Wherever possible this should mean developing fully integrated and mutually reinforcing conservation strategies.

  5.  At the core of this we believe there needs to be an approach to stewardship across government that is predicated on the idea of informed conservation. By this we mean:

      (i)  Recognising the overall international importance of Britain's underwater cultural heritage as a maritime nation with a history of world-wide influence, and of its significance for people's history and cultural identity and managing it in accordance with this position.

      (ii)  Recognising the diversity and chronological time-depth of the UK's underwater cultural heritage and the varying significance of individual parts of it and the need to ensure that decisions are well informed.

      (iii)  Undertaking studies to increase strategic understanding of the underwater cultural heritage and its relationship to the natural marine environment.

      (iv)  Developing better sources of reliable baseline marine data stored in more accessible formats geared to user needs.

      (v)  Supporting research to analyse the physical and development threats to underwater cultural heritage to a level that underpins its proper management.

      (vi)  Providing adequate resources for the management of underwater cultural heritage, including sufficient people with the technical skills, knowledge and equipment needed to undertake the necessary tasks.

  6.  Our experience is that whilst there are "green shoots" of progress in regard to some of the above, such as brief mentions of protection of historic wrecks within the Government's "Seas of Change" document, the UCH is largely seen as a totally separate subject outside the main thrust of marine environmental policy. This sells our marine and maritime archaeological inheritance short, and at worst places it under threat. Below we offer further critique and recommendations, which we believe would greatly help in building an integrated approach to environmental assets of our seas.

OBJECTIVES, DUTIES AND SKILLS FOR POLICY DEVELOPMENT FOR THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT

  7.  Whilst DCMS and the devolved governments have overall responsibility for protection of the UCH, delivered through expertise in English Heritage, Historic Scotland, Cadw and the Northern Ireland Environment & Heritage Service, and with management of the most important historic wrecks guided by the Advisory Committee on Historic Wreck Sites, it is activities under the jurisdiction of bodies elsewhere in government which have the greatest impact. The various procedures, policies and controls on activities such as marine minerals and offshore energy and extractive development, ICZM, navigational dredging, control of pollution in the marine environment, management of fisheries and shipping all have impacts on the UCH, but are under the direct responsibility of other authorities than the heritage agencies.

  8.  The comparatively limited resources available to the state heritage agencies provides capacity in terms of a handful of personnel to provide policy guidance and advice to other government departments and agencies, supported by extremely limited resources for survey, recording and monitoring. This places the heritage agencies in a position to provide a lead in UCH policy development, albeit within a context of limited resources. Expertise and information also exists in local government in the form of local authority archaeologists, although resources for these are not on a statutory footing, and whilst they may often be keen to have an input, they are unable to do this because of the absence of a clear status for Local Planning Authorities in the marine management and consent procedures. We are not convinced that?with a few notable exceptions?policy makers across government are making full use of this available expertise.

  9.  We believe that remedies need to be found for this lack of joined up government. As a starting point there should be a clear statutory duty on all government bodies to protect the marine environment, which should be taken expressly to include the UCH, alongside human health and good stewardship of marine natural resources. This would help in sending the appropriate signals. For the environmental stewardship of the UCH, this would usefully follow the protocols established in section 17(1) of the Agriculture Act 1986 on Defra in relation to agriculture, and similar duties on the Environment Agency under the 1995 Environment Act to care for landscape and the heritage in the exercise of its duties. In our view the principle of a statutory duty towards environmental and cultural conservation should be extended to the marine environment and should to apply to all relevant departments with clear marine responsibilities, including Defra, DTI, DfT, MoD, DCMS and ODPM.

  10.  Experience with other such duties has been that they provide a useful focal point, but require clear objectives, targets, reporting requirements and above all adequate resourcing of multi-disciplinary teams of expert staff to make them "stick". The absence of these in both Defra and the Environment Agency has meant that cultural heritage issues have been under-played compared with other environmental issues. Similarly, the Sustainability Commission has so far largely ignored the historic environment. We believe therefore that the Government could greatly help by setting a handful of clear strategic goals in relation to the marine historic environment. JNAPC advocates the following:

      ?  The use of the marine historic environment in a sustainable and archaeologically sensitive manner in order to maintain the underwater cultural heritage for the benefit of future generations.

      ?  To have regard to fostering the educative and social benefits to be gained from the marine historic environment.

      ?  To increase our understanding of the marine historic environment and the natural and human impacts on the marine historic environment.

      ?  To support research and develop an integrated approach to addressing the pressures which affect conservation of the cultural and natural marine environment.

  11.  A requirement for departments to report back on their work towards these objectives within the Marine Stewardship Report (assuming this is to be produced with any frequency) might provide a useful means to promote and measure their delivery.

UCH AND DEVELOPMENT OF MARINE POLICY

  12.  The UK has recently signed up to the Valletta Convention thereby making certain undertakings for the preservation and conservation of the cultural heritage both on land and underwater. The Government has also accepted, although not signed up to, the main provisions of the UNESCO Convention for the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage particularly the Annex, which details appropriate methods for investigating the UCH. Further consideration should be given to signing up to the UNESCO convention.

  13.  The Valletta Convention requires the Government to ensure the proper protection, investigation and recording of the marine historic environment whilst also encouraging public access and involvement. Divers, particularly recreational divers, are unique custodians of the marine environment both natural and historic. In many cases only they are in a position to monitor the marine environment by virtue of their numbers both as individuals and through their organisations. This resource should be more fully utilised.

  14.  The study of the marine historic environment is a relatively new science and therefore our knowledge of the remains of historic wrecks and submerged ancient land sites on and under the seabed is not as developed as that on land where it is already a material part of the planning process. In order for future marine management to be effective there is an urgent requirement to carry out extensive underwater surveys in order to discover the extent of the UCH. All proposals for integrated marine mapping should therefore include the mapping of the marine historic environment.

  15.  Consent procedures for development of the marine environment is spread across a number of government departments on a sectoral basis. This leads to inadequate consideration of the historic environment. A seamless planning regime should be instituted for the marine environment out to the limit of the territorial sea.

  16.  The JNAPC would welcome the opportunity to give oral evidence to the Committee in relation to the marine historic environment.

MEMBERSHIP OF JNAPC

  17.  Members of the Joint Nautical Archaeology Policy Committee are:

  Chairman:  Robert Yorke

  Association of Local Government Archaeological Officers

  British Sub Aqua Club

  Council for British Archaeology

  Hampshire & Wight Trust for Maritime Archaeology

  ICOMOS UK

  Institute of Field Archaeologists (Maritime Affairs Group)

  National Maritime Museum

  National Museum and Galleries of Wales

  National Trust

  Nautical Archaeology Society

  Professional Association of Diving Instructors

  Shipwreck Heritage Centre

  Society for Nautical Research

  Sub Aqua Association

  UK Institute for Conservation

  Wessex Archaeology

  Department of Law, University of Leicester

  Department of Law, University of Wolverhampton

  Observers:

  Archaeological Diving Contractor

  Cadw

  English Heritage

  Environment and Heritage Service Northern Ireland

  Historic Scotland

  Maritime and Coastguard Agency, Receiver of Wreck

  Ministry of Defence

  Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland

12 September 2003
Logged
moneypenny
Bronze Member
*

Karma: 30
OfflineOffline

Posts: 75


Spot o' tea?


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: October 25, 2006, 08:06:39 PM »

Quote
We welcome the opportunity to provide a submission to this Committee's inquiry, coming as it does at a time in which legislation for the protection of the marine cultural heritage is under review by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport as part of the widest-ranging reforms of heritage conservation legislation for a generation
Since I see that this memorandum was submitted in 2003, has this legislation referred to, been reviewed by the DCMS as stated?  If so, I'm sure you will put us up to date here Solomon.     With 18 agency members, and 8 agency observers, it seems quite a job to have gotten consensus to come up with what looks like a fairly evenhanded memorandum.  Wouldn't it be fun to be a fly on the wall when so many diverse members are hashing things out?
Moneypenny
Logged
Solomon
Guest
« Reply #3 on: October 26, 2006, 10:08:10 AM »

Reports attached, Moneypenny. I may repost some of the material later.

I have read of some of the internal discussions. The archaeologists are really getting wound up on the subject of salvage, but I think HMG will resist.

Solomon

* ACHWS_Annual_report_2004.pdf (1437.09 KB - downloaded 20 times.)
* ACHWS_annual_report_2005.pdf (1760.4 KB - downloaded 50 times.)
* marine_archaeology_legislation_project.pdf (1009.1 KB - downloaded 8 times.)
* PWA_LicenseeGuidanceNotes_June06.pdf (170.8 KB - downloaded 6 times.)
Logged
Administration
Webmaster: History Hunters
Administrator
Gold Member
*****

Karma: 81
OfflineOffline

Posts: 658


The Eyrie


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: April 07, 2007, 04:10:57 PM »

I have moved all threads to do with these companies into the Charter member section.
Logged

Tags:
Pages: [1]   Go Up
Print
 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.4 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC
History Hunters Worldwide Exodus | TinyPortal v0.9.8 © Bloc