Generic decision making approach

The decision making in case of ships in distress focuses on prevention in order that the initial damage is kept to a minimum and that further damage is kept under control. Thus the intention is to manage the distress situation in such a way as to keep the total damage to a minimum. It should also be recognised that a certain measure could increase the damage for one party but decrease it for another party.

Thus, for example, moving to the shore of a municipality will increase the risk for that particular municipality but decrease it for other municipalities in a more generally sensitive area.

Environmental damage, economical damage and safety of life could all play a role and have to be weighed against each other.

The first step in case of a ship in distress is to retrieve all possible information from the crew on the exact situation, the cargo of the ship and sea conditions. It is the responsibility of the crew and owners to get the situation under control as quickly as possible with or without the assistance of e.g. a salvor. Under control, here means that the ship can continue its voyage toward its original destination without presenting problems for entry to that port. Any actions that can enhance this situation need to be considered.

Coastal state authorities will assess the situation and identify the possible affect to the marine environment and socio-economic consequences, including those of bringing the vessel into a port.

In the first place, the crew itself will extinguish a fire. If they do not succeed, fire-fighting assistance from shore is required and may be provided by a tug with fire fighting equipment. On the other hand, movement of the casualty itself can increase the intensity of the initial fire.

The possibility that the situation becomes worse and could run out of control always should be kept in mind. Clearly, it is necessary to identify the consequences in terms of secondary damage, instability and possible sinking should the situation of the ship in distress run out of control.

The following steps will normally be taken:

• Initial problem brought under control by own means (ship’s crew extinguishes fire, stops leakage, stabilizes deck cargo, etc.)
• Additional assistance obtained from shore to bring the problem under control (emergency tugboat, fire fighting team, salvage team, spill response team etc.)
• Bring the ship to such a position that above actions can be optimised.

The decision-making is on one hand focussed on “how to get the distress situation under control” and on the other hand on “saving the ship and crew”. The ship owner’s first priority is the crew, the ship and its cargo to be safe. Therefore the captain wants to have his ship safe and preferably in port as soon as possible.

As the situation could run completely out of hand (ship sinking or run aground on an unwanted location) the decision makers on shore as well as the captain should always have in mind these possible consequences. In other words, they must always bear in mind that actions can make matters worse rather than better. As, for example, in proceeding towards a harbour to get the situation under control, the ship may sink in the shipping lane in the harbour approaches.

For the compensation of the damage it is important to know which compensation regime is applicable to the incident and what financial implications are compensated to what extent. If a harbour authority or municipality has to take a certain risk would they be compensated in case the situation runs out of control? For instance, if a distressed tanker proceeds toward sheltered waters thus posing a risk for that particular coastal area, the coastal municipality will not agree to its entry unless it be fully compensated for any financial or public health damage likely to ensue from their agreement. .

It is not an easy decision and certainly not taken by the ship crew or the owners. This decision is the responsibility of the authorities. The authority in charge will bear the consequences, even taking into account the existing compensation levels.

Figure 86 shows a decision making tree for distress situations at sea, these being fire on board, oil or chemical leakage, other cargo problem, explosion danger etc. As long as such situations are likely to be brought under control, the ship can proceed towards its destination. If it is expected that, after the crew solves the initial problem, the ship urgently needs to be repaired, it can proceed to the nearest harbour. In case assistance from shore is expected, the ship can proceed towards such additional assistance, though this will not necessarily be the nearest harbour. However, taking into consideration the actual situation on board the ship may opt to remain where it is in order to avoid further listing or hull stress.

If the crew does not successfully get the situation under control, the next step will be to ask for additional assistance from shore. Depending on the distress situation assistance will be required. For instance:

• An emergency towing vessel (ship adrift),
• Fire fighting team (fire on board, explosion danger, cargo problem),
• Spill response team (oil or chemical leakage) or salvage team (construction problem, cargo problem).

In this stage, in which the situation with the help of these team(s) is likely to be controlled in short notice the ship can proceed towards its final destination or proceed toward the nearest harbour.

The next stage will be a situation in which the distress situation may not be controlled in short notice, or if more assistance is required, or if the distress situation becomes more serious. In this stage response options that will accelerate solving the problem and which could minimize the damage in case the distress situation will last longer or escalates need to be considered. In this stage the decision maker should also have in mind that the situation could become worse e.g. major pollution, uncontrolled ship a drift, increasing fire resulting in damage to the ship, etc.

In this stage the following aspects need to be taken in consideration:

• A wreck removal operation in deeper water normally will be more expensive
• Risk of blocking a harbour entrance could cause enormous financial damage
• Location of pollution; e.g. a sensitivity areas could increase the environmental effects
• Distance from shore determines, in case of persistent pollutants, the length of coastline polluted
• Distance from the shore determines the sailing time of the assistance teams from shore (mobilisation time)
• Fire may increase due to sailing speed
• Sheltered places could reduce the pollution outflow
• Sailing direction could influence the stability of the situation
• Compensation of damages influences the willingness of local authorities to cooperate

Finally in case the situation runs out of control and there is serious risk of sinking the options to ground the vessel, controlled sinking of the vessel, abandon the ship need to be considered. In this stage normally there is no harbour willing to receive the vessel and a safe haven or sheltered area are not available.

Combining that information with the response options mentioned in this chapter, we arrive at the following recommendations and conclusions:

1. Salvage companies play an important role in the response to HNS incidents. (Chapter 8: maritime assistance services, is added for this reason.)
2. Fire fighting and Emergency towing are important actions to reduce the effects of HNS incidents.
3. Governments should be prepared for ships carrying HNS, in distress situations. This should be in the form of Emergency Towing and the decision making process.
4. Is no need to be prepared for recovery of released chemicals in the marine environment other than for persistent floaters and sinkers. (Which could be handled with oil spill response equipment and dredging materials)
5. Governments should have the necessary measuring/monitoring equipment to determine when the situation is safe or unsafe and to control the work of the salvage company.
6. For measuring there is no need for a particular chemical spill response vessel. A remote operated floating platform to carry out such measuring can be used without danger for the crew. Such a platform could be stored in a container on board of any vessel that stays up wind of the pollution to be measured.
7. For packages and in particular for containers containing substances that dissolve in water special precaution should be taken to avoid escape of substances when lifting the container out of the water.