The Nairobi International Convention on the Removal of Wrecks (2007) has fundamentally reshaped shipowners’ exposure.
Key takeaways:
- Strict liability for locating, marking and removing hazardous wrecks
- Compulsory insurance for vessels of 300 GT and above
- Mandatory WRC Certificate on board, backed by P&I Blue Cards
- Direct action against insurers, with very limited policy defences
- In several jurisdictions, no right to limit liability for wreck removal claims
One critical aspect often overlooked: States may extend the Convention’s scope into territorial waters, significantly increasing exposure.
👉 Updated Skuld Insight (Dec 2025):
https://www.skuld.com/topics/environment/wreck-removal-convention-2007/
Open question:
Is wreck removal addressed in your risk strategy as pure compliance — or as a core liability exposure?
#Maritime #PAndI #WreckRemovalConvention #ShippingLaw #RiskManagement #MarineInsurance
Knowledge, precision, responsibility — every day in shipping and beyond.
Nairobi WRC 2007: When Wreck Removal Becomes a Strategic Liability
Abstract
The Nairobi International Convention on the Removal of Wrecks (2007) establishes a framework of strict liability supported by compulsory insurance and state certification. This article examines the operational, insurance and strategic implications for shipowners, managers and brokers, highlighting why wreck removal should be treated as a core liability exposure rather than a mere compliance requirement.
1. Origin and Purpose of the Convention
Adopted by the International Maritime Organization in 2007 and in force since 2015, the Nairobi Wreck Removal Convention was designed to address the growing risks posed by shipwrecks to navigation, the marine environment and coastal interests. Its primary objective is to ensure the prompt and effective removal of hazardous wrecks through a clear allocation of responsibility and a robust financial security regime.
2. Geographical Scope: EEZ and Extension to Territorial Waters
As a default rule, the Convention applies within the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), extending up to 200 nautical miles from the coastal baseline. However, States may opt to extend its application to their territorial sea.
This option significantly increases exposure for shipowners, as incidents occurring within territorial waters may fall under the Convention’s regime rather than domestic law, triggering compulsory insurance and certification requirements.
3. The Concept of “Hazard” and the 15 Assessment Criteria
Liability under the Convention arises when a wreck constitutes a “hazard”. The determination of a hazard is not discretionary but based on a detailed list of 15 criteria, including:
- the type, size and construction of the wreck,
- proximity to shipping routes and traffic density,
- environmental sensitivity of the area,
- nature and quantity of cargo and oils on board,
- prevailing meteorological and hydrographical conditions.
This structured assessment reinforces the objective nature of the liability regime.
4. Shipowner Liability and Direct Action Against Insurers
The Convention imposes strict liability on the registered shipowner for the costs of locating, marking and removing the wreck. Claimants are not required to prove fault.
Crucially, the insurer providing compulsory cover may be subject to direct action by third parties and is largely prevented from relying on policy defences, except in cases of wilful misconduct.
5. Limitation of Liability: Where It Does Not Apply
While the Convention does not abolish the right to limit liability under applicable international regimes such as the LLMC 1976/1996, several States have reserved the right to exclude wreck removal claims from limitation.
Jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Malta and the Netherlands allow for unlimited liability in respect of wreck removal, materially increasing financial exposure.
6. Practical Implications for P&I, Blue Cards and War Risks
For vessels of 300 GT and above, shipowners must maintain insurance sufficient to meet liabilities under the Convention, evidenced by a state-issued WRC Certificate supported by a P&I Blue Card.
A critical nuance lies in the treatment of war and terrorism risks: while terrorism is not excluded under the Convention, it is typically excluded from standard P&I cover. As a result, P&I Clubs require shipowners to maintain adequate war risks insurance as a condition for issuing Blue Cards.
7. Conclusion: From Compliance to Risk Governance
The Nairobi Wreck Removal Convention represents more than a regulatory obligation. It is a liability regime with direct financial, operational and strategic consequences.
For shipowners, managers and brokers, treating wreck removal as a core element of risk governance—rather than a box-ticking exercise—has become essential in an increasingly complex legal and insurance environment.
