In light of the recent OceanGate incident involving the submarine ‘Titan’, questions have been raised about the current search and rescue policy, domestic as well as international. Concerns like ‘Who will bear the cost of the search and rescue operations?’ and ‘Should tourism regulation be revised to factor in such situations?’ are being put forth to the authorities.
—
ON June 18, 2023, a submersible vessel named ‘Titan’, on a voyage to the wreckage of the Titanic, went missing, triggering an enormous search and rescue operation.
This search and rescue operation was conducted by the US Coast Guard, in coordination with Canadian, French and British forces.
The deployed forces used sonar buoys to detect underwater noise, aircraft for conducting surface searches, and a remote-operated robot to dive into the wreckage.
Ultimately, these efforts led to the discovery of the debris of the Titan submersible, ascertaining the death of the five people onboard.
Simultaneous to such efforts, a question arose and is being debated on the internet: ‘Who will bear the cost of the operation?’ It is estimated that the cost of the operation ran into millions of dollars.
A question arose and is being debated on the internet: ‘Who will bear the cost of the rescue operation of OceanGate Titan?’ It is estimated that the cost of the operation ran into millions of dollars.
Along with this question, numerous other regulatory concerns have been raised since the implosion of the Titan submersible. These concerns question the policy decisions about search and rescue operations and the tourism industry.
Law on search and rescue operation
According to the US Code, Title 14 §102, the US Coast Guard has the primary duty to “develop and maintain national defence and operate rescue facilities for the promotion of safety on, under, and over the high seas and waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.”
Alongside this duty, the Coast Guard also has functions and powers which are to be executed by the commandant subject to the general supervision of the secretary.
The Coast Guard has an objective to save the lives of people in distress at sea. This objective does not require that a certain number of people should be in distress for a mission to be undertaken.
The US Coast Guard claims to always answer the call of distress and undertake disciplined operations to save lives irrespective of the number of distressed lives.
Such operations were voluntarily undertaken by the Coast Guard even before the mandate of international agreements.
Before 1979, the ‘duty of rescue’ was a suggestion to deliberate upon. But this duty turned into a binding duty with the adoption of the 1979 Maritime Search and Rescue Convention.
This convention required states to establish a “search and rescue plan” and cooperate with other participants to give effect to this duty.
But this duty is diluted when we talk about the high seas as no jurisdiction has control over the high seas. To resolve such issues, the International Maritime Organisation created 13 search and rescue regions and effected the duty of the coastal states.
Also read: Money for the dead but none for the living, the Indian Community Welfare Fund in Gulf countries
In order to create a mechanism to ensure smooth and predictable rescue operations on the high seas, the international community amended the convention to include search and rescue plans.
It was under this search and rescue plan that the US Coast Guard initiated assistance in the Titan incident.
Stages of SAR operation
The search and rescue (SAR) operations forming part of the search and rescue plan are conducted in five stages: awareness, initial action, planning, operations and conclusion.
The success of these operations is dependent on the speed at which they are conducted. Therefore, all actions are promptly performed with frequent re-evaluation of the situation.
The Coast Guard has an objective to save the lives of people in distress at sea. This objective does not require that a certain number of people should be in distress for a mission to be undertaken.
The operation begins with a distress call. Once a communication has been received by the rescue coordination centre (RCC), immediate preliminary action is undertaken.
As the RCC continues to receive more information, it classifies the incident into emergency phases, assigning phase-appropriate SAR mission coordinators, and other bodies such as ‘personnel’ and ‘facilities’ are informed.
During the planning stage, comprehensive efforts are made to ascertain the location to search and the resources to be used. Once a plan is in place, the operation stage comes into existence.
This stage encompasses the initiation of a search of the designated area, providing assistance for the rescue, and bringing the person(s) in distress to a safe place.
The search continues as per the updated information provided by the RCC until the case is determined as a “false alert”, “case closed”, or “search suspended pending further developments”.
Who bears the cost of such operations?
During a SAR operation, a large number of equipment and personnel are engaged. According to statistics provided by the US Coast Guards, 90 percent cases involve assistance or rescue only, and can be easily handled by the Coast Guard’s own resources.
Only 10 percent cases require searches and the Coast Guard spends more than US $50 million annually in operating costs on these cases.
The success rate of these operations degrades the longer the assistance is delayed. Therefore, the RCC’s evaluation, immediate decision and timely activation of resources are vital.
This requirement is fulfilled by the deployment of available resources in the best way possible to increase the probability of success. The SAR mission coordinator selects the resources which are most appropriate for searching in the general area.
With the deployment of more and more resources, the cost increases, which may include claims from entities involved in the SAR operation. This raises the question: Who will bear the cost of such operations?
Should the taxpayer’s money be utilised for the rescue of rich people who engage in risky activities or should the people in distress be made to pay the bill? This question has gained an urgent edge in light of the Titan incident.
Only 10 percent cases require searches and the Coast Guard spends more than US $50 million annually in operating costs on these cases.
The law and policy of the US Coast Guard do not provide for recovering the cost of SAR operation from persons in distress. According to the US Coast Guard authorisation, the funds for the operation of the Coast Guard are appropriated with the budget of the State which clarifies that taxpayers are paying for SAR operations.
This appropriation raises the dilemma of allocation of resources. Should the money be utilised for the greater good of benefitting a large number of people or the moral good of benefiting people in distress?
A history of resource-intensive responses
There have been numerous incidents of massive search and rescue operations in the recent past.
In 2007, a plane crashed in a remote area near the Mammoth Lakes, California, claiming the life of Steve Fossett (an American businessman and a record-setting aviator and sailor) and triggering a massive search and rescue operation.
During the operation, several personnel and planes were engaged to locate the site of the crash. But the operation was of no avail and was halted. With the halt, the question that arose in the public was: Who should finance the search and rescue operation?
It did not help the cause of those calling it a humanitarian rescue mission that the person missing had been subject of prior rescue operations as well.
The critics in such cases suggest that millionaires should foot the bill when their adventures go awry. But Fossett had declined to pay for his rescue operation.
Even during the month-long operation in California, Fossett’s lawyer declined paying the bill stating that the search operation was the government’s responsibility and paying for it the government’s obligation.
In response, the US National Taxpayer Union advocated for lessening government spending and putting the cost of such operations on the individuals who willingly put themselves in danger.
The lawmakers considered this approach and eventually seven states formulated laws requiring individuals who willingly take risks to foot the bill of their search and rescue operations.
But these laws only cover “urban search and rescue” and are applicable only in exceptional circumstances.
Law in India
In India, such sea-related operations are governed by the Coast Guard Act of 1978. The Act provides for “regulation of the armed forces of the Union for ensuring the security of the maritime zone of India with a view to the protection of maritime and other national interests”.
Even during the month-long operation in California, Fossett’s lawyer declined paying the bill stating that the search operation was the government’s responsibility and paying for it the government’s obligation.
The Coast Guard is supervised by the director-general of the Coast Guard while the general superintendence rests with the Union government.
The Coast Guard has the function to take measures for the safety of life and property at sea. Such a function is administered as per the National Maritime Search and Rescue Plan 2022 and the National Maritime Search and Rescue Manual 2020.
The purpose of these documents is to build an inter-agency accord and effectuate the use of resources and facilities to assist in SAR operations within the Indian SAR region, international waters, and other SAR regions, if territorial entry has been permitted.
Similar to the structure of the US Coast Guard, SAR operations in India are coordinated by the maritime rescue coordination centres (MRCCs) and sub-centers located in coastal states.
These centres ensure the effective implementation of the SAR plan and the use of resources for greater protection of life and property.
The deployment of resources is dependent on time. In case the MRCC believes that the resources with other agencies of government can ensure minimal time delay, they can request the concerned department to extend their assets for the mission.
The concerned departments can be the Indian Navy, Air Force, Hydrographic Office, Indian Space Research Organisation, Meteorological Department, etc.
With regard to land-related SAR operations, no specific legislation exists. The operations are collectively undertaken by numerous state organisations.
The foremost in this list is the police department which has a general duty to search for a missing person. Thereafter, the rest depends on the nature of the services required. If the rescue relates to high-angle rescue or confined space rescue, the duty is cast upon the fire services department.
If there is a need for aeronautical search and rescue, then the duty is cast upon the National Aeronautical Search and Rescue Coordination Committee.
Aeronautical search and rescue are coordinated by the rescue coordination centres of the Airport Authority of India. For effective SAR services, four such coordination centres have been established in Delhi, Kolkata, Chennai and Mumbai respectively.
Disaster-related search and rescue operations are governed by the Disaster Management Act of 2005.
This Act establishes the National Disaster Management Authority which lays down the policies, plans and guidelines related to disaster management for different departments of the government.
For effective implementation and formulation of the guidelines, the Disaster Management Act has also established disaster management authorities at state and district levels. In addition to this, a special response force has been constituted for disaster situations. This force is called the National Disaster Response Force.
In India, the maritime rescue coordination centres ensure the effective implementation of the SAR plan and the use of resources for greater protection of life and property.
The National Disaster Response Force consists of ten battalions comprising 144 teams that are trained to respond to situations of natural and man-made disasters. The command and supervision of this force rests with the director general of the force who is appointed by the Union government. This force plays a proactive role in the prevention, mitigation and rescue preparation vis-à-vis disasters.
Also read: Why the Indus Waters Treaty needs a revision
Who bears the cost of a rescue operation in India?
The policy of the Coast Guard is to employ cost-effective safety measures in SAR operations, but paramount importance is given to saving lives, wherever possible. In pursuance of such policy, the Coast Guard employs the best available resources.
According to available statistics, the Coast Guard undertook 70 SAR missions in July–September 22 alone, saving 158 lives in distress at sea.
The Coast Guard provides these services without any cost recovery from the person(s) assisted. In case another nation requests help, the help provided is done voluntarily without the obligation or assurance of reimbursement for such assistance. These laws are formulated as per the customary international law which focuses on the moral good of saving lives in distress without imposing costs.
With regard to land-based search and rescue operations, the cost associated with the operation is generally borne by the department itself. This cost is ultimately deducted from the budget of the department.
For disaster-related search and rescue operations, the Union government has constituted the National Disaster Response Fund which is credited with the amount duly appropriated by the Union government or the grants made by individuals or institutions.
According to available statistics, the Coast Guard undertook 70 SAR missions in July–September 22 alone, saving 158 lives in distress at sea.
According to the National Policy for Disaster Management, the constituted fund meets the expense of response, relief and rehabilitation. All the expenses incurred in disaster-related search and rescue operations are borne out of the budgetary allocation of this fund.
Should the policy focus on the moral good or the greater good?
As the policy in the United States and India provides for the usage of taxpayer’s money for SAR operations, a question of equity arises.
Should the government spend such enormous amounts to search and rescue a small bunch of people, especially if they have put themselves in harm’s way by indulging in ‘adventure’, or should the funds be used to rescue people caught in disasters while going about their daily business, or even on addressing certain causes of disasters such as climate change.
There is tension here on the principle of distributive justice.
Those who advocate for the greater good argue that resources can be utilised for a more significant impact on society. The individuals who undertake risks willingly should be made to bear the costs.
The resources utilised to save such people belong to the larger public. Therefore, they should instead be utilised in a manner which maximises overall welfare.
A focus on the needs of individuals leads to a compromise in social values. As Jeremy Bentham put it, “A government that is able to protect every person’s rights absolutely and equally is a utopian aspiration.”
Those who advocate for the greater good argue that resources can be utilised for a more significant impact on society. The individuals who undertake risks willingly should be made to bear the costs.
If resources are diverted to more compelling matters such as environmental protection, people would have a more meaningful life. This would enrich their other fundamental rights such as the right to live in a clean environment and so on.
On the other hand, those who advocate for the moral good in such situations would argue that there exists a right to life and it is the duty of the State to protect the lives of citizens.
The Supreme Court, In re Amarnath Shrine (2013), has observed that “the right to life under Article 21 is a right to live with dignity, safety and in a clean environment…. It is the bounden duty of the State to protect the above rights of its citizen in the discharge of its constitutional obligation in the larger public interest.”
It has been the stated aim of the State that it will rescue or try to rescue every human being in distress, and be agnostic to the circumstances that put them in harm’s way.
However, as ‘adventure tourism’ continues to spread like wildfire, the question of the public exchequer bearing the costs for search and rescue operations in cases where matters take a dangerous turn has resurfaced and needs fresh answers.
