Measuring Progress in Oil Spill Preparedness

Abstract

Governments and industry have been cooperating in the development of oil spill preparedness for more than 30 years. This has included support to the ratification and implementation of instruments such as the International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Co-operation (OPRC 90), which provides the basis for collaborative efforts between governments and industry to prepare for and respond to marine oil pollutions. Joint activities implemented in this framework represent a major investment and it is important to measure and track the extent to which they have led to sustained improvements. This paper examines the challenges of measuring progress in oil spill preparedness that have emerged over time, leading to the development of different tools and systems to monitor long-term developments. It will first review the metrics and tools used to assess the key elements of preparedness, focused on regions where the International Maritime Organization (IMO) - industry Global Initiative has been active since 1996. The challenges of ascribing and assessing the indicators will be highlighted. Whilst a quantitative method, such as the IPIECA Global Risk Analysis, is useful regarding technical aspects and to compare progress in time and between different regions, it does have a number of caveats, including the verification of data and the need to ensure that preparedness frameworks described in national strategy are translated into credible response capability. There is thus a need for more refined metrics and a complementary qualitative approach. Moreover, the difficulty to catalyse lasting change without sustained efforts was recognized. This paper will discuss why the measures should apply both for evaluation and decision-making and explain why it is key to build more comprehensive (from legal basis to implementation processes and equipment) and sustainable national preparedness systems. The indicators cover a range of aspects of oil spill readiness and should enable a picture of both national and regional preparedness to be constructed, which inform decisions on future actions and activities. The benefits of a step based approach and the potential for tools such as the Readiness Evaluation Tool for Oil Spills (RETOSTM) to underpin broader evaluations will be highlighted. The need for an enhanced methodology to measure progress in preparedness and its consistency with the risk exposure is finally discussed.