Technical sub-report 4: Risk management conclusions · 7 Figure 2‐1 Map of the five sub‐regions...

Technical sub-report 4: Risk management conclusions

Bonn AgreementAccord de Bonn

3

DOCUMENT TITLE: Risk Management ConclusionsTASK: Task I AUTHOR: MORH, CRJ, ANMA PUBLISHED ON: 10 November 2015

4

The Greater North Sea and its wider approaches is one of the busiest and most highly used maritime areas in the world. With the ever‐increasing competition for space comes an increased risk of accidents that could result in marine pollution.

Currently the area has no overall risk assessment for marine pollution; risk is mapped with a variety of national risk assessments which are undertaken with differing methodologies; thus reducing comparability.

The BE‐AWARE project is therefore undertaking the first area‐wide risk assessment of marine pollution using a common methodology that allows the risk to be mapped and compared under different scenarios.

The project outcomes will be sub regional risk management conclusions, which will identify priority future risk reduction and response scenarios for each sub region, oil impact and damage assessments and a region wide environmental and socioeconomic vulnerability analysis.

The project is a two year initiative (2013‐2015), co‐financed by the European Union (DG ECHO), with participation and support from the Bonn Agreement Secretariat, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom.

5

Contents 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 62. Methodology .......................................................................................................................... 6

2.1 Introduction ..............................................................................................................................62.2 Cost-efficiency analysis ...........................................................................................................82.3 Workshop ...............................................................................................................................10

3. Results of cost‐efficiency analysis .......................................................................................... 103.1 Sub-region 2: Norway and UK ...............................................................................................143.2 Sub-region 3: Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands ..........................173.3 Sub-region 4: Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, France, UK ..........................................193.4 Sub-region 5: UK and France ................................................................................................22

4. Risk management conclusions ............................................................................................... 244.1 Report findings and conclusions ............................................................................................244.2 Future use of results from the report .....................................................................................26

5. References ............................................................................................................................ 27

Risk management conclusions

6

1. Introduction The present document describes the management implications of the BE‐AWARE project. It builds upon the results of the activities described in the reports:

Methodology Note (BE‐AWARE, 2015b)

Impact assessment report (BE‐AWARE, 2015c).

Joint environmental and socioeconomic sensitivity and vulnerability mapping (BE‐AWARE, 2015d)

The results are summarised in the Summary Report (BE‐AWARE, 2015a)

This document gives an outline of the applied method for a common assessment of the effectiveness, costs and cost efficiency. The method was agreed upon by all project partners. The results for the different sub‐regions are described and the implications for the Bonn Agreement area and also on the international level are given.

2. Methodology 2.1 Introduction The applied methodology is based on the methods applied in the BRISK project, carried out in 2009‐2012 for the Baltic Sea region (BRISK 2012). The management implications for the Bonn Agreement countries are based on the results of the present project. Since the project methodology has been discussed and agreed upon by all participating countries, the project provides decision‐ support based on a common and mutually accepted method.

The results of the present project provide support to decision‐making at the managerial level of the authorities responsible for oil spill response in the Bonn Agreement area. The North Sea area is divided into five sub‐regions where common measures for risk reduction and response actions are relevant in relation to the traffic, uses, vulnerability, etc. Within each of these sub‐regions, the analysis is carried out and the effect of the selected scenarios is determined. The sub‐regions are shown in Figure 2‐1.

7

Figure 2‐1 Map of the five sub‐regions of the Bonn Agreement. Within each of these sub‐regions, the analysis was carried out, and the effect of the selected scenarios was determined.

The overall methodology is referred to in the document Method Note (BE‐AWARE, 2015a). This document describes the method for how the information of ship positions (AIS‐data), and the information on transported goods, was analysed to describe a traffic model. These results were applied in accident models, spill models, drift and fate models as well as models for response and dispersant use. Together with an analysis of the environmental and socioeconomic vulnerability towards oil on the sea surface and oil chemically dispersed in the water column, a damage assessment was carried out. Finally, the costs for the applied scenarios were estimated by the Project Partners. The costs comprise the initial investment costs, and the costs for running and maintaining the investments over their expected lifetime.

Risk man

8

The concFigure 2‐

Figure 2‐blue boxcontribu The resu

C S

2.2 CoThe objethe futuscenario

The ideahelp ensan optimconcreteprepared

The oveenvironmefficiencresourcescenario

The anacoopera

nagement co

cept for dev‐2.

‐2 Flowxes represenutions from t

ults in chapteEffectivenesCost‐efficienSelection of

ost‐efficieective of theure, their efos.

a behind anasure there wmised and coe programmd for each su

rall objectivemental damcy analysis wes. The backos that seem

lyses for thetion betwee

onclusions

eloping the f

w diagram font technical athe Contract

er 3 are descs ncy and prioritised s

ency analye analysis waffectiveness

alysing the eill be an adeordinated rees, includingub‐region by

e is to ensurage caused

will prepare aground is prmost viable,

e scenarios in national ex

An

Selection

final risk ma

or concept foanalyses carting Partners

ribed accord

cenarios.

ysis as to investigand cost‐e

efficiency ofquate balanesponse capag a timetabthe Contrac

re timely andby acciden

an analytical rovided to th, taking into

nvestigatingxperts and a

nalysis of envecon

Effectivene

Cost‐Efficie

of prioritise

nagement c

or developinrried out by ts.

ding to the fo

gate the conefficiency an

f preparednece of resouracity in the Ble for how cting Parties

d well‐organnts is minimbackgroundhe project paccount the

g additional rn external co

vironmentalnomic damag

ess of each s

ncy of each s

d scenarios f

onclusion is

g the risk mthe consulta

ollowing mai

sequences ond on that

ess at the suces among nBonn Agreemto close idein that sub‐r

nised emergemised in a cd for investmpartners, as a country spe

response resonsultant sp

and socio‐ge

cenario

scenario

for each sub

illustrated in

anagement ant, the red b

n steps

of different pbasis evalua

ub‐regional neighbouringment area. Thentified gapsregion.

ency responsost‐effective

ments in emea tool to evaecific pre‐con

source optioecialised wit

Co

Spc

‐region

n the flow di

conclusionsboxes repres

potential sceate the inv

basis is thatg countries, pherefore, spes in capacity

se in such a e manner. Tergency and aluate and snditions.

ons are carriethin this field

Scenarios

ost of scenar

ec. sub‐regioconsideratio

iagram in

. The sent

enarios in estigated

t this will providing ecific and y, can be

way that The cost‐response select the

ed out in d.

rios

onal ns

The effescenarioindicates

Figure 2‐damage or sensitvalues todirectly w

Figure 2‐ The damsimilar drelative s The anascenarioranking t

Rm

ectiveness ano for 2020 (s how much

Reduction oscenario.

Reduction ointroduced

Reduction ofor each s

Reduction of

‐3 illustratesreduction mtivity of the o illustrate awithin each

‐3: Effecscen

mage reductiodistribution bstability of th

lysis also proo. This is donthe scenario

Reduction omeasures of

Reduction oTonnes/Eu

nalysis comp(also called the negative

of spilt oil

f oil chemicad measures

f oil washedscenario.

f environme

s the effectivmeasured in tresults. The ll results on scenario.

ctiveness conario (all sub

on for oil in wbetween the he results fro

ovides the ce by taking tos according t

f spilt oil pef each scenar

of oil chemuro/sub‐regi

ares the effe"do nothinge consequen

(in Tonnes/

ally dispersein each scen

d on shore an

ntal damage

veness scaledterms of thedamage redthe same gr

omparison: Ilb‐regions).

water is negafour parameom scenario

ost‐efficiencthe cost for eto the benef

er invested Erio.

mically dispon) due to th

ectiveness og new" or "nces are redu

/sub‐region)

d in the watario.

nd smotheri

e (in Tonnes w

d to the same above fouructions for traph; therefo

llustration o

ative in sceneters in the dto scenario.

cy of each sceach scenarifit gained pe

Euro (in Ton

ersed in thhe introduce

of each scena"maintain cuuced in each

due to the

ter column (i

ng the coast

weighted/su

e y‐axis interparametersthe four paraore the four

of the norma

nario 9 and hdifferent sce

cenario and o into accour invested Eu

nes/Euro/su

he water ced measures

ario with regurrent level"scenario thr

e introduced

in Tonnes/su

tline (in Ton

ub‐region) fo

rval. It showsin order to iameters are parameters

lised damag

ence excludenarios, whic

compares thunt and proviuro:

ub‐region) du

column perof each scen

gard to the r"). The efferough:

d measures

ub‐region) d

nes/year/su

or each scena

s the effectivillustrate thescaled with cannot be c

ge for each

ed. The plot ch demonstra

hem to the rides the pos

ue to the in

r invested nario.

9

reference ctiveness

in each

ue to the

b‐region)

ario.

veness of e stability arbitrary ompared

shows a ates the

reference sibility of

troduced

Euro (in

Risk man

10

Re

Rr

The resuscenariodevelopm

2.3 WDuring tresults oThe projin their that theoutcome

3. RThe resuare consof scena

Sub‐regi

EffectiveThe effe

Figure 3‐

It can bprovide significa

nagement co

Reduction oeach scenari

Reduction oregion) for e

ults of the coos, and providment of the

Workshop the Risk Maof the analysject partnersown politicae sub‐regione of the sub‐

Resultsults given besidered in thrios given be

on 1: UK and

eness ctiveness of

‐1 Sub‐dam

be seen thatthe largest ent benefits.

onclusions

of oil washedo.

of environmach scenario

ost‐efficiencyde hence imfuture emer

anagement Cses for efficies discussed tal and adminal groups wregional wo

s of coselow are base political anelow represe

d Ireland

the scenario

‐region 1: Efmage for each

t the introdeffect, given

d on shore

ental damao.

y analysis areportant analrgency respo

Conclusionsency and thethese resultsnistrative conwould promorking groups

st‐efficsed on the and administrents the sele

os for sub‐re

fectiveness oh scenario.

uction of th its impact o

per invested

age per inve

e used in ordlytical informonse.

workshop ie cost‐efficies in the sub‐ntext in ordeote in the fus.

ciencyanalytical resrative contexction by the

gion 1 is illus

of reduction

he measureson all shippi

d Euro (in T

ested Euro

er to identifymation for th

n Copenhagency were pr‐regional woer to decideuture. The f

analyssults of effecxt of each prproject part

strated in Fig

n of environm

s included ing. Scenario

onnes/year/

(in Tonnes

y the most ce manageme

gen on 22 Sresented to rking groups on a prioritollowing cha

sis ctiveness anroject partnetners within

gure 3‐1.

mental and s

n the e‐navs 5, 6, 8 and

/Euro/sub‐re

weighted/E

cost‐efficientent decision

September 2the project s and reviewtised list of sapter repres

d cost‐efficier. The prioreach sub‐reg

socio‐econo

vigation scend 10 will also

egion) for

Euro/sub‐

t s on the

2015, the partners. wed them scenarios sents the

ency and ritised list gion.

mic

nario will o provide

11

Cost‐efficiency In the next step, the costs for the scenarios are included in order to determine the cost‐efficiency of the scenarios. Additional VTS areas and additional night detection/visibility equipment e.g. oil radar or IR cameras were not proposed for sub‐region 1 and have therefore not been ranked.

Table 3‐1 Sub‐region 1: Ranking of scenarios based on cost‐efficiency in reducing damage impact. The three scenarios with lowest ranking on "damage" are coloured. Impact 3) VTS 4) TSS 5) AIS

alarms

6) E‐

navigation

7) ETV in

Ireland

8) Visibility 9)

Dispersants

10) +50%, 1

ves. DK

Oil on water N/A 1 3 4 6 N/A 5 2 Oil in water N/A 3 1 2 5 N/A 6 4 Oil on shore N/A 1 3 4 6 N/A 5 2 Damage N/A 3 1 4 5 N/A 6 2 Average N/A 2,0 2,0 3,5 5,5 N/A 5,5 2,5

Prioritised scenarios The project partners in sub‐region 1, Ireland and the UK, broadly agree with the ranking in terms of cost‐efficiency in relation to damage reduction, as outlined in Table 3‐1. It is recognised that the two most effective scenarios based on cost effectiveness analysis (aimed at reducing damage impact), are AIS alarms on windfarms, 50% more equipment and TSS, as outlined in Table 3-1. Application of scenario 9 (dispersants only) provides negative damage reduction and is not included in the plot. When considering e‐navigation, project partners had noted that the current IMO initiative was as yet incomplete with only four of the 20 planned outcomes currently going forward and no significant change anticipated over the next four years. This meant that while the analysis was attractive, the option was not implementable in the short term.

Ireland has prioritised 50 % additional response equipment and additional ETVs due to its exposure to cross‐Atlantic traffic and a lack of national commercial capacity. Ireland’s view was that sub‐region 1 is at significant risk of receiving ships in distress from the eastern half of the northern Atlantic (e.g. "MSC Flaminia"). This traffic of high‐risk ships was not included in the BE‐AWARE analysis as traffic of particular high risk, as these ships are dealt with as "normal" ships in the AIS traffic analysis. Therefore, risk is expected to be higher and consequently, the actual demand for preparedness expected to be higher in this sub‐region. The UK did not rank these priorities as highly on grounds of value for money, given it believed that adequate resources are in place commensurate with the agreed risk relevant for the UK sector of Sub‐region 1. Furthermore UK believed that in the case of a major incident significant private sector resources already existed and were available.

Risk man

12

Figure 3‐ Thus, thregion 1

1. Aw

2. Tsa

3. 5

es

nagement co

‐2 Plot logacosteach

e priority ra was agreed

AIS alarms/gwind farms high number

TSS extensioscenarios foabsence of T(particularly

50 % increapollution stoequipment) stockpiles (w

onclusions

of cost effearithmic axest‐efficiency rh invested Eu

nking of theas:

guard rings awere clearlyr of wind far

on beyond or the sub‐rTSS in somein the vicinit

ase in countockpile to bfor the easwhich are p

ctiveness ves. The brokeatio, the larguro.

e three signif

round wind y contributinms proposed

what was eegion were e areas as a ty of wind fa

ter pollutionbe more thatern side ofprimarily pub

ersus damagn line indicager the dista

ficant scena

turbine parkng new risksd for UK and

expected to the TSS in comparativearms) ranked

n equipmenan adequatef the Irish Sblic sector)

e impact redates positionance to the l

rios betwee

ks was identito navigatio Irish waters

be in placDublin Bay

ely low risk,d second to A

nt. The UK e (includingea. Ireland were inadeq

duction. Notns of equal anine, the low

n the Contra

fied by the Uon. This wass.

e by 2020. y. While theit was agree

AIS.

considered both privattook the viequate, and

te double nd most opt

wer the benef

acting Partie

UK as prioritys in keeping

The highese UK consided that this

its currentte and publew that the additional s

timal fit for

es of sub‐

y 1. New with the

st ranked ered the scenario

t counter ic sector national

stockpiles

13

would be required in the event that there was a medium to major event on the western side of the Irish Sea. 50 % additional equipment1 was ranked third for Sub‐region 1.

The pure ETV scenario requested by Ireland was ranked lower compared to other options due to the high capital costs and annual costs of provisioning it. The ranking of this option did not, however, take into consideration other capabilities that Ireland may identify for a multi‐purpose vessel (MPV) ETV. This may include oil recovery, hazardous and noxious substances incident response, on‐scene coordination during a major maritime event, maritime safety enforcement, fishery enforcement, ship fire‐fighting, chemical dispersants, coastal and other research and development, and as a diving and underwater remotely operated platform. The ranking would clearly be higher within an expanded Irish Coastal State requirement consideration.

Equipping response vessels with additional night detection/visibility equipment e.g. oil radar or IR cameras and VTS were agreed not to be applicable specifically to sub‐region 1. However, it was noted that some benefit without cost could be derived from a neighbouring region’s choice of such a scenario due to the risk of spread of oil spills from these regions.

The UK questioned the negative impact of dispersants in sub‐region 1 and highlighted that risk assessments were done on a case‐by‐case basis; if dispersants were likely to cause environmental damage then the regulatory authorities would not allow their use in the first place. UK regulations on dispersant use ensure that dispersed oil does not reach sensitive resources and it should also be noted that Scenario 9 on dispersants models the use of dispersants only as a response strategy. It replaced the existing situation in the Bonn Agreement area where the recovery of oil was carried out primarily by dedicated oil recovery vessels. Further clarification on the UK view on the dispersants only scenario can be found in the BE‐AWARE Method Note.

Ireland also has a policy of assessing each case on its merits prior to any use of dispersants. Permission is required from the Irish Coast Guard before any dispersants are discharged into the marine environment2.

1 Including a capacity to deploy response equipment on site 2 Ireland does not have a national dispersant spraying plan. In the event that dispersant application was deemed appropriate then the activation of a MOU with an international contractor for direct spraying aircraft would take place

Risk man

14

3.1 Su

EffectiveThe effe

Figure 3‐ It can bprovide significa

Cost‐effiIn the foefficienc

E‐naviga50 % incwithin BRegion 2

Table 3‐ Impact

Oil on wate

Oil in water

Oil on shore

Damage

Average

nagement co

ub‐region

eness ectiveness of

‐3 Sub‐dam

e seen that the largest bnt benefit.

iciency ollowing paracy of the scen

ation, AIS alacrease in meE‐AWARE Su2 so these sc

2 Sub‐term"dam

3) VTS

er N/A r N/A e N/A

N/A N/A

onclusions

2: Norwa

f the scenario


the introdubenefit, give

agraphs, thenarios.

arms aroundechanical resub region 2. Tenarios have

‐region 2: Rams of damagmage" are co

4) TSS

1

4

3

3

2,8

ay and UK

os for sub‐re


uction of all n its impact

e costs for th

wind farmssponse equipThere were e not been ra

anking of thee impact redolored.

5) AIS

alarms

3

2

2

1

2,0

egion 2 is illu

of reduction

e‐navigatioon all shippi

he scenarios

s, TSS, impropment are ano additionaanked.

e Scenarios iduction. The

6) E‐

navigation

2

3

1

2

2,0

strated in Fig

n of environm

n measures ing. Scenario

are included

oved night deall measures al costs for V

in region 2 be three scena

7) ETV in

Ireland

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

gure 3‐3.

mental and s

included inos 3, 4 and 1

d in order to

etection/visithat reduce

VTS and no n

based on thearios with low

8) Visibility

4

1

4

4

3,3

socioeconom

n the scenar10 would also

o determine

bility equipme the damagew ETV prop

e cost efficienwest rankin

9)

Dispersants

1

v

5

6

5

6

5,5

mic

rio would o provide

the cost‐

ment and ge impact posed for

ncy in g on

10) +50%, 1

ves. DK

6

5

6

5

5,5

The higenvironmnavigatioand in tbenefit Applicatincluded

Figure 3‐

PrioritiseThe projeffective The maiadditionregions wvia SafeSwould hareasons.

hest rankedmental damon. Norway the referencfor sub‐region of scend in the plot.

‐4 Plot to reequalowe

ed scenarios ject partnerseness in relat

n benefit fo of an improwithin the BSeaNet) of save as its ma. Deviations

d scenarios age, as outlalready has ce scenario 2ion 2 from nario 9 (disp

of damage egion 2. Notal and most er the benef

s in sub‐regition to dama

or sub‐regionoved ship reonn Agreemhips with daain task to idare more ea

in terms oined in FiguTSS on its co2 (2020). AcTSS comes

persants onl

reduction age double logoptimal cosfit for each in

on 2, Norwaage reduction

n 2 from extporting syste

ment area. Thangerous cardentify deviatasily identifie

of cost‐efficiure 3-4, are oast, which ccording to s from extenly) provided

gainst cost egarithmic axst‐efficiencynvested Euro

ay and the Un, as outline

tending the Tem for shipshe VTS centrrgo or ships tions, e.g. shed when shi

iency for reTSS, AIS alawas includethe analysisnding the Td negative d

effectivenesses. The brokratio, the laro.

UK, agreed wd in Table 3‐

TSS, as outlis sailing betwes could impthat pose othips drifting oips are sailin

eduction of arms aroundd in scenario, this meantTSS into thedamage red

s for the scenken line indicrger the dist

with the ran‐2.

ined in scenween the difprove the repther threats.or not followng according

socioeconod wind farmo 1 (2011 cot that the ae central Nouction and

narios appliccates positiotance to the

king in term

ario 4, woufferent counporting (for . In additionwing the TSS g to TSS com

15

omic and ms and e‐onditions) additional orth Sea. was not

cable ons of line, the

ms of cost

ld be the ntries and example, , the VTS for other

mpared to


16

free sailing. Early identification of deviations reduces the RMO‐time (time for response, mobilization and operation) for tug assistance if a ship is in a critical situation when sailing according to a TSS. The probability of groundings is therefore considerably reduced. TSS would also reduce the probability for head on collisions significantly. The total effect of TSS and VTS considered together was therefore higher than the two measures considered separately.

The VTS NOR (Norwegian Oceanic Region) could easily extend its surveillance to the two additional TSS waypoints suggested in the Norwegian EEZ, ref. scenario 4. The TSS close to the north‐western Jutland coast and the TSS in the middle of the North Sea could be supported by a VTS located in a country in sub region 3.

A fifty percent increase in mechanical response equipment (Scenario 10) was ranked lower because Norway already has a significant response capability, with many vessels with considerable oil spill response equipment installed. This equipment is placed on vessels with other responsibilities, e.g. the Coast Guard and offshore stand‐by vessels. Further expansion of the oil response capabilities would require purpose‐built vessels because most of the opportunities to join forces with other vessels were already utilised. This meant that it would be very expensive to increase the oil‐spill response capabilities by 50 % in the Norwegian EEZ.

However, in the UK EEZ where oil response contingency was largely built on the use of chemical dispersants, the effect of a 50% increase of mechanical oil response equipment could be considerable under certain conditions; therefore this scenario was given a higher priority.

Partners shared a common understanding that e‐navigation required further development before its effectiveness as a risk reducing measure for Sub‐region 2 was clear. As in Region 1, the project partners had noted that the current IMO initiative was as yet incomplete with no significant change anticipated over the next four years. It was agreed to continue monitoring the further development of e‐navigation.

In sub region 2, the emergency response to acute oil pollution relies largely on the use of dispersants. This is especially the case for the UK, while for the Norwegian contingency system, especially the offshore oil industry, this response measure cannot be totally ruled out. The decision on whether or not to use chemical dispersants is based on a net environmental benefit analysis carried out in every case. The UK position with respect to dispersants is described in more detail in the Method Note (BE‐AWARE, 2015a). The partners in sub‐region 2 therefore prioritised the following scenarios:

1 TSS – the complete suggested TSS in the entire Bonn Agreement area, ref. scenario 4 2 50 % increase in response equipment (see explanation above) 3 AIS alarms around windfarms – VTS will have a crucial role in the respective countries when it

comes to this measure 4 Visibility – improved night detection night detection/visibility equipment e.g. oil radar or IR

cameras. 5 Dispersants (see above).

3.2 Su

EffectiveThe effe

Figure 3‐ It was seand 10 w

Cost‐effiIn the foefficiencscenarioaround wthere wreducingbetween Table 3‐ Impact

Oil on wate

Oil in water

Oil on shore

Damage

Average

ub‐region

eness ctiveness of

‐5 Sub‐dam

een that the will also prov

iciency ollowing paracy of the sceos based on cwind farms aere no addig measures n TSS and VT

3: Sub‐reducolo

3) VTS

er 3

r 4

e 3

3

3,3

3: Norwa

the scenario


introductionvide significa

agraphs, thenarios. The cost‐efficienand VTS resptional ETVs (RRM). The

TS establishm

‐region 3: Raucing damagored.

4) TSS

1

3

1

1

1,5

ay, Sweden

os for sub‐re


n of scenariont benefit.

e costs for thproject partncy analysis, pectively. As proposed. Ie partners sment.

anking of scege impact. Th

5) AIS

alarms

2

1

4

2

2,3

n, Denma

gion 3 is illus

of reduction

os 3, 4 and 6

he scenarios ners of Sub‐aimed at redoutlined in Tt is noted tshared the

enarios in he three sce

6) E‐

navigation

5

5

5

4

4,8

rk, Germa

strated in Fig

n of environm

would provi

are included‐region 3 notducing damaTable 3‐3. Scthat all threecommon un

sub‐region 3narios with

7) ETV in

Ireland

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

any and th

gure 3‐5.

mental and s

de the larges

d in order toted that the age impact, wcenario 7 (ETe measures nderstanding

3 based on clowest ranki

8) Visibility

4

2

6

5

4,3

he Netherl

socioeconom

st benefit. S

o determine three most were TSS, ATV) was not rwere by nag of a close

cost effectiveing on "dam

9)

Dispersants

1

v

7

7

2

7

5,8

17

lands

mic

cenario 5

the cost‐effective IS alarms ranked as ature risk e linkage

eness in mage" are

10) +50%, 1

ves. DK

6

6

7

6

6,3

Risk man

18

PrioritiseThus, the

1. TT

2. T

3. A Furthermapplicatiin the developmagreed t

Figure 3‐

nagement co

ed scenarios e priority beTSS routes frTSS, most likThe TSS shonumber twoAIS on wind

more, the coion of scenaplot. Partnment beforeto continue m

‐6: Plot to reequalowe

onclusions

tween the prom the soutkely to be baould be suppo. farms as prio

ost effectivenrio 9 (disperners shared e its effectivmonitoring th

of damage egion 3. Notal and most er the benef

roject partnethwestern cosed on virtuaported by a V

ority numbe

ness of all scrsants only) a commo

veness as a he further de

impact redue double logoptimal cosfit for each in

ers of Sub‐reoast of Norwal navigationVTS close to

er three.

cenarios thatprovided neon understarisk reducinevelopment

uction againsgarithmic axst‐efficiencynvested Euro

egion 3 is comway and the n marks as pro the north‐w

t are presengative damaanding that ng measureof e‐navigat

st cost effectes. The brokratio, the laro.

mmonly agreSkaw towardriority numbwestern Jutl

ted in Figureage reductione‐navigatiofor Sub‐regtion.

tives for the ken line indicrger the dist

eed as: ds the Nord ber one. and coast a

e 3‐6 was non and is not on requiredgion 3 was c

scenarios apcates positiotance to the

Friesland

s priority

oted. The included

d further clear and

pplicable ons of line, the

3.3 Su

EffectiveSub‐regiresponse

Figure 3‐

E‐navigaeffectiveresponse

Cost‐effiThe highwind farwas notscenario3‐8. Theapplicatiincluded

ub‐region

eness on 4 is a vere measures.

‐7 Sub‐dam

ation and ince. 50% extra e infrastruct

iciency hest ranked rms, extendet ranked, as o 6 (e‐navigaerefore, thesion of scend in the plot.

4: Germa

ry high trafficThe effectiv


creased VTSresponse equre.

scenarios ined night visiono additiontion) were fe two scenaario 9 (disp

any, the N

c area, whicheness of the


were the mquipment wa

n cost‐efficieon capabilitynal ETVs werfound to be arios were copersants onl

etherland

h already hae scenarios fo

of reduction

most effectivas not viable

ncy terms wy, and addedre proposedalong the saonsidered toly) provided

ds, Belgium

as a high impor sub‐region

n of environm

ve scenariosin this regio

were AIS alar TSS, as outld in sub‐regiame cost effo be equally d negative d

m, France,

plementationn 4 is illustrat

mental and s

s and dispersn due to the

rms, due to ined in Tableon 4. The sciciency line, cost‐efficien

damage red

UK

n of risk reduted in Figure

socioeconom

sants were e existing hig

the large nue 3‐4. Scenacenarios 4 (as outlined nt in this reguction and

19

ucing and e 3‐7.

mic

the least h level of

umber of rio 7 ETV (TSS) and in Figure gion. The was not

Risk man

20

Table 3‐4 Impact

Oil on wate

Oil in water

Oil on shore

Damage

Average

The mosAIS alarman insignnavigatioresponsePartnerspersonn

Figure 3‐

nagement co

4: Sub‐impa

3) VTS

er 4

r 2

e 5

5

4,0

st cost‐efficims around wnificant distaon needed e vessels ws noted thatel on board

‐8: Plot to re

onclusions

‐region 4: Raact. The thre

4) TSS

3

5

6

3

4,3

ent scenariowind farms, eance to TSS to be furth

with night det a responsethe vessels.

of damage egion 4. Not

anking of sceee scenarios

5) AIS

alarms

1

1

1

1

1,0

os for reductenhanced visin third posier clarified. etection/visie operation

impact redue double log

enarios bases with lowest

6) E‐

navigation

5

3

4

4

4,0

tion of sociosibility and Tition. It wasThe secondbility equipcontinuing

uction againsgarithmic ax

ed on cost‐eft ranking on7) ETV in

Ireland

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

oeconomic aTSS. E‐navigarecognised td most costment e.g. obeyond 24

st cost effectes. The brok

fficiency in re"damage" a8) Visibility

2

4

3

2

2,8

and environmation was in that the reat‐efficient opoil radar or hours woul

tives for the ken line indic

educing damare colored. 9)

Dispersants

1

v

7

7

2

7

5,8

mental damafourth positl pros and cption was eIR camerasd also requ

scenarios apcates positio

mage

10) +50%, 1

ves. DK

6

6

7

6

6,3

age were tion, with ons of e‐equipping s. Project ire more

pplicable ons of

21

equal and most optimal cost‐efficiency ratio, the larger the distance to the line, the lower the benefit for each invested Euro.

Prioritised scenarios The main benefit for sub‐region 4 from extending the TSS, as outlined in scenario 4, would be the addition of an improved ship reporting system for ships sailing between the different counties and regions within the Bonn Agreement area. The VTS centres could improve the reporting of ships with dangerous cargo or ships that pose other threats, for example, via SafeSeaNet.

Further expansion of VTS requires action in IMO to give guidance to vessels outside the 12 mile zone. In addition, the VTS would have to identify deviations as its main task, e.g. ships drifting or not following the TSS for other reasons. Deviations are more easily identified when ships were sailing according to TSS compared to free sailing. Early identification of deviations reduces the RMO‐time (time for response, mobilisation and operation) for tug assistance, if a ship is in a critical situation when sailing according to a TSS. TSS would also reduce the probability of head on collisions significantly. The total effect of TSS and VTS considered together was therefore higher than the two measures considered separately.

In sub‐region 4, contingency response to acute oil pollution largely relies on the use of mechanical response. In the UK area, this is by dispersant use. The decision to use dispersants or not was based on a net environmental benefit analysis in every single case.

The project partners of sub‐region 4 noted that the most effective scenarios based on cost effectiveness analysis (aimed at reducing damage impact) were:

AIS alarms around wind farms – VTS would have a crucial role in the respective countries when it came to this measure.

Night visibility capability on board response vessels.

TSS – the complete TSS suggested in the entire Bonn Agreement area, ref. scenario 4.

E‐navigation (required further development before its effectiveness as a risk reducing measure for Sub‐region 4 was clear).

Risk man

22

3.4 Su

EffectiveThe effe

Figure 3‐ The intrdetectioregion.

Cost‐effiIn the foefficienceffectiveimprove Table 3‐ Impact

Oil on wate

Oil in water

Oil on shore

Damage

Average

nagement co

ub‐region

eness ctiveness of

‐9 Sub‐dam

roduction on capability

iciency ollowing paracy of the sceeness analysed night dete

5: Sub‐termRegirank

3) VTS

er 5

r 3

e 4

4

4,0

onclusions

5: UK and

the scenario


f E‐Navigatiand 50% inc

agraphs, thenarios. Tablesis, aimed aection capabi

‐region 5: Rams of damagion 5 so thesking on "dam

4) TSS

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

d France

os for sub‐re


ion and VTScrease in eq

e costs for the 3‐5 highligat reducingility and 50%

anking of thee impact redse scenarios mage" are co

5) AIS

alarms

2

1

2

1

1,5

gion 5 is illus

of reduction

S would pruipment wo

he scenarios hts that the damage im

% increase in

e scenarios iduction. Thehave not be

olored. 6) E‐

navigation

4

2

6

5

4,3

strated in Fig

n of environm

rovide the luld also red

are includedmost cost‐epact were Aresponse eq

n region 5 bere were no Teen ranked.

7) ETV in

Ireland

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

gure 3‐9.

mental and s

argest beneuce damage

d in order toeffective scenAIS alarms quipment.

ased on the TSS or new EThe three sc

8) Visibility

1

4

3

2

2,5

socioeconom

efit. Improve from oil sp

o determine narios, basedaround win

cost efficienETVs proposcenarios with

9)

Dispersants

1

v

6

6

1

6

4,8

mic

ved night ills in the

the cost‐d on cost nd farms,

ncy in ed for h lowest

10) +50%, 1

ves. DK

3

5

5

3

4,0

PrioritiseThe partFigure 3‐was not

Figure 3‐

ScenarioUK consincludedequipmeapproprChannel region 5

The UK highlightauthoritwas base

ed scenarios tners in Sub‐‐10. The appincluded in t

‐10 Plot applpositthe l

o 10 (50% incsidered theird both privaent). France iate to the before 2020.

and Franceted that if ies would noed on a net e

region 5 ‐ Frplication of scthe plot.

of damage iicable to regtions of equline, the low

crease in cour current cote resourcesshared thisthreats. In 0 to replace

e also quesdispersants ot allow theienvironment

ance and thecenario 9 (di

impact reducgion 5. Note al and most

wer the bene

unter pollutiounter polluts, which wes opinion thaddition, neold vessels.

stioned the were likely ir use in the tal benefit an

e UK, broadlspersants on

ction againsdouble loga optimal cosfit for each i

on equipmention stockpilere outside tat the stockew multi‐puTherefore, t

negative im to cause efirst place. Fnalysis in eve

y agreed witnly) provided

st cost effectarithmic axesst‐efficiencyinvested Eur

nt) was rankle to be mothe scope okpiles of courpose respohis scenario

mpact of denvironmentFurthermoreery single ca

th the rankind negative da

tiveness for ts. The brokeratio, the laro.

ed at third pore than adeof the projecunter pollutinse vessels had not bee

ispersants ital damage e, the decisiose. Further c

ng as outlinedamage reduc

the scenarioen line indicarger the dist

position, howequate (givect, and publion equipmewould arriv

en prioritised

n sub‐regiothen the reon to use disclarification o

23

d in ction and

os ates tance to

wever the en that it lic sector ent were ve in the d for sub‐

n 5 and egulatory spersants of the UK


24

view on the dispersants only scenario could be found in the BE‐AWARE Method Note (BE AWARE, 2015b).

Partners shared a common understanding, that e‐navigation required further development before its effectiveness as a risk reducing measure for sub‐region 5 was clear. As in Region 1, the project partners had noted that the current IMO initiative was as yet incomplete with no significant change anticipated over the next 4 years. Therefore, it was agreed to continue monitoring the further development of e‐navigation.

In general, all scenarios in region 5 were placed within the same cost efficiency range, as outlined in Figure 3-10. Therefore, no scenario was particularly predominant for this region.

The partners in sub region 5 therefore prioritised the following scenarios:

1 AIS alarms/guard rings around wind farms, new wind farms were clearly new contributing risks to navigation.

2 Visibility – improved night detection night detection/visibility equipment e.g. oil radar or IR cameras. While the UK had no oil recovery vessels it was recognised that in the event of a major spill then at sea recovery would be a key response and the ability to recover 24/7 would enhance that response. Night detection could be of use for monitoring of dispersant application, French ETVs were fitted for spraying dispersants with a permanent storage of about 50 Tonnes on board each vessel. Night detection radar could be an enhancement in this field.

3 VTS.

4 E‐navigation.

4. Risk management conclusions 4.1 Report findings and conclusions Summarising the results of the different sub‐regions, the scenarios that are prioritised based on their respective effectiveness, their cost‐efficiency and the specific conditions valid in each sub‐region are given in Table 4‐1.

Table 4‐1: Summary of the prioritised scenarios for each sub‐region and for all sub‐ regions (the entire model area). The number in the table gives the priority rank, e.g. 1 means the most preferred. 3) VTS 4) TSS 5) AIS

alarms

6) E‐

navigation

7) ETV in

Ireland

8) Visibility 9)

Dispersants

10) +50%, 1

ves. DK

Sub‐region 1 2 1 3

Sub‐region 2 1 3 4 5 2

Sub‐region 3 2 1 3

Sub‐region 4 1 2 4 3

Sub‐region 5 3 1 4 2

The data in Table 4‐1 indicates that in general, the three highest prioritised scenarios are TSS, and AIS alarms, with the two scenarios VTS and 50% more capacities sharing third priority.

Howeveadjacentparallel iregions a

Figure 4‐ Figure 4‐sub‐regiChannel,given in

r, some meat countries toin several suare given in

‐1: Plot sub‐only

‐1 provides tons. Such sc, affecting suFigure 4‐2 b

asures do affo "join forceb‐regions. TFigure 4‐1 be

of damage ‐regions. Noty) provides n

the option toenarios are Tub‐regions 2,elow.

ect several ss" on scenarherefore, theelow.

impact redute double lonegative dam

o identify sceTSS (Scenario, 3 and 4. Th

sub‐regions, rios that will e cost‐efficie

uction againsogarithmic axmage reducti

enarios of simo 7) and VTSe cost‐efficie

therefore it be of particuency plots fo

st cost‐efficiexes. Application and is no

milar high coS (Scenario 4)encies for th

may be of inular benefit wr all scenario

ency for all stion of scenaot included i

ost‐efficiency) between Skese two sele

nterest to thewhen introdos and for al

scenarios anario 9 (dispen the plot.

y in neighboukaw and the ected scenar

25

e uced in l sub‐

nd all ersants

uring

ios are

Risk man

26

Figure 4‐ The scenregions 1cost‐effiTSS and 4.2 FuOverall, Inter

The argurelev

NortSpecwithsyne

Sub‐For ebe mdeve

nagement co

‐2 Costregio

narios for sub1, 2 and 5 dociency couldVTS.

uture use the project prnational levcontracting uments to joivant fora. th Sea: cific measureh the competergistic bene‐regional leveeach sub‐regmost viable foelopment of

onclusions

t‐efficiency pons 3 and 4

b‐regions 3 ao not show ad be achieved

of resultsprovides resvel: parties orgaintly promot

es such as VTtent nationafit. el: gion, the Proor their specnational pre

plot for scenindicate a cl

and 4 form a similar highd when regio

s from theults on three

nised througte global risk

TS and TSS frl and interna

ject Partnerscific sub‐regioeparedness a

nario 3) VTS auster of par

a cluster withh cost‐efficienons 2, 3 and 4

report e different le

gh the Bonn reduction m

rom Skagerraational autho

s have selecton and that and sub‐regio

and scenarioticularly hig

h a particularncy. This ind4 co‐operate

evels to the p

Agreement Smeasures suc

ak to the Engorities in ord

ted the speccould be cononal co‐oper

o 4) TSS. Sceh cost‐efficie

rly high cost‐icates that ae on the joint

project partn

Secretariat nch as e.g. E‐N

glish Channeer to achieve

ific scenariosnsidered for ration.

narios for suency.

‐efficiency. Ta particularlyt establishm

ners:

now have anNavigation in

el could be pre a joint and

s that were fthe future

ub‐

The sub‐y high ent of

alytical the

romoted

found to

27

5. References BE AWARE, 2015a. Summary Report. BE‐AWARE II project. BE AWARE, 2015b. Technical Sub Report 1: Methodology note. BE‐AWARE II project. BE AWARE, 2015c. Technical Sub Report 3: Impact assessment. BE‐AWARE II project. BE AWARE, 2015d. Technical Sub Report 2: Environmental and socioeconomic sensitivity and vulnerability mapping. BE‐AWARE II project. BRISK, 2012. http://www.brisk.helcom.fi/

Technical sub-report 4: Risk management conclusions · 7 Figure 2‐1 Map of the five sub‐regions...

Documents

Transcript of Technical sub-report 4: Risk management conclusions · 7 Figure 2‐1 Map of the five sub‐regions...