Ampera programme - CleanMag

SIXTH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME

Contract No. ERAC-CT2005-016165

ERA-NET

To foster prevention and best response to Accidental Marine Pollution

COORDINATION ACTION

Deliverable 2.3.1

Best practices on improvement of inter-regional co-operation

Due date: April 2007

Actual submission date: April 2007 Start of the project: April 2005 Duration: 4 years Organisation name of lead contractor for this deliverable: IFREMER – Le Cedre (France)

Project co-funded by the European Commission within the Sixth Framework Programme (2002-2006) Dissemination level

PU Public PP Restricted to other programme participants (including the Commission Services) XX RE Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (including the Commission Services) CO Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services)

��

Summary

The present report is related to Task 2.3 of Work Package 2 of the project AMPERA (Accidental Marine Pollution – European Research Area), the general aim of which is to contribute to the development of fully trans-national Accidental Marine Pollution (AMP) Research Programmes.

The particular objective of task 2.3 is to define possible ways to facilitate the development of inter-regional cooperation in accidental marine pollution research in relation with:

- the diversity of responsibilities of central governments and regions in pollution prevention and response, in Europe;

- the importance of disseminating at regional level applicable results of central government funded anti-pollution R&D;

- the increasing involvement of regions in R&D financing. This report analyses successively:

- the state of the art of the national pollution prevention and response organisations in the 7 EU member states, showing the respective responsibilities of the central government and regional authorities

- the European Community organisation as regards pollution prevention and response, through the Management Committee on accidental and intentional Marine Pollution and the European Maritime Safety Agency

- the different European RTD projects (Erocips, Prestige, Spreex, etc) of interest in the frame of Ampera, showing the initiatives already underway

Finally:

- a best practice checklist is established, giving an overview of what should be undertaken in order to facilitate the development of interregional cooperation in the AMP RTD field.

- a strategy is proposed to foster co-ordination between each European AMP RTD organisations, based on the definition of a website allowing a better visibility on the AMP RTD programmes / project funded.

AMPERA. Deliverable 2.3.1 Improvement of Interregional cooperation Cedre / IFREMER To foster prevention and best response to Accidental Marine Pollution

Contents

1. TASK DESCRIPTION, IMPLEMENTATION AND BACKGROUND ................................. 1

1.1 Task description and allocation........................................................................................................ 1 1.2 AMPERA among the other European R&D marine pollution projects ...................................... 1

2. STATE OF THE ART .................................................................................................................. 3

2.1 The national organisations................................................................................................................ 3 2.1.1. European overview…………………………………………………………………………… 3 2.1.2..The French Organisation............................................................................................... 4 2.1.3. The Spanish Organisation.............................................................................................. 5 2.1.4. The British Organisation …………………………………………………………………….7 2.1.5. The German Organisation………………………………………………………………… .8 2.1.6. The Belgian Organisation……………………………………………………………………10 2.1.7. The Portuguese Organisation..…………………………………………………………… ..11 2.1.8. The Nnorwegian Organisation………………………………………………………………12 2.1.9. Synthesis of national Organisations ……………………………………………………. 13

2.2 The European level ..........................................................................................................................14

2.2.1 the MCMP..................................................................................................................... 14 2.2.2. the EMSA ..................................................................................................................... 15 2.2.3 Experience gained in actual incidents .......................................................................... 15

2.3 European projects of relevance ......................................................................................................16 2.3.1 The EROCIPS project........................................................................................................ 16 2.3.2 The PRESTIGE project...................................................................................................... 17 2.3.3 Maritime Safety Umbrella Operation................................................................................ 18 2.3.4 The SPREEX project ....................................................................................................................19

3 BEST PRACTICE AND PROPOSED STRATEGY................................................................ 20

3.1. The best practice check-list ..............................................................................................................20 3.2. Strategy within and beyond AMPERA ............................................................................................21

APPENDIXES………… ………………………………………………………………………………………22

Appendix 1: Erocips Conference in Bordeaux Appendix 2: MSUO seminar “refuge areas best practice” Appendix 3: MSUO workshop “sensitivity and habitat mapping” Appendix 4: MSUP seminar “best practice in local contingency planning”

1


1. TASK DESCRIPTION, IMPLEMENTATION AND BACKGROUND 1.1. Task description and allocation Task 2.3 addresses the possible ways to facilitate the development of inter-regional co-operation in Accidental Marine Pollution research, in relation with: i) the high diversity among European countries of the respective responsibilities of central

governments and regions in pollution prevention and response, ii) the importance of disseminating at regional level applicable results of central government

funded anti-pollution R&D, iii) the increasing involvement of regions in R&D financing, The task has been subcontracted by Ifremer to Cedre. A not for profit association, Cedre is the French national institution in charge of documentation and R&D on accidental aquatic pollution preparedness and response. It is the technical advisor to the French local and national authorities in charge of emergency response to aquatic pollution incidents and the trainer of the national and local accidental water pollution workforces. It is also the technical adviser of the French delegations in international bodies and regional agreements concerned with accidental water pollution. As a consequence, Cedre totals 26 years of experience in producing and disseminating pollution prevention and response know-how at local, national and international levels. It is well aware of the differences between national organisations all over Europe and it could use for the present study experience acquired at European, bilateral and national levels, in studies, R&D projects and actual incidents. 1.2. AMPERA among other European R&D marine pollution project AMPERA isn’t an isolated action. A recent EMSA study lists 23 EU funded projects related with marine pollution prevention and response, 13 of which are under implementation and 20 of which are completed. Among the 13 projects being implemented, the wholly or partly AMP ones are:

� Double inverted funnel for intervention on ship-wrecks (DIFIS) � Elimination units for marine oil pollution (EU-MOP) � Enhancing R&D projects to find solutions to struggle against various marine pollutions

(MAPO) � Monitoring illicit discharges from vessels (MIDIV) � Oil Sea Harvester (OSH) � Oil spill identification system for marine transport (OSIS-Marine Transport) � Pollution prevention and control – Safe transportation of hazardous goods by tankers

(POP&C) � Spill response experience (SPREEX) � Analyses of survey, modelling and remote sensing techniques for monitoring assessment

of environmental impacts of submerged oil during spill incidents (ASMA) � Reinforcement of the technical means and ways to deal with the consequences of the

pollution caused by the sinking of the Prestige, co-operation work and exchange regarding methods of pollution control, communication and compensation (PRESTIGE)

2


� Emergency response to coastal oil, chemical and inert pollution from shipping (EROCIPS).

Among the 20 implemented projects, the wholly or partly AMP ones are:

� Oil absorbing magnetic material (CleanMag) � Chemical effluent and oil pollution alert and tracking (CLEOPATRA) � Communities of marine micro-organisms for oil degradation (COMMODE) � Detection and classification of marine traffic from space (DECLIMS) � Data integration system for marine pollution and water quality (DISMAR) � Laser fluorosensor for oil spots detection (FLUOSENSE) � Response to harmful substances at sea (HASREP) � Role of microbial mats in bioremediation of hydrocarbon polluted coastal zones

(MATBIOPOL) � Navigation and perilous goods input and output system (NAUPLIOS) � Harmonised monitoring, reporting and assessment of illegal marine oil discharges

(OCEANIDES) � Remote sensing anti-pollution system for geographical data integration (RAPSODI) � Thematic network on safety assessment of waterborne transport (THEMES)

3 of the 13 projects under implementation specifically address various aspects of disseminating in regions the experience and research results acquired at national level, and/or exchanging of experience between regions through interregional cooperation. These are:

� The R&D project Spill response experience (SPREEX), intends to assemble existing experience from oil spill response, with the following main aims: i) identify research needs to achieve a fast and effective response, ii) propose clusters in order to create synergies with existing or on-going research projects included in different research programmes, iii) generate synergies that may lead to new projects and partnerships between authorities and regulators, end users, universities and researchers.

� The Interreg project PRESTIGE intends to reinforce the technical means and ways to deal with the consequences of the pollution caused by the sinking of the Prestige. Primarily the project defined has the objectives of fighting the pollution and treating-eliminating the recovered waste. Further more, this project has allowed the partners involved to structure a co-operation work and exchange regarding methods of pollution control. The project has also funded a study on the return of experience from satellite services (SAR imagery and satellite tracked buoys) used in the incident.

� The Interreg project Emergency response to coastal oil, chemical and inert pollution from shipping (EROCIPS), aimed at improving pollution response preparedness in the regions around the Bay of Biscay and the western opening of the British Channel, by disseminating experience acquired from the Prestige incident and promoting common procedures and standards.

Cedre is party to SPREEX, a subcontractor to PRESTIGE and the technical subcontractor of the French regions involved in EROCIPS, an ideal situation to draw experience from those projects for the benefit of AMPERA.

3


2. THE NATIONAL RESPONSE ORGANISATIONS 2.1. European overview The National Oil Spill response organisations of the different European countries distribute responsibilities in far different ways. In particular, the roles given by central authorities to local authorities are ranging from practically nil to essential. A general overview of those organisations is accessible on the Internet through the Community Information System (CIS).

Fig. n°1: Home page of the Community Information System (CIS) Website http://ec.europa.eu/environment/civil/marin/cis/cis_index.htm

CIS shows that each European country has its own specificities as regards pollution prevention and response. Not only the respective roles of the State and local authorities vary widely but the very minister in charge of response coordination may be that in charge of Interior, or Transport, or Defence, or the Environment. As an example, in France, the overall responsibility is shared between prefects, a maritime prefects (Navy admirals) at sea and land prefects (ministry of the Interior) on the coastline. In the United Kingdom, an overall pollution response coordinator nominated by the ministry of Transport directs response operations at sea and on the coastline in total independence of the political power: the Government has no other alternative than to let him act as he deems satisfactory or dismiss him. In Germany, coastal response is fully in the hands of the Lander (i.e. regional authorities) with coordination at central government level. The French and Spanish organisations highlight two extremes which have evolved in converging directions after the Prestige incident. All the organisations described above have been designed specifically to deal with oil pollution incidents. All of them have later integrated in their duties the prevention of and response to other forms of maritime transport pollution, namely:

4


� Spills of chemicals packaged or in bulk � Spills of edible products � Containers and packages falling at sea.

Depending on the countries, those matters may be integrated into a specific chapter of the response plans or be part of the general dispositions of the plan. 2.2. The French Organisation The French response organisation is highly State driven: it gives no role to the elected authorities of the regions. But, in the same time, planning and decision-making are highly decentralized, with a network of 29 local response plans for the mainland and 9 for overseas France. The organization is established under a national Marine Pollution response directive (Polmar rule, in short), implemented by “deconcentrated” state services. These are services of the central Government based in regions, under the authority of a Region prefect, and in “departments” (there are 3 to 5 “departments” in a region), under the authority of a “Departement” prefect). Before the Prestige incident, the directive made no mention of any possible role of the regional services, under the authority of the Regional Councils and departmental services, under the authority of the General Councils. But mayors of municipalities were directly concerned. The Polmar rule attributes pollution response as follows:

• At Sea (Polmar Sea), all public services act in their capacity under the coordination of the Maritime Prefect. There are 3 maritime prefects for the seas surrounding mainland France: that of the Channel / North Sea, that of the Atlantic and that of the Mediterranean. Each maritime prefect keeps updated a Polmar-sea plan for his maritime region. In addition to the coordination of response at sea, Maritime prefects have the responsibilities to liaise with land authorities out of spill incidents, through a yearly maritime conference and to inform the land authorities of coastal spill risks in emergency situations.

• On land (Polmar Land), the pollution response is the responsibility of the mayors in a small spill (impacting one or a few communes), of the “department” prefect in a medium spill (impacting one or a few departments) and in a major spill (impacting one or several regions). Each “department” prefect keeps updated a Polmar-land plan for his “depart”ment”. When several “département plans in a defence zone (there are 4 coastal defence zones) are activated, the defence zone prefect may take over a coordination role. For that purpose, he keeps updated a defence zone Polmar-land plan. When more than a defence zone is impacted, the Secretary General of the sea may take over coordination.

• At sea and on land, authorities have the same technical adviser, Cedre.

As a consequence, the French marine spill response organisation is in the same time: o highly centralised in the sense that, at the only exception of small pollution on the coastline,

all responsibilities lie in the hands of state level authorities, o highly decentralised in the sense that there are 3 maritime zones plans, 26 department plans, 5

defence zone plans, each with its own command authority and command centre.

5


Figure n°2: The polmar-land plans in mainland France The dates indicate the last update of the plans. The numbers in red are the department numbers

. That organisation has demonstrated its capacity and limits in the Erika and Prestige spills. One of the limits appeared to be the absence of a role given to regional authorities. Being clearly concerned by the pollution, but without any given role in response operations, those authorities have:

� in the Erika spill, strongly criticized the Polmar organisation and unsuccesfully attempted to force revisions of the international agreements in force,

� in the Prestige spill, attempted to assist in their main capacity, i.e. support to the impacted economy through studies, press campaigns and financial aid.

As a consequence, the last revision of the Polmar rule, dated 11 January 2006, included for the first time an article (1.1.6) specifically devoted to the role of territorial authorities in the Polmar dispositions: “Although Regions, as territorial authorities, do not appear in the ruling dispositions, they may play a role in the economic domain, particularly as regards the aid it may bring to response preparedness and management of consequences in large spills. Information of the Region on spill threat and response being implemented must be taken care of by the authorities in charge of prevention and response. The same applies to the territorial authorities of the “Départements”, particularly as regards their responsibility in the frame of decentralisation”. French Regions have started reacting to that new disposition and an agreement between Cedre, the educational body of the territorial authorities and Atlantic regions is under preparation, to start training territorial staff in pollution response, in the same way as state authority staff has been trained for decades. The practical consequence as regard R&D in AMP is the absence:

� of any regional pollution response experience building and dissemination centre � of any regional financing to pollution response stockpiles and technological research � of any regional experience/capacity to build and implement comprehensive pollution

impact studies But some regions, namely Charente-Poitou and Brittany have recently started to offer co-financing for phD thesis in relation with AMP.

6


2.3. The Spanish organisation The Spanish response organisation is totally state driven as regards response at sea and almost entirely delegated to the Regions (“Autonomias”) as regards response on the coastline. At the time of the Prestige incidents, no authority in charge had an actual response plan fully documented and duly tested. When the Prestige incident occurred, there was the illusion that a plan existed, because the national text establishing who did what in preparedness and response operations was titled “national plan”. This was in fact no more than a set of rules, giving:

� the operational responsibility of pollution response at sea to the national maritime rescue and pollution response company Sasemar (a state company under the Directorate of Merchant Marine, in the ministry of Equipment), under the supervision of the Director of Merchant Marine,

� the operational responsibility of pollution response on the coastline to crisis committees jointly managed by the “Autonomias” (i.e. the governing bodies of the Regions) and the “Delegaciones del Gobierno” (i.e. the Government delegations in the Regions.

Sasemar and the Autonomias were expected to have overall response plans and to elaborate detailed dispositions in the course of response implementation. This led to considerable political involvement in decision making, strong criticism of operations management and very poor communication. In those circumstances, a number of regional research and service institutions played a key role in providing scientific support to the decision makers. This included in particular the involvement of: - Meteo Galicia, Meteo Cantabria and the University of Cantabria in slicks drift modelling and prediction - the AZTI marine research foundation in slick drift prediction and assistance to oil recovery operations undertaken by fishermen. Those regional bodies used in the emergency existing cooperation links with national and regional partners in Europe and the USA to strengthen their response capacity. As a consequence, when a new, revised national rule was produced after the Prestige incident, creating a national coastal response coordination body (CEPRECO) under the ministry of Equipement and setting standards for the production of detailed regional response plans, those regional bodies were ready to play an important role in contingency planning and support to pollution response. Today all Spanish Autonomias: - have financed (Catalunya, Galicia) or are financing the elaboration and documentation of modern oil spill contingency plans for coastline response, - have integrated accidental oil pollution in their financing lines to regional R&D institutions. Furthermore, the Autonomias of Galicia, Cantabria, Asturias and Euzkadi are contributing, jointly with the ministry of Research and Environment, to the financing of impact studies of the pollution of the Prestige 2.4. The British organization The British response organisation is also totally state driven as regards response at sea and almost entirely delegated to the local authorities as regards response on the coastline.

7


The Maritime and Coastguard Agency, an Agency of the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions, is responsible for developing, promoting and enforcing high standards of marine safety, minimizing loss of life amongst seafarers and coastal users, responding to maritime emergencies, minimizing the risk of pollution of the marine environment from ships and where pollution occurs, minimizing the impact on UK interests

The Agency has 2 directorates, the Directorate of Maritime Safety and Pollution Prevention (MSPP) and the Directorate of Maritime Operations (DMO). The Director of DMO is the Chief Coastguard and is based at the MCA's headquarters in Southampton. His responsibilities include Counter Pollution, Search and Rescue, Ship Survey and Inspection, and Enforcement of Merchant Shipping legislation. The Counter Pollution Branch (CPB) maintains stockpiles of equipment for responding to pollution incidents at sea and pollution that beaches. Contractors manage, maintain, store and

mobilization the equipment. The at-sea stockpile is based at Milford Haven (south Wales), the beach cleaning equipment is mainly located at Southampton (south coast) and Inverness (Scotland). The CPB manages contracts for the provision of surveillance and dispersant spraying aircraft based at Coventry and Inverness. Four Emergency Towing Vessels (ETVs) were chartered and put on station on the 1st October 2001. They are based in the South West Approaches, the Dover Straits, the Minches and the Northern Isles.

The MCA has divided the UK's coastline into 4 regions, Scotland and Northern Ireland, Western, Eastern and Southern. Each region has a Marine Rescue Coordination Centre and a number of Marine Rescue Sub Centres. Within each region there is a Principle Counter Pollution and Salvage Officer.

Following reviews of 2 major pollution incidents, Sea Empress (1996) and the Braer (1993), in January 2000 the CPB issued a new National Contingency Plan (NCP). The NCP describes the command and control to be implemented in a nationally significant incident where there is a threat of, or actual pollution. This command structure includes the role

of the newly created Secretary of States Representative (SOSREP), 3 control centres (Salvage Control Unit, Marine Response Centre and Shoreline Response Centre) and an advisory Environment Group.

The Salvage Control Unit's (SCU) role is dealing with the casualty. SCU is headed by SOSREP. The Marine Response Centre (MRC) responds to at sea pollution. This may involve, assessing and monitoring, dispersant spraying, mechanical recovery and cargo transfer. The MRC is headed by CPB. It incorporates a fisheries department officer and a Local Authority officer. The Shoreline Response Centre is headed by the Local Authority most affected by the pollution, with ad-hoc support of CPB. The Environment Group supports all three control units. It is available to give advice on all environmental matters and in this way the response can be conducted in an environmentally sensitive manner.

The Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Co-operation (OPRC) convention to which the UK is a signatory has been enacted into UK legislation. There is now a requirement for ports, harbours, oil facilities and offshore operations that meet set criteria to produce an oil spill contingency plan. The MCA reviews and accepts these plans. There is no obligation for the local authorities to have their own response plans

Fig. 3; Areas of action of the 4 Emergency towing vessels

8


2.5. The German organization The German response organisation is the most achieved example of responsibility sharing between centre government and regional (i.e. coastal states) authorities: in accordance with the constitution, marine emergencies and grave marine pollution have to be managed by both the Federal Government and the five Federal Coastal States. Thus, close cooperation was agreed between these parties to build up and improve the needed national capacity. The Federal Government and the coastal states agreed to set up a Central Command for Maritime Emergencies Germany (CCME) and the Agreement on the Control of Marine Pollution which has already been existing since 1980 was revised. In accordance with the 20 0ctober 2003 Organizational Decree on its setting up, the CCME, established in Cuxhaven, is an authority directly subordinate to the Federal Ministry of Transport, Building and Housing. The discharge of the states functions is incumbent in each case on competent ministries of the coastal states. The head of the CCME is under the jurisdiction and control of the Federal Ministry of Transport, Building and Housing. The actual operational command and control by the CCME is performed on the basis of the mission-type tactics. This means that in an emergency (complex damage situation at sea) the head of the CCME alerts and manages the emergency services and resources provided to him. In this connection, the lead responsibility for planning, preparation, practice and performance of control measures which is currently incumbent on different authorities and institutions is concentrated with the CCME. Thus, this agency coordinates the rescue of people, accident response measures involving harmful substances, fire fighting, emergency response measures and salvage in consideration of hazard prevention, the combating of the consequences of the incident and controls the relevant press and public relations work about the accident. The head of the CCME is granted freedom of decision, as far as this is possible, for the operations. He defines the objectives of the countermeasures to be taken and gives instructions to the competent bodies. These bodies perform their mission and regularly pass on up-to-date information to the head of the CCME. The CCME does not act as an authority towards third parties; the necessary administrative acts (e.g. police navigation orders) are performed by the competent authority, i.e. the competent Waterways and Shipping Office, within the framework of the operational command and control set out by the CCME. For daily routine operations as well as incidents below the threshold of a complex damage situation, the tasks and responsibility remain with the competent authorities and institutions. The CCME performs the tasks which were formerly incumbent on the Federal Marine Pollution Control Unit, the States Marine Pollution Control Unit, the National Contact Point Germany, the Central Reporting Point as well as the tasks assigned to it in accordance with the Agreement on the Setting up of a Central Command for Maritime Emergencies Germany which are set forth in the following. A distinction is made between a General Structural Organization (AAO) for routine operation and a Special Structural Organization (BAO) for complex damage situations which require the establishment of an average headquarters. In the AAO, the CCME represents an organization unit predominantly acting in the conceptional area with some operative tasks. Moreover, the AAO has to ensure the measures for mastering such situations which require a Special Structural Organization (BAO). In the AAO, the CCME is thus a centre of competence which is subdivided into six sections:

• Maritime Emergencies Reception Centre • Maritime Pollution Control / High Sea Section • Maritime Pollution Control / Coastal Section • Fire Protection, Rescue and Medical Care Section • Salvage Section • Public Relations Section

9


The tasks of these sections are especially • to prepare the maritime situation view • to coordinate the principles for the performance of prevention and control measures for

the work within the CCME as well as for the cooperation with other authorities and the competent bodies

• to provide for alert planning and to prepare the operational concepts • to assess complex damage situations and incidents at sea entailing damage or risks • to plan, carry out and assess vocational training, advanced training and improvement

courses • to record and assess technical developments for damage prevention and control • to make contributions to acquisition programmes for emergency vehicles, operational

equipment and material • to submit contributions to national and international bodies • to carry out public relations work

Fig. 4: Diagram of the Central Command for Maritime Emergencies Germany

In the case of complex damage situations or at the request of a party to the Agreement, the CCME ensures a uniform management of the operation including the provision of information to the public. In the case of an imminent complex damage situation the CCME can assume the operational command independently (assuming competence in one’s own name). The taking over of the operation and its termination must be formally declared by the head of the CCME. For the management of the operation, the sections of the AAO will be combined to form working staffs for maritime pollution control and fire protection, medical care, salvage and public relations. According to the accident situation, the personnel of the average staff can be extended and further employees from the parties to the Agreement may be involved (e.g. legal advice). The tactical management of the operation is throughout determined by the principle of the above-mentioned mission-type tactics.

10


The discussion on the maritime situation view to be kept by the Maritime Emergencies Reception Centre is held from the points of view “as much information as possible” and “as much information as required”. The Maritime Emergencies Reception Centre is staffed with personnel from the Waterways and Shipping Administration and the Water Guard of the coastal states on a 24-hour basis. Here, all relevant information received via communication channels is to be collected and combined in a maritime situation view. The sections "Maritime Pollution Control / High Sea Section" and "Maritime Pollution Control / Coastal Section" have to update the German response strategy and to maintain the best possible preparedness for pollution response within and outside of the territorial waters. The section "Maritime Pollution Control / High Sea Section" is especially competent for oil spill control on the high sea; the section "Maritime Pollution Control / Coastal Section" is responsible within the coastal area, the Wadden Sea and also for beach cleaning. The individual recovery operations are performed either by the local Federal Waterway and Shipping Board and/or by those local boards of the five Coastal States, which are competent for water quality, beach cleaning, etc. in the respective area. Other organisations (navy, salvage companies, tank ship owners etc.) will be asked for assistance, if necessary. Agreements on details of technical support between the Federal waterway and shipping administration and the aforementioned institutions have been made as part of the wide-ranging national contingency planning. An annual exercise and education programme includes all response vessels and their crews. Ten exercise days are scheduled for all response vessels, in order to keep the national preparedness on a high level. Bilateral marine pollution plans have been agreed with the neighbouring countries Denmark and The Netherlands. Similar arrangements exist in the Baltic Sea with Sweden. As regards shoreline response, the national contingency plan contains provisions for all parties involved in a major spill disaster. It includes the procedures and measures of coordination and cooperation between the Federal Government/Federal Coastal States, their authorities and private sectors involved in counter pollution activities. Special plans - including sensitivity maps for protection and response in sensitive zones (mainly the Wadden Sea) - facilitate response decisions to be taken. Computerised models of pollutant movements/spreading cover the North Sea, the Germ an Bight (operational numerical model), the Wadden Sea and the Baltic. They are used for preparation of defence lines at the shoreline but also for the identification of potential polluters (track back mode). A comprehensive computerised decision and information support system will facilitate and speed up the response activities to overcome the consequences of serious accidents at sea and grave pollution disasters. 2.6. The Belgian organization The Belgian response organisation is an example of shared responsibility between two ministries (Interior and Environment) and coastal states The national responsibility for dealing with catastrophic events, including grave pollution incidents, on the Belgian territory and in the territorial sea rests legally with the federal Minister of the Interior. Within the Department of the interior, the operational responsibility is held by the Civil Protection, which owns limited pollution-combatting equipment, but lacks sea-going support. In case of accidents at sea and activation of the national contingency plan for the North Sea, the Minister of the Interior may delegate his powers to the Province Governor.

11


The responsibility for formulating marine environmental policies at national levels rests with the federal Minister (or Secretary of State) for the Environment. Through the Management Unit of the North Sea Mathematical Models (MUMM), the Minister coordinates the implementation of the various international agreements. Through his BELMEC section (BELgian Maritime Environmental Control), MUMM organizes the flight planning and provides operators in order to perform these pollution control flights. Belgium is party to the Bonn Agreement, an agreement by North Sea coastal states together with the European Community to offer mutual assistance and cooperation in combating pollution, and to execute surveillance as an aid to detecting and combating pollution and to prevent violations of anti-pollution regulations. The Navy operational command at Zeebrugge (COMOPSNAV - Commando Marineoperaties, Ministry of defence) is the National Contact Point for the Bonn Agreement. In case of a serious pollution incident at sea, emergency messages are dealt with by the MRCC, which can decide to alert other services following the procedures of the national contingency plan for the North Sea. COMOPSNAV is also the National Focal Point for in-flight aerial surveillance reports.

2.7. The Portuguese organization

The Portuguese response organisation, like the French one, puts all responsibility in the hands of central government officials. But, unlike the French one, is puts response coordination at sea and on the coastline in the same hands. In compliance with the national legislation, the national structure to prevent and to fight pollution at sea includes the Ministry of Defence - Navy (in particular the “Direcção-Geral da Autoridade Marítima “, the Maritime Departments, the port captains (“Capitanias dos Portos” , the Harbour Authorities. An Interministerial Commission carries into effect the national policy in the field of prevention and fighting against marine pollution. The “Direcção-Geral da Autoridade Marítima”, under the auspices of the National Maritime Authority and the Ministry of Defence, collaborates on the national policy for the prevention of, and response to maritime pollution, in liaison with other departments belonging to the Ministry of Internal Affairs, Ministry of Towns, Territory and Environment and the Ministry of Public Works, Transport and Housing. Maritime Departments (5) and “Capitanias dos Portos” (28) belong to the structure of the Direcção-Geral da Autoridade Marítima (DGAM). Maritime Departments are departments with regional maritime jurisdiction. They coordinate and support the actions and the service of “Capitanias dos Portos”, which have local implantation and jurisdiction. The DGAM has a central service with technical competence in the field of maritime pollution, the “Serviço de combate à poluição no mar” (SCPM). The Harbour Authorities have the responsibility for the prevention of and the fight against marine pollution inside harbours, and they belong to the Ministry of Public Works, Transport and Housing. The Portuguese Contingency Plan for combating pollution by oil and other harmful substances at sea and on coastline, called “Plano Mar Limpo” (Clean Sea Plan), includes Regional Emergency Plans and Local Emergency Plans. The Direcção-Geral da Autoridade Marítima carries out, at national level, the coordination of the means of responding to marine pollution at sea and ashore. Maritime Departments, “Capitanias dos Portos” and harbour authorities have the responsibility of coordination and tactical direction of operations within the maritime zone under the jurisdiction, according to the regional or local contingency plans.

12


2.8. The Norwegian organisation The Norwegian Coastal Administration is responsible for organizing and maintaining the governmental oil spill response preparedness, and for co-ordinating the governmental, the municipal and the private industry’s preparedness in a national contingency system against oil pollution. This also involves controlling and monitoring any response operations undertaken by the industry or the municipalities The Pollution Control Act states that the National Contingency System is divided into private, municipal and governmental contingency areas with specific responsibilities. In Norway, all contingency plans and organizations are standardized and co-ordinated. Hence, in the event of a major national emergency, the national contingency system will work as a single integrated response organisation. Industrial plants that might cause significant oil pollution are obliged to establish an adequate level of preparedness. Governmental requirements primarily apply to operators on the Norwegian Continental Shelf, the crude oil terminals, the refineries and companies distributing oil products as well as major industrial companies. The approx. 430 municipalities are divided into 34 intermunicipal preparedness areas; each with its own approved contingency plan. The local authorities are responsible for dealing with minor acute spills that occur within the municipality due to normal activity, and which are not covered by the polluter’s private contingency arrangements. The local authorities, the fire departments, the port authorities etc. all collaborate on municipal preparedness. In addition, the municipalities have an obligation to assist the government in the event of a major oil pollution action. The Norwegian Coastal Administration is to deal with oil spills that are not handled by private or municipal preparedness organisations, such as oil spills from ships and major spills from unidentified sources. Additionally, the NCA can provide resources to response-operations under private or municipal management. If the party responsible for carrying out the response-measures does not master the task, the NCA will assist, and (possibly) take over the management of the operation if so required. The NCA is responsible for co-ordinating private, municipal and governmental preparedness into a national emergency response system. At present this preparedness consists of the following elements:

• The Norwegian Coastal Administration Department for Emergency Response in Horten with stations in the cities of Tromsø and Bergen.

• 15 contingency depots with oil spill control equipment, trained personnel and small boats. • 4 governmental oil pollution control vessels. • 8 Coast Guard vessels permanently equipped with oil recovery equipment. • One specially equipped surveillance aircraft. • Agreements with other governmental authorities and private industry regarding assistance

with personnel and equipment resources. • International agreements regarding assistance in the event of oil spills, such as the Bonn

Agreement concerning the North Sea, and the Norway-Russia Agreement concerning the Barents Sea.

13


2.9. Synthesis of the national organizations As a whole, overall oil pollution response planning and implementation over the countries reviewed here is always a central Government responsibility, with occasional contribution of regional authorities. Response at sea remains mostly a central Government responsibility, generally under the ministry of Transport (Direction of Merchant marine), but at times under the ministry of Defence (Navy). Response on the Coastline is usually shared between central Government and local authorities.

Overall Coordination Response at sea Coastline response France Mayor of commune to “Préfet

de zone” (min. Interior) “Préfet maritime” (min.

Defence) Mayor (small pollution) to

« préfet de départment » (large pollution)

Spain Joint State and Region (« Autonomia ») headed by

the “delegado del Gobierno” to the Autonomia

State company “Salvamento maritime” (min. Equipment and

Transport) for public means. Autonomia for fishermen

contribution

Autonomia with support of Central government services

(min. Equipment and Transport, min. Environment)

United Kingdom

Maritime and Coastguard Agency, MCA (min.

Transport and regions)

Casualty: Salvage Control Unit, MCA, under Secretary of States

Representative (SOSREP). Pollution : Marine Response

Centre, MCA

Shoreline Response Centre headed by the Local Authority most affected by the pollution, with ad-hoc support of MCA

Germany Central Command for Maritime Emergencies (min.

Transport, Building and Housing, with participation of coastal states representatives.

Central Command for Maritime Emergencies, Maritime

Pollution Control, High Sea Section

Central Command for Maritime Emergencies,

Maritime Pollution Control, Coastal Section

Belgium Civil Protection (min. Interior)

Navy Operational Command (min. Defence)

Civil Protection (min. Interior)

Portugal “Serviço de combate à poluição no mar”, “Direcção-

Geral da Autoridade Marítima” (National Maritime Authority and min. Defence)

“Serviço de combate à poluição no mar”, “Direcção-Geral da

Autoridade Marítima” (National Maritime Authority and min.

Defence)

“Serviço de combate à poluição no mar”, “Direcção-

Geral da Autoridade Marítima” (National Maritime Authority and min. Defence)

Norway Coastal Administration Department for Emergency

Response

Coastal Administration Department for Emergency

Response

Municipalities

Maritime pollution response summarys in 6 EU Countries

The evident consequence is that any AMP project targeted on regional capacity and interest would find more audience if dealing with coastal response than if dealing with at sea response.

14


2.2. The European level 2.2.1. The MCMP The European Union Management Committee for Maritime (accidental and operational) pollution, MCMP in short, was established pursuant to the Decision 2000/2850/EC (aiming at establishing a Community framework for co-operation in the field of accidental or deliberate marine pollution), under the Environment Directorate of the European Commission, as the follow up of a former committee created in 1978. MCMP implemented a rolling plan including studies, experiments, courses, workshops and exchanges of experts. Countries were represented by national delegates. All activities in the rolling plan were fully open to any authority concerned with pollution response at national, regional or local level. It was the responsibility of the national delegates to communicate the information of interest to those concerned. However, experience showed that the priority actions (pilot projects, training, workshops, studies, exercises), selected by delegates from state administrations, responded primarily to their particular needs, with little consideration for those of the regional administrations. And the participation of staff from regional/local bodies in the courses and workshops organised by the MCMP was highly exceptional. The same applied to participations in the Eumarex exchange of experts programme: practically all participants were members of national administrations, national institutions and national companies. That situation didn’t reflect a lack of interest of Regional staff. There was in fact clear evidence that the experience building offer of MCMP was very little communicated to the Regions by the Country delegations. That lack of communication was understandable as regards France, where regions had no set role in pollution response. It was less understandable in countries where regions had a set role in the matter. As a consequence, there was a clear need to improve both the implication and information of Regional authorities in the experience building demand and offer of MCMP. However, the European Commission chose to terminated MCMP in late 2006, on the ground that most of its activities were progressively taken over by the newly established European Maritime Agency. 2.2.2. The EMSA

The European Maritime Safety Agency, now based in Lisbon, has among others the legal tasks:

� “To provide Member States and the Commission with technical and scientific assistance in the field of ship-sourced pollution”

� “To support on request with additional means in a cost efficient way the pollution response mechanisms of Member States”

To this effect:

� EMSA has put in place a network of at-sea oil recovery vessels for pollution response operations, covering the Baltic Sea, the Atlantic coast and the Western approaches to the Channel, and the Mediterranean Sea. During 2007, the Agency will strengthen this network to also cover other European sea areas.

15


� As from 2007, the Agency will provide a satellite imagery service for monitoring oil spills to complement surveillance and monitoring activities currently undertaken by aircraft. This service will offer extensive surveillance of European waters for oil spills by using radar images (SAR).

� The Agency is undertaking a number of additional activities in the field of marine pollution preparedness and response, such as the strengthening of its co-operation and co-ordination with existing mechanisms between Member States (Regional Agreements), the dissemination of best practices and information through workshops, trainings, inventories, studies and decision support tools

Two basic rules of EMSA are of importance here. One is that the Agency neither implements nor funds R&D projects. As a consequence, now that the MCMP is terminated, any R&D financing for AMP should be sought through the EU R&D framework programmes. The other rule of importance here is that the Agency’s relations with the EU countries are channelled through a counterpart national ministry (in general the ministry in charge of transport) which isn’t necessarily the national body with R&D experience in pollution response. Direct relations with regions regarding AMP R&D aren’t in EMSA’S agenda. But one could expect national authorities to inform regional authorities of the reports of EMSA workshops on subjects including a R&D component, such as the use of dispersants, or response to HNS spills. Furthermore, those reports can be found and downloaded from the EMSA website 2.2.3. Experience gained in actual incidents All major oil spills are sources of important hands-on and documentary experience. The Prestige incident is the last and most exemplary such incident. It generated a trans-boundary response in which French, Portuguese and Spanish authorities had to work hand in hand, with far different organisations. As describe above, the French organisation was well prepared and made no room for regional authorities while the Spanish organisation was little prepared. That organisation put response in the open sea in the hands of SASEMAR, the national company in charge of salvage and counter-pollution, with some experience in the matter, but without ad-hoc recovery vessels. But it left to the regions the charge of mobilising and managing fishermen contribution to the response, without any pre-set organisation. It put response in the inner marine waters (i.e. the waters within the line of capes) and on the coastline jointly into the hands of the region and the regional delegations of the central government (prime minister, ministry of environment, ministry of public works), without any set plan. As a consequence:

� Right from the first day, French scientists of national institutions concerned were mobilised and worked jointly in pre-defined advisory committees when national and regional Spanish scientists found themselves left aside by the decision makers

� Each of the Spanish regions concerned (Galicia, Cantabria, Asturias, Euzkadi) established through joint mobilisation of a marine institution and the regional meteorological service its own slick drift prediction organisation, when slick drift prediction was undertaken on the French side by a single organisation (the national slick drift committee established by the Polmar rule) ;

� Each of the Spanish regions concerned mobilised its fishermen through its own procedures, assisted them for slicks localisation through specific aerial surveys (by plane and/or helicopter) and provided them specific support in port, when mobilisation, slicks localisation and support in port where centrally organised on the French side ;

16


� Each of the Spanish regions concerned used for coastline response its own technical advisers, handbooks, trainers, and response standards, in an improvised way, when all Polmar authorities used the same technical adviser and trainer (Cedre), the same handbooks and the same response standards.

This diversity of situations imposed the creation of a French-Portuguese-Spanish tripartite coordination committee at central governments level, in which the Spanish members, all members of the State administration, had heavy workload relaying information from and to the Spanish regions. The recognized limitations of the Spanish pollution response generated a major revision of the national pollution response organisation, clarifying the respective roles of central and regional authorities. It triggered in French regions interest for the considerable responsibility in pollution response of their Spanish counterparts. And It was the source of the Interreg EROCIPS project. Similar experience was gained through the response to chemical incidents, in particular:

� by France and the United kingdom on the accidents of the chemical carriers Ievoli Sun (2000) and Ece (2006)

� by Spain and Italy in the accidents of the coal carriers Castillo de Salas (1986) and Coral bulker IV (1999)

� by France in the accident of the general cargo vessel Fenes, loaded with edible wheat (1996)

2.3. European projects of relevance As developed in the Task 1.1 of the Work Package 1, concerning the general characteristics of the European RTD programmes on AMP, the Interreg projects are mainly planning and exchange of experience projects, with little RTD component. Nevertheless, these projects develop Inter-regional co-operation. Two of them, namely EROCIPS and PRESTIGE, are of particular interest for AMPERA. The SPREEX project, funded through the 6th Framework Programme of the EU, is also of particular interest here. 2.3.1. The EROCIPS project The Interreg “Emergency response to coastal oil, chemical and inert pollution from shipping” (EROCIPS) project, started in mid-2005, implies 4 British regions (Pembrokeshire-Ceredigian, Devon, Dorset, Northern Ireland), 4 French regions (Bretagne, Pays-de-Loire, Charente-Poitou, Aquitaine), 1 Spanish region (Galicia) and technical partners from the United Kingdom, France, Spain and Portugal. It includes 6 work packages, among which 4 are of particular interest here. Work package 2 (response information) was built to generate information and support tools to help Regional and Local Government authorities develop proposed shoreline clean-up strategies in advance of an incident and so support effective decision making as part of a response strategy. This includes 3 complementary items: • Map shoreline types elaboration, using a GIS system: for each shoreline type, environmental

sensitivities were to be identified and assessed and, considering that a number of methodologies for assessing shoreline sensitivity existed, a review of these was to be conducted and the most appropriate for all the partners selected, if needed with development of new methodology.

17


• Development of priorities and plans for boom/ barrage deployment: in order to protect the more sensitive environmental sites in the event of a pollution incident.

• Production of site selection guidance for intermediate storage of oil/chemical waste; with options for later permanent disposal, taking into account environmental sensitivities and national regulatory frameworks in relation to waste management legislation, associated transport plans being identified and sites logged using a GIS.

Work package 3 (Counter Pollution Resources) was built to collect information on regional expertise and equipment available for planning and responding to coastal shipping pollution. It is considered unlikely that any Local/Regional Authority would have in-house all the specialist knowledge to clean-up all pollution types, so specialist advice may be required to conduct a safe and environmentally aware clean up. Some EROCIPS Partners having experience of the Amoco Cadiz, Sea Empress, Erika and Prestige incidents, there were opportunities to share this expertise with the other partners. Therefore it was agreed that information should be collected on: • Equipment available within the regions e.g. beach clean-up equipment, machinery, etc.; • Technical and scientific skills available e.g. laboratory analysis capabilities, specific knowledge on

chemical spills; • Contractors available (e.g. certified pollution contractors and unskilled workforce suppliers); • Volunteers available (a manual on safe management of volunteers to be produced). Work package 4 (Training Information) was built to develop training and awareness material to support elected officials, spatial planners, professional, volunteers, unskilled workforce and contractors involved in pollution incidents. That work package was to: • Develop and test guidance for people observing and assessing levels of beach contamination; • Develop an awareness-training package for local government elected officials, spatial planners and

other regional and local authority staff who have to support the response by authorizing staff deployment, expenditure, face the media and report to national government

• Develop and test a multilingual short induction training package for unskilled workforce, contractors and volunteers who may form a large percentage of the response staff, and whose health and safety is paramount

Work package 5 (Pollution Trajectory and Fate Modelling) was built to produce regional pilot models for Galicia and Dorset, to predict when and where pollution would come ashore following a marine incident. This was to be linked with real time information such as winds, currents, sea temperature and pollution type, so that it could provide an effective early prediction of where pollution may beach following an incident. It was also to be linked to other information available e.g. the sensitivity analysis developed in Work Package 2. The objectives and content of these work packages do precisely match the concerns of AMPERA. They also duplicate techniques, procedures, inventories and handbooks already established at central government level and by bodies with national responsibility. There was, as a consequence, a risk that options selected in the project and applied at regional level, would differ from those in use at national level. As a means to reduce that risk, the French regions involved not only have subcontracted technical work to Cedre, but they also have agreed that project activities would be monitored by the Secretariat general of the sea, a coordination body under the Prime minister. It is to be noted that the information to be established by EROCIPS will circulate only among EROCIPS partners and be disseminated in the regions concerned through 2 interregional conferences, the first of which was held in Bordeaux in 2006 (appendix 1). But it will not be disseminated throughout all regions of Europe. Furthermore, that information will most probably be too detailed and too Bay of Biscaye orientated to be of interest for all regions. As a consequence, that part of the EROCIPS information deserving to be disseminated all over Europe could be so by AMPERA, in a condensed and de-localised form.

18


2.3.2. The PRESTIGE project The Interreg IIIB project PRESTIGE gathers the French regional prefecture of Aquitaine, the French maritime prefecture of the Atlantic and the Spanish sea rescue and counter-pollution state company SASEMAR. It has the objectives to reinforce the technical means and ways to deal with the consequences of the pollution caused by the sinking of the Prestige (Co-operation work and exchange regarding methods of pollution control, communication and compensation). Being financed by Interreg and involving partners with national (SASEMAR), zonal (the maritime prefecture of the Atlantic) and regional (the prefecture of Aquitaine) responsibilities, this is clearly a state/region transfer of experience and co-operation project. But its partnership includes no actual regional administration. In spite of that absence, PRESTIGE has actively undertaken to make use of the experience of regional bodies and to include representatives of regional authorities and regional bodies in its transfer of experience seminars. As an example, PRESTIGE has contracted with Cedre the implementation of a return of experience study on the use of satellite imagery and drifting buoys in the Prestige incident, part of which was subcontracted by Cedre to a Spanish regional body, the University of Cantabria. The report has been delivered in September 2006. As another example, while the second transfer of experience seminar of the project was implemented in Madrid and was attended by a large majority of state officers and organisations, the first seminar of the project was implemented on the French coast, at Arcachon, with invitation of all French and Spanish regional authorities and bodies concerned. As a whole, the PRESTIGE project does fully match the State/Region and Region/Region concerns of AMPERA as regards transfer of experience, with the specificity that it builds from existing experience in state bodies and authorities to transfer experience at regional level, in both local structures of the central governments and in structures under the regional authorities. 2.3.3. Maritime Safety Umbrella Operation The Maritime Safety Umbrella Operation (MSUO) was established to co-ordinate cooperation between European Interreg funded Maritime Safety Projects, related initiatives and maritime stakeholders. The MSUO assists maritime safety projects by:

• Providing a European and International Network for co-operation on maritime safety • Promoting project outcomes to establish Europe and partners at the forefront of maritime

safety activity • Increasing project competence in maritime safety by closing gaps in knowledge and

encouraging co-operation • Assisting programmes to become a collective driving force for maritime safety on the

European and International agenda The participating projects are:

North Sea Programme − S@S - Safety at Sea North Sea Region − NMC - Northern Maritime Corridor North Sea Region − NMC II - Motorway of the Northern Seas − Save the North Sea − POWER - Pushing Offshore Wind Energy Regions − FORUM SKAGERRAK II − Scoping Study on Maritime Safety and Marine Pollution issues among key stakeholders

in the North Sea Region (Project Idea)

19


North West Europe Programme − EMDI - Espace Manche Development Initiative − CYCLEAU − COREPOINT- Creating a Sustainable Framework for ICZM − SAIL II - Schéma d’Aménagement Intégré du Littoral − FINESSE - Freight Intermodality and Exchange on Sea and Straits in Europe − MAYA II - Marine and Yachting 2 in the Lower North Sea and the Irish Sea − MESH - Development of a framework for Mapping European Seabed Habitats − NEW! DELTA - Ports and Nature, Striking a New Balance

Northern Periphery Programme − S@S - Safety at Sea Northern Periphery − NMC - Northern Maritime Corridor Northern Periphery

Baltic Sea Region Neighbourhood Programme − EUROBALTIC II - Programme for Civil Protection − Baltic Master − COASTMAN − Interbaltic

In 2005, MSUO has agreed and funded cooperation between 4 programmes, 19 countries and 30 projects, implemented a projects conference to agree aims, produced and costed a detailed strategy and work plan, identified 9 cooperation projects, published a gateway website and participated in Commission events

At least 2 of the projects mentioned above, namely S@S and Cycleau, include state-region and region-region transfer of experience in the field of maritime pollution and MSUO has implemented between December 2005 and February 2006 a series of 3 international seminars on best practice in maritime pollution related matters:

• best practice in local contingency planning • Coastal sensitivity and habitat mapping • Refuge area best practice

The summaries of those seminars, as they appear on the MSUO website are reproduced in appendix est 2 to 3. Their particular interest is that they gathered audiences with a majority of regional participants, to attend presentations made in rather equal parts by state level specialists and regional participants in Interreg projects. 2.3.4. The SPREEX project The SPILL RESPONSE EXPERIENCE COORDINATION ACTION (SPREEX CA) intends to assemble existing experience from oil spill response. The main aims of the project are the following:

• identify research needs to achieve a fast and effective response,

• propose clusters in order to create synergies with existing or on-going research projects included in different research programmes,

• generate synergies that may lead to new projects and partnerships between authorities and regulators, end users, universities and researchers.

SPREEX CA will elaborate a set of recommendations based on the analyses by four thematic working groups

1. The role of each organisation dealing with spill response;

2. Oil spill response vessels (OSRV) and their equipment;

20


3. Spill response optimal use of information and communications technologies; Optimal use of information and communications in spill response;

4. Environmental impact of spills and its costs.

This on-going project gathers 25 partners from 7 European Countries (Sweden, Norway, Denmark, United Kingdom, France, Netherlands, Spain). It contains 6 work packages, 5 of which are of interest here;

� WP 1: European oil spill response management for quick response action � WP 2: Optimisation of resources for oil spill response (vessels, equipment and robotics) � WP 3: Integration and real time updating of oil spill information � WP 4: Environment effects and total costs of response approach (places of refuge, oil

transfer at sea, action on shore) � WP 5: Recommendations for European Research

3. BEST PRACTICE AND PROPOSED STRATEGY 3.1. The best practice check-list Based on the information analysed above, we propose here a best practice chek-list of what should be undertaken and what should be avoided in state-region and region-region exchange of experience in marine pollution response and a strategy for AMPERA in that field. On the “do” side:

1. National delegates at MCMP and EMSA: organise an efficient dissemination of the technical information you have access to, not only toward state services, but also toward regional services concerned. In a situation where there is a growing concern of regional authorities on their contribution to preparedness and response, there is a parallel need for them to be informed of what is known and what is going on at Europe-states level

2. National delegates at MCMP and EMSA: consider regional needs and potential co-funding by Regions, when defining R&D and transfer of experience priorities.

3. National pollution response bodies: organise an efficient dissemination of your reports, handbooks, guidelines and standards not only toward state services, but also toward regional services concerned. In the present flow of R&D and Interreg project, there are too many examples of participants undertaking to produce new handbooks, guidelines and standards without proper knowledge of those existing.

4. National trainers: open your training sessions for state personnel to regional personnel concerned. This is a key matter in the practical experience acquired by Cedre: training jointly state and regional personnel improves greatly response homogeneity and efficiency.

5. Regional bodies: gather information on what exists at national level before embarking in any action, including funding of R&D projects, so as to avoid useless duplication or the choice of standards conflicting with already established ones. This is a fundamental lesson of the experience acquired by Cedre in participation to Interreg projects: many regional authorities tend to build their strategy without properly considering its interface with the national level.

21


6. All parties: be ready to compromise. A less elaborate but common standard is much more efficient than highly elaborate but conflicting individual standards. This appears clearly from a number of R&D and Interreg projects: participants newly entering the field of maritime pollution response with standards set on other topics, attempt to impose those standards without consideration of compatibility matters.

On the “don’t” side:

1. All newcomers in the counter-pollution world: do not ignore the existing, build on it. There is indeed no doubt that Media have claimed in the middle of the crisis that it didn’t work properly. But what already exists is much more organised and efficient than the Media claimed. And what you propose will not be better treated by them in a future crisis.

2. Regional authorities: do not interfere in the responsibilities of the state authorities: there is enough empty room for you to be involved without entering into a useless competition. We understand that a crisis is an opportunity to show your efficiency. But your efficiency will show as well on areas where central authorities have no involvement than in competing with them.

3.2. Strategy within and beyond AMPERA The best practice check-list gives an overview of what should be undertaken in order to facilitate the development of Inter-regional co-operation in the AMP RTD field. In addition, the Work Package 1 task 1.1 has also identified the necessity to facilitate the access and the transparency on the AMP data and on the AMP RTD projects. The common point is the communication and the need of visibility. Various strategies can be initiated, based on the development of propositions which could be implemented within and beyond the frame of AMPERA. All imply a strengthened relationship with the European organization (MCMP) able to carry on the propositions. One the key point is to offer to each European AMP RTD organization a clear view of the funded AMP RTD programmes and projects. The Internet database Cordis (Community Research and Development Information Service) presents nearly all the European funded RTD programmes and projects. But it does so without classifying and/or a differentiating the AMP RTD projects. A specific Internet website could be a focal point to foster co-ordination if clearly structured around AMP fields and themes. At the difference of the Cordis database, this website would be focused around the AMP RTD projects to avoid of lack of visibility due to an excess of secondary information. This website should develop:

� An exhaustive database of the AMP RTD projects. Projects should be available through key words such as country, years, AMP field (e.g.: Pollution countermeasures, impact, response preparedness…). Each project file should lead to a contact point and a summary. The website Cordis gives a first database for the European project. Concerning the national programmes, data could come from websites such as that of the Spanish VEM programme (http://otvm.uvigo.es/vem2004.html).

� Information on the national organizations with a focal point. Based on the Community Information System, a general overview of the national organization should be available as well as regional organization. The definition of a contact point would facilitate the identification of co-operation and the update of the AMP RTD projects database.

22


� Information on on-going AMP RTD funded programmes and call for proposals. As the aims is to facilitate the development of inter-regional co-operation, the website should present on-going AMP RTD programmes and calls for proposals with the conditions under which countries/regions can participate. The results given by the MarinERA project and the WP2 task 2.2 should help for the improvement of this part. Data from the MSUO could also be of interest.

� Information on the identified needs by relevant organizations. This should be developed in co-ordination with the SPREEX project. As mentioned in 2.3.4, SPREEX aims at identifying research needs to achieve an effective response. Periodical MCMP and or EMSA recommendations as regards AMP RTD expectations/orientations could be of interest.

The website would not intend to reproduce information already available in other sites and periodically updated by their webmasters: it would be a links and keywords site, leading to those pages of interest in existing sites. The website could be defined and structured within AMPERA. It would be further implemented as a post AMPERA follow up project.

1


APPENDIXES

Appendix 1: Erocips Conference in Bordeaux Appendix 2: MSUO seminar “refuge areas best practice” Appendix 3: MSUO workshop “sensitivity and habitat mapping” Appendix 4: MSUP seminar “best practice in local contingency planning”

2


APPENDIX 1

Erocips conference in Bordeaux �

The first EROCIPS conference was held in Bordeaux, at the Hôtél de Région, Aquitaine, on the 28th and 29th of September 2006. The conference was attended by local, regional and international partners and stakeholders, keen to learn about the outcomes of the EROCIPS Project for the good of managing accidental coastal pollution. The conference was organised by the French Partners, Conseil Régional d’Aquitaine, de Bretagne, des Pays de la Loire, and de Poitou Charentes, and the French technical advisors Le Cedre.

The conference aimed at improving:

• The prevention of oil, chemical and inert pollution

• Emergency responce to oil, chemical and inert pollution

• Protection of the coastal heritage

• Strategies of cleaning of the beaches

• Environmental rescue

• Transport and the temporary storage of waste

• Health and safety

• Training of the decision makers

• The use of the resources available for the management of the emergency response

• and improving effective means of communication.

The conference concentrated on sharing information, tools and techniques and guidelines developed by the Partners under the EROCIPS Project, in order help protect our coasts from the potential threat of accidentental pollution.

Conference program can be viewed here (433KB - pdf help) for information in other EROCIPS Conferences please contact [email protected]

3


APPENDIX 2

MSUO Seminar 'Refuge Areas Best Practice' 23 & 24 February 2006, Brussels

“A tanker at sea in bad weather, with unknown damage to the hull. Is the ship taking on water or is the cargo leaking into the ballast tanks or between the double hull? Where can the ship run to shelter for inspection or repair?”

Delegates at the MSUO Refuge Area Seminar were provided with this potential problem faced by a ships master, on the 23rd and 24th February 2006. The scenario illustrated the uncertainty faced by the captain of a vessel in distress seeking a Place of Refuge. The seminar was chaired by Sverre Maurizen, Rogaland County Council/The Regional Council for Western Norway.

The seminar brought together leading representatives from the European Commission, International organisations, Salvors, Coastguards, Shipping and Port industries and Coastal Authorities. The speakers provided the seminar with information about the legal basis and background, the need for places of refuge, methods for selecting appropriate locations and alternatives to using a place of refuge. Urban Hallberg of DG Transport and Energy provided an excellent overview of Places of Refuge within EU Policy. He outlined proposed improvements to be made in developing an EU wide system of Places of Refuge under the proposed third maritime safety package. Professor Aldo Chircop, Dalhouise University (Canada), provided an international perspective on the development of Places of Refuge, together with a historical context to the subject. He indicated that there was a growing acceptance that the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) guidelines on Places of Refuge are the recognised standard, and that work needs to be progressed at national levels to designate appropriate sites. Professor Chircop also recognised that there may be a need to further clarify the use of Places of Refuge under international law and also to help the situation by bringing conventions into force as soon as possible. Captain Rodger MacDonald from the International Federation of Shipmasters’ Association, gave a detailed account of the issues faced by the master of a vessel in distress, seeking a place of refuge. He outlined the responsibilities of the master, but also demonstrated how these can be hampered by conflicting laws, poor vessels, inadequate crewing levels and the fear of ships captains of being criminalised for events beyond their control. He emphasised the need for competent coastal authorities to help vessels in distress by providing a place of refuge, and that the master should be part of this team in order to avoid another Prestige. A discription of the UK Refuge Area system was provided by Robin Middleton, the UK Secretary of State Representative (SOSREP). Examples of how the system was used in actual incidents were provided. He concluded that the UK system was ‘live, flexible and backed by strong and decisive leadership’. The presentation also provided an interesting example of how databases and GIS are being used to determine appropriate Places of Refuge in UK waters.

4


Michel Babkine, Secretaire General de la Mer, described the French pollution response system. He set out the role of the French Government, Prefecture Maritime, Navy and Communes in responding to maritime incidents. The presentation also described examples of how the system had been activated to respond to maritime incidents, together with information concerning regional cooperation between member states.

James Wood from the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) described the Agency’s operational evaluation of national plans for Places of Refuge. This had taken the form of questionnaires to member states concerning their level of preparedness. His presentation set out the results of the questionnaire and other issues which may be used to inform the development of the EU third maritime safety package of legislation. Based on the Galician experience, Fernando Nova (an independent marine consultant) provided a thought provoking presentation on the flaws within the international shipping system, together with alternatives to using Places of Refuge. The presentation set out the problem of ‘substandard owners’ allowing poorly maintained ships to trade and transit European waters. He concluded that whilst the international system failed to protect the rights of coastal communities, governments would be under public pressure not to accept vessels in distress entering their waters. The Norwegian selection process for Places of Refuge was described by Haavard Loege Hagen, from the North Sea Safety at Sea Project. He outlined how the Places of Refuge system was being developed with assistance of Interreg IIIB funding. Risk Management principles were being applied to site selection. The developing Norwegian Places of Refuge system is based upon a model which provides a nautical review of potential locations, then subjects sites to a technical and sectoral review that maps areas of interest (GIS). A series of on-site inspections are then undertaken. Information from these stages is then used to carry out a Consequences Assessment and inform consultation. Michael Lacey, of the International Salvage Union (ISU), provided the salvors view of refuge, response efficiency and best practice. He raised the concern of the industry about the crimalisation of seafarers and salvors if their efforts to save a vessel and protect environmental and economic resources resulted in unintentional pollution. He concluded that coastal communities which provide places of refuge are exposed to greater risks. As a result they should have the comfort of a specific compensation scheme and a reward system, recognising the additional burden they have hosting a Place of Refuge. Importantly, the ISU raised the need for a casualty management methodology for vessels in distress. The situation in Belgian waters was described by Captain Jacques Loncke, Head of Oostende Maritime Rescue Co-ordination Centre. In Belgium waters, two Places of Refuge have been designated. These lie within ports, and it has been necessary to agree conditions of entry with port authorities for vessels in distress. There are limitations on the draught of vessel that can use these areas, and Captain Loncke outlined the need to discuss with neighbouring countries alternative locations for larger vessels. He concluded by saying that a ship in need or in distress must have the opportunity to find a safe Place of Refuge. Alfons Guinier, European Community Shipowners Association (ECSA), provided the ship owners view on refuge areas. He described the diversity of European shipping, from dry bulk cargoes through to cattle transporters, as well as the more well known oil tankers, passenger vessels and container ships. The presentation provided information on the international importance of the member states “European fleet”. His presentation described the complex diversity of legislation being applied to the shipping industry, and made a call for no superfluous new legislation, the implimention of international conventions and the avoidance of regional legislation that would complicate the existing system of governance. In the wake of both the Castor and Prestige incidents, ECSA stressed the urgency to establish Places of Refuge and clear procedures for their use.

5


The use of ports and harbours as refuge areas was discussed by Patrick Verhoeven, Secretary General of the European Sea Ports Association. He described the potential conflict between two old principles. Firstly the right of ships in distress to seek refuge and secondly the right of self-protection of any sovereign state and port. A description of the many interests port authorities look after, was provided. This discussed the need for a balanced approach in ensuring the safety of ship and crew, whilst also protecting the safety of the ports own environment, people and economy. Mr Verhoeven set out the need for guidance for the assessment of incidents, co-ordination of contingency plans (particularly between the ports and national plans) and the requirement for a clear chain of command. He also contended that ports should have a right to

compensation for their use as a Place of Refuge. He underlined the need for clear provisions on compensation for local and port authorities in case an incident happens in the place or Port of Refuge to be included in the EU third maritime safety package. Funding for Maritime Projects under the next transnational programme was outlined by Viktoria Varga Lencses from the EU Commission, DG Regio. She provided details of the requirements of the new transnational funding programme for 2007-2013. This will provide funding to organisations within EU member state and partner countries that wish to undertake specific strategic projects. The requirements proposed projects would have to meet to receive funding were outlined, together with information on the likely funding opportunities. She indicated that maritime safety may be a priority under the next programme, particularly with respect to risk prevention. There was also an interesting intervention by Councillor Flo Clucas concerning the role of the Committee of the Regions in consultation on the development of the EU third maritime safety package. Councillor Clucas outlined her role as rapporteur for the Committee of the Regions, together with the wish to work with the MSUO. The MSUO will be examining ways of involving the Interreg Maritime Safety Projects and others in the work of the Committee of the Regions. Conclusions The key for providing a workable Places of Refuge system at both national and regional level appeared to be ensuring that all stakeholders (authorities, coastal communities, shipping representatives, port operators, other maritime users, etc.) are involved in the discussions to select and agree appropriate locations. Interreg and the future transnational programme (2007-2013) could be used to fund projects which seek to identify appropriate locations and establish procedures for assisting vessels in distress to safeguard crews, vessels, cargos and minimise the threat of pollution to coastal communities. There was general agreement that whilst politicians should be involved in developing policy, decisions during actual incidents should be taken by technically competent authorities in line with agreed guidance and practice. Delegates indicated that one of the strengths of the MSUO has been the ability to bring together all the different viewpoints on a maritime safety issue. Richard Hill, MSUO Co-ordinator, together with Eric Melenec, Conference Organiser (Eurocontainer), provided a summary to the debate. They concluded that the seminar demonstrated the need for further work to help designate and develop Places of Refuge. They concluded that transnational funding mechanisms, such as Interreg, could be used to finance projects such as:

• Developing a management methodology for identifying, assessing, selecting and operating Places of Refuge;

• Undertaking joint contingency planning between member states and partner countries to provide added value to national, European and international frameworks;

• Enabling coastal communities to be consulted about the selection of Places of Refuge, and; • Provide training to masters, salvors and competent authorities on the use of Places of Refuge. • Delegates were invited to consider developing their own proposals for the next transnational

funding programme (2007-2013).

6


APPENDIX 3

MSUO Workshop Sensitivity and Habitat Mapping ��

�

On 23rd January 2006, the MSUO arranged a meeting of project representatives to discuss the use of Sensitivity and Habitat Mapping by Interreg Projects. The meeting was hosted by the Interreg IIIB Northern Periphery Programme Secretariat in Copenhagen. Each of the projects provided a presentation to describe their work:

HABitat MAPping (HABMAP): Interreg IIIA project between Wales (UK) and Ireland. The aim of the project is to produce seabed habitat maps for the southern Irish Sea (Arklow Bank, Celtic Deep and Caernarfon Bay) and to develop a model that will predict seabed habitats and ecosystems from physical data. Further information:

• HABMAP Presentation

• HABMAP Website

Safety at Sea (S@S): Interreg IIIB North Sea Programme Project which aims to reduce the probability and impact of incidents and accidents in the North Sea. The project is organised into five parts or “Strands”. These are: Harmonisation of Risk Management Strategies, Routing and Safe Seaways, Coastal Zone Management, Risk Assessment & Decision and Project Management & Technical Assistance. All parts of the project utilise Geographical Information Systems (GIS). Further information:

• Safety at Sea Presentation

• Safety at Sea Website

SensMaps: The project identifies Marine Sensitive Areas in the Netherlands. It is linked to the S@S project (see above) The aim of the project is to provide maps that provide operational advice during marine pollution incidents and for use in the evaluation of policy. The maps will support transparent and unambiguous decision making at the national and international level. Further Information:

• SensMaps Presentation

OILECO: The project links ecological values into oil accident risk analysis. It is an Interreg IIIA project being undertaken in the Gulf of Finland. The aim of OILECO is: to gather information on nature values, develop a sensitivity map to aid decision makers during an oil spill, use ecological data to justify investment in preventative measures and to build a Bays Model for assessing the effects of an oil spill on key species. The meeting discussed the possibility of linking the information from the OILECO project to the crisis management simulators developed by the SUMMERI I and II Interreg IIIA projects. Further information:

• OILECO Presentation

• OILECO Website

7


Mapping European Seabed Habitats (MESH): MESH is an Interreg IIIB North West Europe Project between Ireland, UK, Belgium, Netherlands and France. The project will: Collate & harmonise existing habitat maps, develop and test standards & protocols, develop predictive mapping tools, undertake case studies on use of maps and communicate and disseminate information. The project includes an online metadata catalogue for the five countries involved. Further information:

• MESH Presentation

• MESH Website

Combined Functions in Coastal Zones (ComCoast): ComCoast is an Interreg IIIB North Sea Programme project between Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Netherlands and UK. The purpose of the project is to implement Multifunctional Coastal Defence Zones (MCDZ) that take account of sensitive areas and activities for use in such actions as identification of suitable off-shore wind energy areas and marine pollution contingency plans. GIS is used to provide a database of geographical sensitivities and activities. The GIS is linked to the NOKIS national meta-data network for the North and Baltic Sea Coastal Information System. Further information:

• ComCoast Presentation

• ComCoast Website

Emergency Response to Coastal Oil, Chemical and Inert Pollution from Ships (EROCIPS): EROCIPS is an Interreg IIIB Project within the Atlantic Area Programme. Part of the project is developing sensitivity mapping for areas of the coasts of France, Spain, Portugal and UK. The maps will be used to advise decision makers during maritime pollution incidents. The presentation also outlined the Baywatching sub project being led by Devon Wildlife Trust. This seeks to involve maritime stakeholders in spatial management of the Lyme Bay area of South West UK. Further information:

• EROCIPS Presentation

• EROCIPS Website

Discussions The project representatives discussed how the data from their projects could be used to provide information to ocean spatial planning and maritime safety initiatives. It was agreed that there was a need to provide a common web based framework for projects to freely publish and disseminate information, possibly as part of the MSUO. The data being produced by projects is specifically of relevance to certain uses (fisheries, maritime safety, ICZM, etc.). In future, there could be scope to develop multi-use data under projects for the next programme, so that data could be widely used by ocean, spatial planning, risk prevention, water management and ICZM projects.

The representatives identified a number of existing mapping methodologies such as MEHRA (UK), ESI (USA), OILECO (Finland), MARLIN (UK), etc. There may be a need to ensure the development of common terminology for use across the EU and partner countries to aid understanding. However, the representatives also recognised that different locations may require different mapping methodologies, for example what works well in the Baltic may not be applicable to the Mediterranean.

8


Further Work on the Issue

The MSUO has identified habitat and sensitivity mapping as a priority area for assisting the development of contingency plans and Places of Refuge. Good maps and GIS data can greatly assist decision-makers during maritime incidents in identifying sensitive areas that require protection or appropriate sites for salvage operations to take place.

The MSUO will consider developing a Project to Project Co-operation initiative which can disseminate information between mapping projects and develop a tool box of techniques that can be used by future projects under the next transnational programme (2007-2013). The MSUO would welcome project proposals from organisations that wish to take these issues forward under the next transnational programme.

9


APPENDIX 4

MSUO Seminar Best Practice in Local Contingency Planning' 16th December 2005, Southampton

December 2005 saw the launch of the MSUO seminar programme. The first event was the “Best Practice in Local Contingency Planning Pollution Response” seminar. The purpose of the event was to bring together leading organisations with experience in developing local contingency plans to deal with maritime incidents. These included a number of partners from Interreg Projects that are looking at aspects of this topic.

The one-day seminar was designed to give participants examples of best practice for sub-national, local and regional pollution response to shipping accidents. This was particularly with respect to how authorities can deal with oil spills. The seminar also demonstrated how transnational funding from Interreg could be used to fund projects which develop local contingency arrangements. Seminar Presentations The seminar took place in Southampton UK, and was hosted by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA). The seminar was opened by John Astbury, the MCA Director of Operations. Marisa Fernandez, of CETMAR provided an interesting overview of how Interreg funding is being used to assist local contingency planning in Galicia in the wake of the Prestige. This forms a work package of the EROCIPS project. Eivind Ask, from the Safety at Sea Project, provided an overview of intermunicipal preparedness and response arrangements in Norway, using the example of the Sogn and Sunnfjord area. Michel Girin, from le CEDRE explained the organisation developed for French marine pollution response. The UK National Contingency Planning system was reviewed by Kevin Colcomb of the MCA. This presentation was complimented by one concerning United Kingdom Local Authority Contingency Planning by Tony Morris of the Emergency Planning Society. The two presentations demonstrated how the requirements of the International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Cooperation, 1990 (OPRC Convention) can be cascaded from the national to the local level. Further Work Richard Hill, the MSUO Co-ordinator outlined how the information from the presentations and delegate discussions could be used to advise future maritime safety projects funded by Transnational Programmes. It is the intention of the MSUO to develop a guidebook or manual to assist project developers who wish to undertake Contingency Planning projects under the 2007-2013 transnational funding programme.

Documents

Ampera programme - CleanMag