Simply put, responders and planners define response capability in terms of “what it is”, “how much” and “by when”. The types of capability define the “what”, for example the ability to apply dispersant to a surface slick at sea or the ability to mount an aerial surveillance operation to track and monitor the oil (and the response effort) makes up the Toolbox that responders have at their disposal to mitigate impacts of an oil spill. The IPIECA Good Practice Guide on Tiered Preparedness and Response (TPR) recognises 15 such response capabilities that could be required for any given spill scenario and is a direct output from the Joint Industry Project on Oil Spill Response following the Macondo incident in 2010. The “how-much” introduces a quantification of the capability and it is important to recognise that capability is not just a physical measure of the hardware itself (i.e. “six skimmers”) but should include assumptions about the trained manpower to deploy, and the logistical support needed to fully enable the resource to be effective. “By-when” implies a time element that is critical in cascading remote resource effectively. It follows that some capability is required to be immediately available to enable a local response to be initiated quickly and effectively whilst other capabilities, usually only required for larger or more complex spills, can be introduced on a longer lead-time. To help visualise the dynamics of “what”, “how-much and “by-when”, the IPIECA Guide provides a simple model to illustrate the provision of response capability for any given oil spill risk in the form of a wheel with 15 segments representing each element of capability. Each segment is further divided to illustrate the three tiers of cascading capability (Tier 1, near the centre representing capability immediately available, Tier 2 showing intermediate capability, and Tier 3 around the periphery to indicate additional, possibly internationally-sourced capability that necessitates a longer lead time required for the largest or most complex spills.) Planners typically use the tool when matching resources to the identified risk, as it can usefully highlight any gaps that may exist in the provision of capability. This paper draws upon the experience of Oil Spill Response Limited (OSRL) in applying and using the Guide and the TPR wheel, both in planning and in response. Case history evidence will be used to illustrate the benefits and limitations of this industry-adopted planning and response approach.

Thirty years ago, a diplomatic conference held in Paris recognised the importance of cooperation in helping countries better prepare for and respond to oil pollution incidents. The Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Cooperation Convention (OPRC 90) was thus conceived and shortly afterwards, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and IPIECA jointly developed a program to help nations implement the provisions of the Convention with practical assistance and technical cooperation as the central offering. This programme, which was launched in Cape Town and became known as the Global Initiative (GI), is still growing, developing and evolving some 24 year later. A key fundamental concept is the principle of regionality. Often countries in a specific region share similar geographical features and cultures, and face similar risks associated with the extraction and transportation of oil, which transcend the needs of national sovereignty and independence. The GI program focuses on these shared values of marine environmental protection and draws strength, not only from the collective will of national governments to protect the marine environment, but also on the needs of industry to work collaboratively with regulators and authorities to achieve a common goal for society. A regional approach also “raises the bar” in terms of national preparedness, ensuring a regional level playing field. It also underscores the need for regional collaboration noting that a catastrophic oil spill may exceed the capacity for any single country to respond. To that end, the GI program has further developed to be in a position to accommodate the growing range of needs of countries implementing OPRC 90, from offering support on core concepts (on topics such as implementing legislation, designating authority in charge etc.), to facilitating training on more technical topics (e.g. sensitivity mapping and how to implement a shoreline clean-up program). For a quarter of a century, the GI model has progressed into a series of regional programs which now encompass a third of all maritime coastal states. In this session we will hear more of these regional manifestations of GI, their challenges and opportunities which will provide us with a truly global perspective on what GI has achieved and has still to achieve in a world where the risks of oil spills continue to evolve. This paper will explore the concept of regionality and other key elements that continue to make the program relevant and adaptable to the oil spill risks that society faces today.