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

The International Maritime Organization (IMO) and the oil and shipping industries have been supporting countries in the development of their oil spill preparedness and response capacity for decades, including through the Global Initiative (GI) programme. These efforts have provided a wealth of experience and understanding of international good practice. A key lesson learned is the importance of legislation and regulation as a fundamental step to developing a preparedness and response framework. This paper will explain how, by contributing to the full implementation of international regulation, the Global Initiative benefits industry and governments alike. Whilst governments find their level of oil pollution preparedness enhanced, industry benefits from the strengthening of the legal and institutional framework which mitigates regulatory and associated economic risks, and eases the dialog with relevant national authorities. IMO's International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Co-operation (OPRC 90) is the bedrock on which national preparedness and response capability is built. OPRC 90, and various regional agreements that integrate with it, set out obligations with respect to a national response framework and associated contingency planning, communication plans, equipment capability and implementation through training and exercises. Whilst the provisions of OPRC 90, and other relevant international legal instruments, are clear, their domestication has proven to be challenging. Most of the obstacles encountered by national authorities fall under three main themes. They could be: purely legal (e.g. transposition of the provisions in the international framework into national law); more institutional (e.g. definition of the competent national authority and operational contact points for oil pollution preparedness and response); or even technical, especially with regards to secondary regulations or rules to address technical aspects of preparedness and response (e.g. approval of response techniques). The GI regional project teams are familiar with these challenges, which are regularly encountered. To overcome the difficulties, each Project has developed solutions together with governments and local business units of the industry. This paper seeks to discuss challenges encountered by countries in meeting their obligations, within the different geographical regions covered by the GI programme. The authors will share their experience and observations from programme implementation, and recommend good practice to enable the domestication of international instruments.