Report of the Splinter Group charged with establishing the way by armedman1


									                   MEPC-OPRC-HNS/TG #6 Agenda Item 3.1
                              5 July 2007

Report of the ‘Splinter Group’ charged, by the Chair, with establishing the way
ahead for the ongoing development of the Manual on Oil Spill Risk and
Assessment of Response Preparedness, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Risk &
Preparedness Manual’.

As instructed the group was convened to develop the schedule for the completion
of a final draft of the Risk & Preparedness that would be ready to be reviewed in
advance to OPRC-HNS/TG #7, early in 2008.
Furthermore the group was tasked with ensuring that the consultant, consider
some new documents that are currently under consideration by other bodies
within the IMO organization, in particular;

           MEPC 55/18
           MEPC 56/18/1
           MEPC/OPRC-HNS TG6/5/2 Paras. – 8 to 17

The Splinter Group was made up of representatives from the IMO Secretariat,
IPIECA, Peoples Republic of China, Russian Federation, Australia, OSRL and
Canada as the coordinator. The second session was attended by a representative
from the potential consultant’s office.

The first session dealt with the development of a schedule for the work and the
establishment of the necessary review and decision points throughout the
The end date was set at the mid to late December 2007 in order that there
would be sufficient time for the necessary internal IMO documentation
processes to be conducted prior to the TG #7 meeting.

The following is the proposed schedule for the remaining development activities
for this document;

    Action -2007     July August September October November December
    Accept            X

Consultant      X
Statement of    X
Consultant      X
First working       X
draft (after
6 weeks of
Group review            X
and comment
Oil Spill                   X
Working Group
Consultant                      X
review and
Final draft                         X
to OPRC-
Date TBD

Note – As can be seen in the above table the month of July is heavily tasked but
some discussions have started and therefore the engagement process for the
consultant could be shortened. There is some review ‘relief’ during the late
September, early October timeframe however this is in the order of 2-3 weeks
and therefore the activities in July must be seen as critical.

The second session was to discus the instructions that should be conveyed to the
consultant either through the formal statement of work or as informal
instructions to scope and focus the work.

      The current framework, as developed, must be respected as the structure
       for the risk and preparedness manual.
      The Risk & Preparedness Manual should be in the order of 40 pages in
       length and be process oriented instead of detail.
      The risk manual must be written in plain English and focussed on the target
       audience of developing countries or states that do not necessarily have
       legislation or the resulting regimes in place to combat oil spills.
      The manual should tell the ‘story’ or the ‘what’ of the process and
       introduce the essential components but not go into specific details except
       through the opportunities presented by the annexes.
      Annexes should be used, wherever possible, to further expand on the tools
       available and other established models or approaches to demonstrate the
       various ‘how’ issues are addressed. More detailed addressing of the
       various ‘hows’ will be the subject of further work, in other
       forms/documents, not in this first Risk & Preparedness Manual. This detail
       will be an important next element of work, not necessarily for the IMO TG,
       but identified from the current work item.
      The process of review and the discipline that reviewers will need to
       exercise in order to meet the schedule were discussed.
       Any quantification activities related to section 6, ‘preparedness
       assessment’, of the manual should also be included as an Annex.
      The consultant will consider relevant and applicable IMO documents.

The potential consultant’s representative joined the group for the second session
and was briefed on the process and timeframes and the type and content of the
reviews that would be undertaken. During this discussion it was again reinforced
the need to use the current framework as the basis for the risk and
preparedness manual.

A discussion was started as to who would be the ‘customer’ but since there are
two parties providing funding for this project the coordinator deferred this
discussion for the actual parties involved to continue (IMO/IPIECA).

Secondary Tasking

The chair also asked the group to consider what actions could be undertaken if
the resources from IPIECA were not available. Given the seriousness and
consequences of this issue it was not discussed openly within the group and so the
following is the personal commentary of the coordinator.

In the event that the funding was not available from IPIECA it would not be
possible to continue the project as currently envisaged. Furthermore it has been
determined from experience that this complex task does not lend itself to be
developed via a correspondence group. Therefore the most practical approach
would be to seek all of the necessary funding through the IMO process whilst
recognising the delays that this would incur. During the delay period, yet to be
quantified, it would be possible to continue the refinement of the framework
ands this would reduce the final development time after a contract for a
dedicated consultant was engaged.


The splinter group sessions were productive and further consolidated and
clarified the comments and concerns raised during the plenary session. The group
believes this presents a practical way ahead to successfully complete this
important document. However it is recognized that this approach will drive more
definitive and detailed work in certain areas.


To top