PAJ 2009 Oil Spill Response Workshop
March 5, 2009 Tokyo, Japan

Government/Industry Cooperation at Regional Level-The Global Initiative South East Asia Project
By Alexander Nicolau
ニコラウ アレクサンダー

Consultant for the Global Initiative South East Asia Project
GI SEAプロジェクト・
プロジェクト・コンサルタント

Introduction
In 2006, the IPIECA Oil Spill Working Group initiated a study with the view to better
understand the oil spill risks in the East Asian region. Such a study would help to better
understand the real risks for this region and determine the need and the structure of a GI
programme that might be implemented in partnership with the IMO in the future.
In March 2007, a joint IMO/IPIECA regional workshop was conducted in Perth, Australia named“Oil spill preparedness and response in the East Asian Seas Region - Developing a strategy forstrengthening capability”. A study report was subsequently produced for the IPIECA OSWG inJuly 2007 named “An Oil Spill Preparedness and Response Study in the East Asian Seas Region
for the Development of a GI East Asia” resulting in a list of 11 recommendations. Following theapproval of the OSWG, several major companies sponsored the development of an Industry
action plan for the South East Asia region (known as Phase 1), which was completed inNovember 2008. The paper and presentation presented for the PAJ Workshop 2009
summarize the work that was conducted during this period for this project.

Background on Global Initiative (GI)The IMO/IPIECA Global Initiative (GI) is a partnership between the International Maritime
Organization (IMO) and the International Petroleum Industry Environment Conservation
Association (IPIECA) to strengthen global oil spill preparedness and response capability and topromote ratification and implementation of the relevant international conventions.
The mission of the GI is to strengthen the national oil spill response capability through theestablishment of local partnerships between the oil industries and the national authorities incharge of oil spill preparedness and response.
The GI aims to improve and sustain the capability of developing countries to protect theirmarine and coastal resources at risk from a maritime oil spill incident. The high-level
partnership between IPIECA and IMO enables relevant actors to be brought together at anational and regional level in pursuit of this aim: the IMO provides access to governments;
IPIECA brings local industry to the table. GI aims are achieved through:--Support for the national and regional implementation of the following InternationalConventions:• OPRC90,• CLC92,• FUND92,• Bunkers Conventions; and• The Supplementary Fund Protocol;
Regional Agreements on oil spill preparedness, response and co-operation (NOWPAP,ASEAN OSRAP, etc.)
Organisation of workshops and training sessions related to contingency planning,sensitivity mapping (among others) and delivered jointly by IMO and industry withsupport at the national and regional levels.

GI Regional Models
The Global Initiative operates with a new focus on regional activities and a continued emphasis
on finding better and more effective ways for the partners to work together to ensuresustained results. The Initiative now encompasses focal points for the Mediterranean Sea,
Caspian & Black Seas and WACAF regions, each with a designated project manager, to help
build local capacity, interest and political will for the development and implementation ofeffective contingency plans.
Looking to the future, there are plans to develop similar projects for the Northwest PacificAction Plan (NOWPAP) and South East Asian (ASEAN) regions. It is hoped that theregionalisation of the Global Initiative will drive progress at a faster rate and deliver more
effective and sustainable contingency plans to these priority regions.

Figure 1: GI Regions
1 Mediterranean (MOIG)
3 West and Central Africa (GI WACAF)
5 South East Asia Seas

2 Caspian Sea, Black Sea and Central Eurasia (GI OSPRI)
4 Latin America/Caribbean
6 North West PacificThe GI South East Asia Project
The study area covers nine countries namely: Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia,Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam.
Several oil company members of IPIECA sponsored a ‘phase 1’ study which entails thedefinition of the basis for an action plan for the region.

Figure 2: Geographic Scope of the GI SEA Region (identical to the ASEAN-OSRAP Region)
The so defined region also corresponds to the one of the East Asian Seas from the UNEP
Regional Seas Programme and of the ASEAN (without Laos).

Risk Profile for the East Asia Region
The South East Asia and Northwest Pacific regions have had numerous oil spills for the past 30years. As a matter of fact, the Asian shipping lanes of these regions are some of the most usedworldwide, accounting for the transport of about 26% of the total seaborne crude oil trade(source LMIU, 2006). This large percentage is partly due to the large imports of countries such
as Japan, South Korea and China added to the regional transport of crude oil produced within
the region itself (mostly in Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei, Thailand and Vietnam).
Many actions have been taken at global level to improve safety and to reduce the number ofspill incidents. In the mean time, the transport of oil products has continuously increased bothin volume and in number of ships used and with the development of technology, numerous oilfields are getting exploited in deeper waters.
According to the Review of Maritime Transport 2008 published by the United Nations
Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), the share of tanker trade in the total worldseaborne trade amounted to 33.4%. World shipments of tanker cargoes reached 2.68 billion
tonnes, of which more than two thirds were crude oil. During the same year, crude oil
seaborne shipments increased by an estimated 3.5%, to reach 1.86 billion tonnes.
Major unloading areas are located in developed regions, including Europe (528.4 milliontonnes loaded), North America (534.4 million tonnes) and Japan (211.5 million tonnes). Major
unloading developing regions included Southern and Eastern Asia, with 424.8 million tonnes
and South-Eastern Asia, with 95.8 million tonnes, reflecting growing energy requirements indeveloping Asia, and an evolving intraregional South–South trade.
Statistics on the Malacca straits and recent data on volumes of oil and petroleum products
confirm this trend for the region. Details are available in previous studies made especially forthe project and are not developed in this paper. The latest Maritime transport statistics fromUNCTAD are provided in Annex II for reference.
Data on maritime transport are good to draw patterns and conclusions as long as they are
combined with historical data on oil spills from ships. Data from ITOPF on tanker incidents arevery useful to support the assessment. ITOPF staff attended about 45 spills below 700 tonnes
and 15 spills over 700 tonnes for the period 1996-2005 only in South East Asia and Northwest
Pacific. The most interesting observation is that figures for the two previous decades (e.g.
1976-1985 and 1986-1995) are very similar, thus strongly suggesting that there has been nosignificant decrease in the oil spills from shipping in this region over 30 years. This is even morestriking when considering that this represents the number of spills attended from tankers only.
The risk of oil spills is indeed not solely related to tankers incidents but also to other types ofships that use heavy fuel oils for their propulsion. The same statistics on maritime transportshow that traffic from container, general cargo and dry bulk ships is also in constantdevelopment and come to add to the risk.
Finally, the increase in exploration and production activities offshore from oil companies in theSouth East Asia region is also to be taken into account. With production volumes increasing,more storage is required (there are not less than 23 FPSOs in operation in the South East AsianSeas) and marine loading operations become consequently more frequent.

The Six Elements of Preparedness
Similar to other successful GI programmes, The GI SEA objectives are based on strengthening
the Six Elements of Preparedness. These elements list the requirements to achieve acomprehensive national response system in accordance with international guidelines. The sixelements have been defined as being fundamental in achieving a minimum level ofpreparedness. Each of them is indisputably required and needs to be well considered but theultimate goal is to have all of them combined and working well together.
The Six Elements of Preparedness are detailed below with typical objectives:
1. Legislation:
Objective: To promote the ratification of OPRC 90, CLC 92 and Fund 92 Convention. This isalso extended to the Bunkers Convention and the Supplementary Fund Protocol.
2. Contingency planning:
Objective: To promote the development of national oil spill contingency plans including crisis
management systems, sensitivity maps, risk assessments with modelling and predictions.
Dispersant policies and strategy is also a part of contingency planning.
3. Equipment:
Objective: To have the appropriate kind and amount of oil spill response resources
corresponding to the level of risk and type of threat. This comprises equipment study or review
to assist with the process of promoting an effective response.
4. Training & 5. Exercises:
Objective: To ensure that training and exercises are developed by Governments and Industry
in each country on an annual basis. It is also one of the objectives to raise awareness and gain
commitment from designated authorities to increase training and exercises at an appropriate
level and promote both quality and frequency.
6. Forces for Implementation:
Objective: To promote exchange and mutual assistance and cooperation in oil spill response.
This element of preparedness is the one that aims to ensure that implementation of all the otherelements is enforced and any kinds of obstacles are realistically identified and minimized.

SUMMARY OF TOOLS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DEVELOPED FOR THE BASIS OF AN ACTION PLAN
Evaluation of Relative Oil Pollution Risk
A model matrix has been proposed in order to identify locations that are more at risk of oil
spills than others and which would justify giving priority for activities aiming at increasing thesix elements of preparedness.
Table 1: Matrix for relative risk evaluation
Criteria Number

Type of Risk

Weighting
Low

WeightingMediumWeighting
HighC1Oil Production Risk

1

2

3

C2

Arriving / Departing Ship Risk

1

2

3

C3Passing Ship Risk

123C4

Neighbouring Countries Risk

123C5General Level of Preparedness

246C6

Cooperation Potential

123

Indicative Total Risk
With Ri being the risk factor for each of the criteria
defined in this table

Budget Estimation and Funding Model
The level of budget that would be required to implement a certain number of activities as well
as a funding model were also identified. Given that consultation between the stakeholders isstill in progress, detailed information on the budget is not provided; however, themethodology proposed for sharing contributions is shared below:
Working from a defined budget, the contributions would be established by a formula thatwould take into account the production level (offshore risk), the shipping activities (shippingrisk) and the downstream activities (handling risk in terminals). Each of these would have an
attributed coefficient as illustrated in the table below:
Table 2: Contribution Factors by Type of Activity
Oil terminals /Production
Refining
Band 4
Band 3
Band 2
Band 1
0.25
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00

ShippingTotal Coefficient

0.25

0.25 to 1.50

The formula proposed for determining the contribution of each participant is explained below:
Once fixed, the total budget is shared as defined by the equation below:

With:
E = elemental contribution
i = number of participants
Ni = number of participants having the same contribution factor Ci
Ci = contribution factor (varies between 0.25 to 1.5 as defined in table 2)

In order to determine the contribution of a particular participant, the elemental contribution
needs to be calculated first:

The contribution of a particular participant can then easily be calculated by using:This model proposed has the advantage of taking into account the different risks (offshore
production, shipping activity and downstream operations). It is the first of its kind which
promotes a fair distribution of contributions between potential members which areencouraged to join.
In addition to the above, it was also proposed to introduce an Associate Membership thatwould be open to pure shipping companies and Oil Companies that are not members of IPIECA.
Their level of contribution would be capped at a certain level that would be determined
subsequently. This would allow other concerned companies to also enjoy the benefits fromGI activities and gain more diverse participation in the future.
For information, there are more than 40 companies having oil handling operations upstream
and downstream in South East Asia (excluding shipping companies).

Contact Database
A contact database of the key stakeholders was created for future use. It includes contacts
from representatives of Industry, ASEAN-OSRAP Focal Points, ASEAN MTWH Focal Points, IMO,ASCOPE and PEMSEA. This database is a good starting point to know who the players are andwill need to be consolidated and updated in the future.

Advanced Country Profiles
Based on the model of the country profiles that were developed for the Global Initiative
Project in West and Central Africa (GI WACAF) and available on the website in question,
advanced country profiles were also compiled for the South East Asia Region. Essential
information such as contacts, legislation, contingency planning, sensitivity mapping,agreements, training, exercises and national resources are available in these profiles. In
addition, information on offshore production, shipping and refinery have also been included
and special maps done by GIS were produced to visualize oil related activities. A sample ofupstream and downstream maps is provided below:

Figure 3: Sample of Maps of Upstream and Downstream Operations in Indonesia and the Philippines

Stakeholder Mapping
One of the essential steps for a possible establishment of a GI SEA programme is the definitionof the organisation and interaction between all the stakeholders involved. The stakeholders
shown in figure below are not formally part of a GI programme but are all recognized to be key
players in the region. Future work will be to determine the most suitable form of participation,
integration and relationship between all these stakeholders and the shape a potential GI SEA
programme should take.
In addition to the Stakeholder mapping, there are other supporting organizations worth
mentioning that can play a role in the funding, networking and delivery of GI Activities. They
are listed below:-Funding Agencies (e.g. ADB, Nippon Maritime Center (JAMS), DANIDA, …)Specialized UN centres (COBSEA)

-Sources of expertise for delivery (IMO approved Consultants, ITOPF, NOAA, Oil Spill Response,PAJ)

Figure 4: Stakeholder Mapping at International, Regional and National Levelsin the South East Asia Region
Notes:- IMO has a regional office in Manila, Philippines and a coordinator in charge of regional activities(including ITCP)- PEMSEA has also been mapped for its direct link and established network at local level known as thePNLG (PEMSEA Network of Local Governments)- The ASEAN Maritime Transport Working Group (MTWG) is an official working group under ASEAN,
the OSRAP is not (yet) but may become part of the former- ASCOPE has a direct link to 10 NOCs in the region. IPIECA has 12 members in the region (including 2
that are also members of ASCOPE).

Developments and Conclusions
The preparatory work has been done for the past three years, the engagement with regional
key stakeholders and the collection of information were essential steps before attempting tobuild a GI Action Plan for South East Asia. Models and tools have also been made available
albeit they might require some adjustments. The next steps will consist in the consultation ofthe IMO and IPIECA with regional groups such as the ASEAN OSRAP and the NOCs to define any
possible way forward for a Phase 2 Programme to implement the recommendations fromPhase 1. This is planned to take place in 2009 in the form of an ASEAN OSRAP Meeting andduring a special IMO/IPIECA/Oil Spill Response workshop at the EAS Congress in Manila.

Annex I - List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

ADB

Asian Development BankASCOPEASEAN Council on Petroleum

ASEAN

Association of South East Asian Nations

CLC92

Civil Liability Convention 1992

COBSEA

Coordinating Body for the Seas of East Asia

DANIDA

Danish International Development Agency

FUND92Fund Convention 1992

GI

Global Initiative

GI SEA

Global Initiative South East Asia

GI WACAF

Global Initiative West and Central Africa

IMO

International Maritime Organization

IPIECA

International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association

IOPCF

International Oil Pollution Fund

JAMS

Japan Association for Marine Safety

LMIU

Lloyd’s Marine Intelligence Unit

MTWG

Maritime Transport Working Group (of ASEAN)

NOCs

National Oil Companies

OPRC

International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response andCooperation 1990

OSRAP

Oil Spill Response Action PlanOSWG

Oil Spill Working GroupPAJ

Petroleum Association of JapanPEMSEA

Partnership in Environmental Management for the Seas of East Asia

Annex II - Tables and Figures

Figure 5: Seaborne Crude Oil Trade Map 2006 (Source, LMIU)

Figure 6: International Seaborne Trade for Selected Years (Source UNCTAD)

Figure 7: World seaborne trade in 2006/2007, by type of cargo and country group (source UNCTAD)

Figure 8: World seaborne trade, selected years in billions of tonne-miles (Source UNCTAD)

Figure 9: World seaborne trade by country groups in millions of tonnes (source UNCTAD)

Figure 10: World fleet by principal vessel types, selected years in millions of DWT (Source UNCTAD)

Figure 11: Oil Imports for Selected Countries(Computation of 2005 figures from IPE2007 and CIA Factbook)Annex III – References and Further Reading

More information on the GI can be found on the IPIECA Website (IMO/IPIECA GI Brochure, GINewsletter) at http://www.ipieca.org/activities/oilspill/oil_gi.php
The Global Initiative for West and Central Africa Website http://www.giwacaf.org/
UNCTAD - Review of Maritime Transport 2008
Lisa Woolgar, ITOPF – Assessing the Increasing Risk of Marine Oil Pollution Spills in China (2008)
Central Intelligence Agency – The World Factbook
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/
Energy Information Administration – Country Analysis Briefs
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/contents.html
PennWell International Petroleum Encyclopaedia 2007
Lloyd’s MIU Analysis of Petroleum Exports (APEX) 2006