Rob Cox PAJ presentation
Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen. Firstly a big thank you to PAJ to inviting IPIECA
to the symposium, and thank you for the opportunity to talk about oil industry
associations and their role in facilitating preparedness and response partnerships.
Many of you know IPIECA – the International Petroleum Industry Environmental
Conservation Association - but for those of you who do not, we are the single global
association representing both the upstream and downstream oil and gas industry on
key environmental and social issues
Founded in 1974 following the establishment of the United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP), IPIECA provides a principal channel of communication with theUnited Nations, with whom we have NGO status. We are a small secretariat basedin London – only 8 people – but our work covers a broad range of topics as you cansee. Our key areas of activity are:Oil Spill Preparedness and Response, Strategic Issues Assessment, Social Responsibility,
Biodiversity, Climate Change, Fuels and Transportation, and Health.
Current membership extends to some 40 organisations, including both independentand national oil companies, and regional energy associations.
We have members with operations in all of the continents where industry is involvedin the production of energy.
This presentation will present the work that IPIECA has been doing on partnerships,
and then try to illustrate the lessons we have learned, by the use of several casestudies in oil spill preparedness, planning and response. I will be looking at therationale for partnerships, their characteristics, the lessons we have learned on ourjourney, and the conclusions we have come to.
When I was researching this presentation I tried to think back to the time when
IPIECA first realized that partnerships were really fundamental to successful oil spill
response planning. In fact, when we look at the various conventions on mutual aid
and emergency response, some of them were being conceived right around thetime that IPIECA was being formed in 1974. As examples of how importantpartnerships are, I could have used many examples of early conventions: Quito,
London, Barcelona, Abidjan, even OPRC. But instead I would like to quote from aspeech by William O’Neill the former Secretary General of the IMO, ten years ago on
World Maritime Day. He said, and I quote: “The foundation stone of IMO’s successhas been partnership. Indeed, partnership is a fundamental principle in IMO whichat its heart is a cooperative relationship between the 158 Member Governments,
who join together in framing, implementing and policing the standards and the rules
and regulations that govern international shipping. It is a partnership that has
produced more than 40 conventions and several hundred protocols and resolutions
that together provide the blueprint for a safe, environmentally friendly and costeffective industry….in this , a global industry, our objectives can only be achievedthrough global partnerships in a global forum” That was ten years ago, and at theend of this presentation I would like to ask you all whether you believe Mr. O’Neills
vision has been achieved.
But first, permit me to tell you about the work that IPIECA has done on partnerships.
IPIECA has been an active promoter of the partnership approach for many years
and in 2006 celebrated the 10 year anniversary of the Global Initiative, our flagshipprogram with the IMO on regional oil spill response capacity building. But this wasn’t
just about oil spills: this was about defining the core processes for making
partnerships a reality. The point of this work was to communicate how the oil andgas industry is using partnerships to contribute to sustainable development, toexplore the partnering process through challenges and “lessons learned” whichwere identified by IPIECA members and their partners, and to provide practicalinformation for oil and gas managers engaging in any stage of the partnering
process. In 2006, IPIECA decided to compile a number of case studies illustrating
how the Oil and Gas industry was using partnerships to contribute to sustainable
development. This was partly in response to the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable
Development recognition of the partnership approach – a recognition that businesshas a role to play in sustainable development, and the subsequent tracking of‘partnerships’ as a cross-cutting theme at the Commission for Sustainable
Development – or “CSD” - fourteenth and fifteenth sessions in New York. The
publication that you should all have a copy of was launched at CSD 14 in 2006 andaimed to communicate how the oil and gas industry is using partnerships tocontribute to sustainable development.
So, what’s in the publication?
We have brought together 40 case studies, 32 company case studies and 8 industrywide partnerships. The case studies are grouped into 9 main themes and meet arange of challenges from long-term global issues to an assortment of more local
socio-economic concerns: healthcare, transport needs, sustainable jobs andlivelihoods, and community development
For each case study, we asked the case study author to talk to the other partners
and explore some of the lessons learned and challenges from the partnering
process- this with a view to helping others achieve best outcomes and avoid
common pitfalls of partnering – practical tips
We also reviewed all the case studies to explore what the business case is forpartnering… the ‘benefits of working in partnership’
There is a wealth of experience of oil and gas companies working in partnership.
Each partnership is unique, shaped by the demand of a common task and by theindividual needs of the partners. The 40 case studies brought in this collection show
40 different circumstances for working in partnership. There are many differentvariations of partnerships depending on the objectives. The publication covers
areas such as:
Why form a partnership?
Where should the partnership take place?
What will the partnership focus on?
Who should be involved?
Each of these experiences reflect a growing recognition that oil and gas companies
can better achieve sustainable development goals by working with others whether
they be other business entities, government agencies, NGO’s, communities oracademic institutions.
Let me first share a few concrete examples of partnerships working in the areas ofrelevance to the CSD session this year. As for the benefits of partnerships, I am sure
you have your own theories and I suppose, for some, they may seem fairly obvious
and straightforward. But, like management it all sounds comparatively straightforward until you have to manage people, who are all unique in their needs anddemands, and then of course management move the goal posts well into theproject!
- partnerships enable the oil and gas companies to contribute by stepping morerationally and safely into the field of sustainable development – without risk of being
solely responsible for deliverables outside their expertise whilst offering theircompetencies to assist partners in a given project- Multi-stakeholder partnerships can deliver higher quality project outcomes. Bybringing new ideas, especially if they come from different sectors, a fertile platform
for innovation and creativity can be created – especially in research anddevelopment initiatives where partnerships can help increase the flow of informationand technology cooperation- The case studies show that when partnering initiatives include local government
and integrate capacity building, long term sustainability outcomes are better
assured than if a company were to act alone- Many of the case studies in our publication indicate that partnerships can be avehicle not only for introducing innovation, but also for taking innovations to scale.
The quality and long-term success of a sustainable development initiative can also
be linked to ‘scalability’.
-Partnerships are all about joint action. Sometimes, this is quite a challenge.
There may be intrinsic differences between partners such as language, speedof decision making, funding issues and of course determining what will
constitute success. Partnerships can, of course, go wrong. But, where they

work, the level of mutual understanding gained can rapidly surpass otherforms of stakeholder engagement- Effective communication is often the key, especially when significant social tension
exists between oil companies and local communities. Whether working with an NGO
as a conduit for engaging with communities, it is often a matter of building levels oftrust. These relationships then act as a form of conflict prevention, generating open
channels of communication, levels of trust and ‘social capital’ that companies candraw on when they need to better understand local grievances, for example
following an oil spill.
- The oil and gas industry, particularly if operations are off-shore, needs to becreative in encouraging direct local employment and providing opportunities fordomestic enterprise. This is critical in economically disadvantaged countries where
there is an absence of the right skill mix, a weak supplier base and no internal market
to develop refineries or power plants. By engaging with local stakeholders who may
have insights into the local economy, partnerships offer an important vehicle torealise this opportunity.
- As a final benefit of partnering, some of the case studies demonstrate how efforts
by single companies to address environmental and social issues can be transformed
through partnerships into programmes that bring benefits to whole geographic
regions. A collaborative initiative that involves a range of oil and gas companies,
industry bodies for the sector, environmental regulators, NGOs and international
development agencies can result in a pan-regional or even global approach todevelopment issues, something no single company or government could
conceivably achieve alone.

CCP
Eight oil companies and three government agencies set up this project in 2000. Its
aim is to develop and demonstrate the efficacy of technologies that can capture
carbon dioxide from the combustion of fossil fuels and store that captured gas insecure underground reservoirs.
The project’s work focuses on five areas of development: capture, storage,
economics, communications and policy. An independent Technology Advisory
Board, consisting of members from both private and public sectors, objectively
evaluates the project’s research and guides future developmental work.
GGFR
Another initiative launched at the 2002 World Summit, this partnership consists of thegovernments of 12 important oil and gas producing nations, 10 major oil and gas
companies and the World Bank. It aims to support national efforts to use the gas
associated with oil production rather than waste itWell to wheels
CONCAWE, the oil companies’ European association for environment, health andsafety in refining and distribution; the European Council for Automotive R&D; and the
Joint Research Centre of the European Commission joined forces in 2000 to
generate scientific and technical information on the development of road vehicles
and associated subjects.
The first outcome of the partnership was a ‘Well-to-Wheels’ study published in 2003. It
anticipated increased focus on alternative road fuels and vehicles to address
carbon dioxide emissions and security of supply.
PCFVIn December 2005, the PCFV celebrated lead phase out in sub-Saharan Africa. This
was a goal jointly set in 2001 by the partners (governments, automotive industry andthe oil and gas sectors—represented by IPIECA) and jointly achieved throughpartnership, in recognition that no one sector could individually bring about cleaner
fuels in developing countries. UNEP support was instrumental to the success of thispartnership.
Analysis of the case studies gathered together in our publication – one of which is
the Global Initiative on Oil Spill Preparedness - has enabled us to draw some
important conclusions on multi-stakeholder partnering in the oil and gas industry andto develop a set of practical tips to assist others embarking on this journey. These
can also be found in the fuller publication.
Partnering Drivers- There are many and varied- Some provide an opportunity for tackling challenging global issues andresponding to situations where relationship building is more important than project
outcomes- The drive to partner is not one-way – increasingly as the mutual benefits are more
visible and measurable, the NGO community, academia and other parts of civilsociety are seeking partnerships with the private sector – even at times competing!
Partner selection is crucial
Partners must bring an array of resources and competencies to address the job inhand. The right skills are essential. There is an increasing recognition that thesustainability of the activities outweighs the sustainability of the partnership – there isa need to know who will go on to assume responsibility for sustaining or scaling up
project outcomes
Partnership building is an ongoing processAfter the initial enthusiasm and goodwill, there is a need to build on the initialcommitment and create a strong foundation to meet future challenges. Building
relationships takes time, all partners must ‘invest’ in the partnership and the forgotten
management skill of effective listening is crucial
There are 3 core principles
Equity – an equal right to be at the table
Transparency – openness and honesty
Mutual benefit – all are entitled to benefit from the partnershipManaging the partnership
To address any flagging momentum it is important to maintain focus andcommitment
Some early ‘win-wins’ maintains motivation, and small teams working within the
bigger partnership can produce deliverables quickly and build a sense of‘ownership’ of the whole
Be prepared to re-negotiate if required, and prepare also for resolving differencesby agreeing appropriate dispute resolution procedures
Agreements and contracts
There is a difference between partnering agreements and contracts. A partneringagreement signals a voluntary collaborative and describes shared risks andimplementation jointly reached. A contract is legally binding and focuses ontransferring risk to the implementing parties
Exit strategies- Many of the partnerships described in the case studies were launched without aclear understanding of how it might end. A plan for closure or exit is rarely built into a
partnership from the beginning and that is particularly true of oil spill partnerships –the threat of an oil spill is always present and so it may be inappropriate to talkabout ‘ending’ the partnership, however when it comes to capacity building,maybe the ultimate goal is to build a partnership or cooperative relationship andthen ‘turn it over’ to local parties when it matures, and that is one of the criteria wehave for the GI program.
- Moving on should not be interpreted as failure but, rather an indicator of successspecifically when a task has been completed- At the end of a partnership or when an individual or organisation leaves, ensure
shared credit and joint ownership and celebrate all achievements and outputs.

- Prepare your ‘messages’ with a focus on outcomes rather than the end of thepartnership
Final message
No partnership is ever easy, comfortable, secure, safe, quick or cheap. But, with a lotof good management, some good will and a little determination, cross-sector
partnerships for sustainable development can work well and may achieve a great
deal more than single sector approaches to the same issue
And now to the case studies:
The IPIECA Oil Spill Working Group was established in 1987 to tackle OSR issues. The
membership consists of 22 IPIECA member companies and associations. Technicalpartners: IMO, ITOPF, le CEDRE, Oil Spill Response, AMOSC, UNEP, WCMC, PAJ, etc.
THE Global Initiative - GI programme formally launched in 1996 with input fromindustry and government representatives as long term answer. The group was reenergized post Valdez in 1989 and the IPIECA relationship with IMO wasstrengthened.
The IMO/IPIECA Global Initiative aims to assist countries in developing national
structure for oil spill response and preparedness and to encourage ratification andimplementation of relevant IMO Conventions. Additionally the idea is to catalyze
local ownership by industry and government and to demonstrate industry/IMO
commitment to tackling oil spill issues
IMO/IPIECA cooperation stems from the 1990 OPRC Convention which calls forregulatory authorities to work with the oil and shipping industry to develop global oil
spill response capability.
IMO provides the link to national governments and IPIECA provides the link to local
oil industry.
Technical partners of the OSWG - IMO, OSR, CCA, etc. - provide significant financial
or in-kind support to GI programmes. Significant investments in oil spill prevention
and preparedness capability are being made by third parties (development banks,regional bodies, intergovernmental organizations) and potentially a large benefit toindustry in positively influencing programmes by other ‘third parties’ carrying out
similar work to GI groups to avoid duplication or detrimental messages.
The structure was inefficient; need to move on from ad hoc approaches anddevelop a coordinated and sustainable GI programme
The original program was owned and run by IMO and IPIECA in London. A better
approach would be to develop regional approaches that build capacity locallyGI programs need to be owned, managed, and run locally with support from theprincipals at IMO and IPIECA in London. In difficult regions (like WACAF)

comprehensive support from organizations like Oil Spill Response formed part of theredesign
As a case study, I would like to discuss OSPRI - the Oil Spill Preparedness Regional
Initiative (OSPRI) for the Caspian Sea, Black Sea and Central Eurasia which wasformed in August 2003. Its mission is to work with governments and other partners topromote effective oil spill preparedness in the region. OSPRI’s effort is fully alignedwith the Global Initiative. Activities and approaches follow industry’s best practiceand draw on the experiences and lessons learned from thirteen years of the GI.
As an example of effectiveness, ratification of the three key IMO Conventions
relating to oil spill preparedness and compensation has moved from 37% in 2003 to
70% in 2009, demonstrating increasing commitment by the countries to address theissues associated with oil spill preparedness.
OSPRI reckon that their recipe for success is that they are business unit led and driven,that they have a dedicated coordinating resource, that they act as catalyst for tier2 cooperation and facilitate tier 3, that they have aligned advocacy and consistentmessages from the partners, and that they are a recognized and trusted voice in theregion.
Turning to my second case study, that of the West and Central Africa or WACAF
project, the goal of which is to strengthen local oil spill response capability, anddevelop industry/government partnership through exercises, training and workshops.
Whereas OSPRI works preferentially with local and regional structures such as the
Caspian Environment Program and the Black Sea Commission, WACAF works directlywith the IMO to build skills and capacity locally.
During the last couple of years WACAF has delivered an impressive list of activities,
and you see them on the screen.
… and these are some of the activities… and the supporting materials that we provide.
WACAF’s proposed activities include an effort to increase effectiveness andoperational capacity of structures, to strengthen national instruments for oil spill
response, to strengthen partnership in the region, and to reinforce the project
structure.
OSPRI and WACAF are both successful. The approach has been similar, but theactivities have been different and the partners have been different, because the
NEEDS are different
A tailored approach using a regional model based on partnerships has worked fortwo very different regions…
A final word on the role of partnerships in response integration. I stole this slide fromone of Archie Smith’s people – Captain Daniel Chan – because I thought it very well

illustrated the need for partnerships in the context of Oil Spill Response. The slide
illustrates the various players in an integrated response, and it is a good one to close
on because it visualizes the need to form partnerships in order to get the job done.
A Final message:
No partnership is ever easy, comfortable, secure, safe, quick or cheap. But, with a lotof good management, some good will and a little determination, cross-sector
partnerships for sustainable development can work well and may achieve a great
deal more than single sector approaches to the same issue
3 golden rules that should help to keep partners on track when the going gets tough
Build on shared values – because successful partnerships are value driven
Be creative – because every partnership is unique
Be courageous – because all partnerships involve risk