CHAPTER 6: A CONCEPTUAL MODEL FOR MARINE OIL SPILL MANAGEMENT IN SOUTH AFRICA
6.4 FINDINGS
6.4.3 Risk Determinants
Findings on risk determinants highlighted two major themes: the risk assessment approach and capacity.
137 6.4.3.1 Risk assessment approach
Qualitative data analysis indicates the varied ways in which respondents who are responsible for environmental management at different municipalities, provinces, or even national departments undertake risk assessments.
While this is largely influenced by technical skills available within the organisation, the priorities of different entities influence the approach adopted. The legal mandates translated into missions and visions of the organisations determine whether organisations will adopt a reactive or a proactive approach to risk assessment. Geographical Information System (GIS) mapping, contingency and adaptations plans were identified as proactive activities whereas rapid cost- benefit analysis and trajectory modelling as reactive approach mechanisms.
Quantitatively, there are some observable relations between the methods implemented in oil spill risk assessment and management strategies adopted. To assess this, respondents were requested to confer the approach implemented by their organisation in assessing marine oil spill risk. Three different issues emerged wherein 43% of respondents indicated that they use Geographical Information System (GIS) and Spatial Planning whilst 36% use Qualitative Surveys and 21% use Numerical Modelling.
These ratios outline that there is an inadequate coordination and synergies between different organs of state. Poor coordination and collaboration have been observed inter and intra- organisationally resulting in inconsistency and varying levels of response readiness with the potential of undermining both structural and human factors in process development.
Moreover, the importance of both formal and informal collaborative operational multi-sectoral agreements was emphasised. Through these agreements, a platform for shared resources including risk information, collation of serviceable and available oil spill clean-up equipment, companies (service providers), personnel and expertise may be established.
Respondents indicated that valuable strides have been achieved on policy development for oil spill risk reduction in South Africa. There was nevertheless a perspective that more needs to be done in order to improve institutional capacity development.
6.4.3.2 Capacity
The complexity of managing the transdisciplinary nature of environmental pollution, particularly the risk of oil spill, demands an effective and efficient stakeholder collaboration. This study established that whereas legal mandates of different entities drive the level of collaboration, the severity of the incident has often influenced the operational and strategic decision-making process.
Oil spill preparedness, response and recovery were identified by respondents to be key aspects on which organisations collaborate. In this study, the development of the National Oil Spill Contingency Plan (NOSCP), policy development, training and simulation exercises are categorised within the preparedness aspects. Considering the common practice of “testing of contingency plans” within the emergency management fraternity (Lestari et al., 2020), it is thus comprehensible that the development of the NOSCP has catalysed the need for undertaking exercise and training activities.
Respondents felt nonetheless that this level of collaboration does not necessarily render comparable outcomes during an actual incident response operation. The financial implication of such involvement subsequently limits sharing of resources including equipment and expertise.
Reluctance to collaborate is minimal during response operations as compared to the recovery phase. Respondents were of the perspective that the slow onset of the majority of the long- term biodiversity rehabilitation programmes did not attract enough levels of collaboration. The non- urgency nature of environmental rehabilitation does not only demand extensive investment in resources but poses a level of uncertainty in terms of continued long-term commitment.
The urgency of the response phase provides an opportune level of collaboration and coordination. One respondent explained that “what needs to be done must be done at any cost, it does not matter what entity one is from, we work together to stop the pollution”. It may thus be resolved that the urgency of response operations limits the bureaucratic burden associated with inter-organisational capacity building during “peace time”.
The recovery phase of the incident/disaster similarly to the preparedness stage are dependent on the element of trust, communicativeness, long-standing relations, nurtured over extended periods of time. Whereas good relations are commendable, findings of the study highlighted the importance of establishing a collaboration network based on systems and protocols rather than personal relations amongst stakeholders.
In addition to this, the value of managing a database of resources including existing national expertise within government and the private sector was emphasised. Few respondents indicated the importance of translating the research-based (academic journals) knowledge into oil spill management operations. The interaction between science and policy is often tested through pilot studies or development of models (Parviainen et al, 2022) In the South African context, development of policies, frameworks and guidelines involves both practitioners and academia.
Moreover, the accessibility of international expertise to share international best practices from countries at the advanced stages of oil and gas exploration was underlined.
In this context, an activity that was done differently is changing the way in which different stakeholders interact. The development of the contingency plan was seen to be a crucial rapport- building tool required for effective response operations. Respondents acknowledged however
139
that it remains crucial to sensitise stakeholders who were never part of the preparedness plan for efficient response.
The Disaster Management Act 57 of 2002 (South Africa, 2002) inter alia provides for the establishment of disaster management centre in all spheres of government (national, provincial and local). While these centres are vital in the coordination of the major incidents and disaster response, disputes have been raised regarding the bounds of mandates, authority and functions of the different centres of the various spheres of government in managing marine oil spill incidents.
Respondents generally perceived disaster management centres in all spheres of government vital for coordinating oil spill response efforts. Nevertheless, there was consensus in that the local disaster management centre is crucial in enabling institutional cohesion that optimises the use of varied resources through a transdisciplinary approach. The involvement of the provincial and national disaster management centres was deemed necessary for scenarios which exceeds the authority the mandate and authority of the local sphere to summon expertise and resources.
The National Disaster Management Centre (NDMC) was specifically perceived to be key in building stakeholders trust across suitable levels and spheres of government. However, respondents observed that the NDMC’s responsibility in strengthening institutional cohesion is often compromised by poor understanding of the role of disaster management centre, and the limitation of access to information and the strict confidentiality clause enshrined within the public sector.
Structurally however, the importance of technology and innovation is advantageous in minimising the traditional bureaucratic practices and building an interface between the strategic and the operational arm of the coordination process. Table 14, reflect thus, level- based structure with specific set of roles and responsibilities either in an operational, strategic, or executive command capacity. This structure was developed during the oil spill exercises for notification purposes, with an indication that it will be prioritized and implemented as such following a marine incident.
Table 14: Roles and Responsibilities of the different levels of government following an oil spill incident
Executive Command
Cabinet • Reputation and information management.
• Political leadership and outlining the strategic policy objective of government
Strategic Command
Disaster Management Centre4
• Activation and mobilization of Joint Operations Centre (JOC) and role-players;
• Determination of impact of incident and coordination of action plans and deployment of resources;
• Develop public communications plan; and
• Continuous monitoring and assessment
of response and rehabilitation
activities Emergency Operations
Centre
• Coordination of the operational response;
• Adjustment of existing contingency plans to match developments at the incident needs;
• Escalation to executive structures of issues beyond planned capability
• Synthesis of situational awareness
• Communication and coordination with
provincial disaster management
Operations Committee (JOC).
Operational Coordination Private Sector/industry and the affected departments.
• Execution of the operational response.
• Escalation of issues to tactical structures.
4 This include National, Provincial and Local Disaster Management Centre
141