Key Performance Indicators of the GI WACAF Project
Using data submitted by each country of the Project, it has been possible to gauge the level of national response capability across the WACAF region. The data was first collected in 2006 to provide a benchmark.
|Primary indicators||Criteria for success|
|1||Designation of authority||The country has in place a designated national authority to deal with oil spill preparedness and response;|
|2||Legislation||The country has ratified the OPRC 1990 Convention;|
|3||National Oil Spill Contingency Plan||The country has at least a draft NOSCP;|
|4||Regional agreement||The country has in place either a regional, sub-regional, or bi-lateral agreement relating to oil spill response cooperation;|
|5||Training and Exercise||The country has undertaken a national level oil spill training and exercise event;|
|6||National Resources||The country has equipment and resources to carry out TIER 1 oil spill response operations.|
It has been monitored since then and updated most recently in 2017 to confirm progress and improvements.
Data presented here was provided by the GI WACAF partner countries during the last GI WACAF Regional Conference in November 2017.
In comparison to 2006, the results from 2017 show a significant increase in the overall level of oil spill response capability across the region.
However, whilst the primary indicators testify of an undeniable progress in the region, it should be kept in mind that these indicators are quantitative, and that qualitative aspects should be also taken in account to get a comprehensive view on the situation.
In any case, with the advancements of capabilities demonstrated by the countries, it became a necessity for the Project to adopt further measures of progress. The secondary indicators were thus adopted in 2015.
|Supplementary Elements||Criteria for success|
|1||Incident Management System||Has developed an Incident Management System within the National Contingency Plan|
|2||Sensitivity Mapping||Has sensitivity maps developed and approved available|
|3||Transboundary cooperation||Has a documented mechanism for response cooperation at the bilateral and/or sub-regional level. Regional agreement such as the Abidjan Convention are excluded.|
|4||Dispersant Use||Has a national dispersant policy developed and approved|
|5||Oiled Waste Management||Has an oil spill waste management plan developed and approved|
|6||Shoreline Assessment and Clean-up||Has a shoreline response plan developed and approved|
The figure below represents the implementation status of the supplementary elements on the basis of data submitted by countries at the 7th Regional Conference in November 2017.
Whilst the portion of developed indicators shows room for improvement, it is encouraging to see that the portion of “under development” indicators is significant. Indeed, in 2017, it appears the countries are focusing on developing policies such as dispersants use, shoreline clean-up and assessment, waste management or sensitivity mapping. Those policies will be included in the NOSCPs once fully developed and validated by the relevant authorities, improving the NOSPCs’ comprehensiveness and operational aspects.
The below translates the ongoing will and efforts from the countries, which should lead to an increasing number of indicators fully developed in the near future.