WWF Arctic Council Conservation Scorecard

Oil Spill Cooperation

© Florian Schulz / visionsofthewild.com

Oil spills from both shipping and oil and gas development represent significant threats to ecosystem health.

Findings

Arctic states have successfully established an administrative system for oil spill response, although concerns remain about a lack of on-the-ground capacity and infrastructure.

Recommendations

Arctic countries

Arctic Council

Detailed ratings

B Canada

  • National Contingency Plans for Preparedness and Response
  • 4/5
  • Authorities and Capacity for Oil Pollution Response
  • 7/7
  • Oil Spill Monitoring and Compliance
  • 6/7
  • Funding for Prevention and Response Measures
  • 0/1
  • Measures to Control Oil and Gas Activities in Sensitive Areas
  • 0/1
  • Oil Extraction and Conservation Areas
  • 2/3
  • Total score
  • 19/24

All ratings for Canada See detailed scoring criteria

A Kingdom of Denmark

  • National Contingency Plans for Preparedness and Response
  • 5/5
  • Authorities and Capacity for Oil Pollution Response
  • 7/7
  • Oil Spill Monitoring and Compliance
  • 6/7
  • Funding for Prevention and Response Measures
  • 0/1
  • Measures to Control Oil and Gas Activities in Sensitive Areas
  • 1/1
  • Oil Extraction and Conservation Areas
  • 3/3
  • Total score
  • 22/24

All ratings for Kingdom of Denmark See detailed scoring criteria

A Finland

  • National Contingency Plans for Preparedness and Response
  • 3/3
  • Authorities and Capacity for Oil Pollution Response
  • 7/7
  • Oil Spill Monitoring and Compliance
  • 2/2
  • Funding for Prevention and Response Measures
  • N/A
  • Measures to Control Oil and Gas Activities in Sensitive Areas
  • N/A
  • Oil Extraction and Conservation Areas
  • N/A
  • Total score
  • 12/12

All ratings for Finland See detailed scoring criteria

A Iceland

  • National Contingency Plans for Preparedness and Response
  • 5/5
  • Authorities and Capacity for Oil Pollution Response
  • 7/7
  • Oil Spill Monitoring and Compliance
  • 6/7
  • Funding for Prevention and Response Measures
  • 0/1
  • Measures to Control Oil and Gas Activities in Sensitive Areas
  • 1/1
  • Oil Extraction and Conservation Areas
  • 3/3
  • Total score
  • 20/24

All ratings for Iceland See detailed scoring criteria

A Norway

  • National Contingency Plans for Preparedness and Response
  • 4/5
  • Authorities and Capacity for Oil Pollution Response
  • 7/7
  • Oil Spill Monitoring and Compliance
  • 6/7
  • Funding for Prevention and Response Measures
  • 0/1
  • Measures to Control Oil and Gas Activities in Sensitive Areas
  • 1/1
  • Oil Extraction and Conservation Areas
  • 3/3
  • Total score
  • 21/24

All ratings for Norway See detailed scoring criteria

A Russia

  • National Contingency Plans for Preparedness and Response
  • 3/5
  • Authorities and Capacity for Oil Pollution Response
  • 7/7
  • Oil Spill Monitoring and Compliance
  • 6/7
  • Funding for Prevention and Response Measures
  • 0/1
  • Measures to Control Oil and Gas Activities in Sensitive Areas
  • 1/1
  • Oil Extraction and Conservation Areas
  • 3/3
  • Total score
  • 20/24

All ratings for Russia See detailed scoring criteria

B Sweden

  • National Contingency Plans for Preparedness and Response
  • 3/3
  • Authorities and Capacity for Oil Pollution Response
  • 7/7
  • Oil Spill Monitoring and Compliance
  • 2/2
  • Funding for Prevention and Response Measures
  • N/A
  • Measures to Control Oil and Gas Activities in Sensitive Areas
  • N/A
  • Oil Extraction and Conservation Areas
  • N/A
  • Total score
  • 12/12

All ratings for Sweden See detailed scoring criteria

A United States

  • National Contingency Plans for Preparedness and Response
  • 5/5
  • Authorities and Capacity for Oil Pollution Response
  • 7/7
  • Oil Spill Monitoring and Compliance
  • 6/7
  • Funding for Prevention and Response Measures
  • 1/1
  • Measures to Control Oil and Gas Activities in Sensitive Areas
  • 1/1
  • Oil Extraction and Conservation Areas
  • 3/3
  • Total score
  • 23/24

All ratings for United States See detailed scoring criteria

B Arctic Council

  • Completion of the Oil and Gas Assessment
  • 1/1
  • Completion of the Revised Arctic Offshore Oil and Gas Guidelines 2009
  • 1/1
  • Completion of Behaviour of oil and other Hazardous Substances in Arctic waters (BoHaSA)
  • 1/1
  • Major Preparedness and Response Deliverables
  • 2/2
  • Oil Spill Prevention Cooperation
  • 2/4
  • Total Score
  • 7/9

All ratings for Arctic Council See detailed scoring criteria

How these indicators are scored

National

Indicator 1: National Contingency Plans for Preparedness and Response

Criterion 1: State developed a contingency plan (or plans) that accounts for preparedness and response to oil pollution incidents in Arctic waters

Criterion 2: The contingency plan (or plans) account for both a) particular activities and locales most likely to give rise to or suffer from an oil pollution incident and b) anticipated risks to areas of special ecological significance

Criterion 3: The contingency plan (or plans) include the organizational relationship of the various public or private bodies involved, taking into account guidelines developed pursuant to MOSPA and other relevant international agreements

Criterion 4: State has clear reference(s) to the application of the precautionary approach in the national regulations of Arctic oil and gas activities

Criterion 5: State has clear reference(s) to the application of the polluter pays principle in the national regulations of Arctic oil and gas activities

Indicator 2: Authorities and Capacity for Oil Pollution Response

Criterion 1: State’s national system for responding promptly and effectively to oil pollution incidents includes

  • the competent national authority or authorities with responsibility for oil pollution preparedness and response,
  • the national 24-hour operational contact point or points, which shall be responsible for the receipt and transmission of oil pollution reports, and
  • an authority or authorities entitled to act on behalf of the state to request assistance or to decide to render the assistance requested

Criterion 2: State has established a minimum level of pre-positioned oil spill combating equipment, commensurate with the risk involved, and programs for its use

Criterion 3: State has established a program of exercises for oil pollution response organizations and training of relevant personnel

Criterion 4: State has established plans and communications capabilities for responding to an oil pollution incident

Criterion 5: State has established a mechanism or arrangement to coordinate the response to an oil pollution incident with, if appropriate, the capabilities to mobilize the necessary resources

Indicator 3: Oil Spill Monitoring and Compliance

Criterion 1: State has a system to monitor oil pollution incidents under its jurisdiction

Criterion 2: State undertakes appropriate monitoring activities – to the extent feasible – in adjacent areas beyond national jurisdiction

Criterion 3: State cooperates with other Arctic Council state or states to improve hazardous ice detection through

  • satellite services
  • production and dissemination of ice maps in real time

Criterion 4: State has a legal base that allows for regulatory agency personnel to access the installations and to see all relevant documentation and equipment at any time

Criterion 5: State has a legal base to take appropriate action in case:

  • of violations and noncompliance;
  • if the operator fails to react adequately to dangerous situations

Indicator 4: Funding for Prevention and Response Measures

Criterion 1: State evaluated funding levels to ensure full support for oil spill prevention and response measures, including enforcement of these measures

Indicator 5: Measures to Control Oil and Gas Activities in Sensitive Areas

Criterion 1: State implemented stringent control measures for areas that are sensitive to spills

Indicator 6: Oil Extraction and Conservation Areas

Criterion 1: State, in its permitting process, implements sound conservation practices as a mean to minimize environmental impacts

Criterion 2: State did not permit oil and gas activities in any conservation areas

Arctic Council

Indicator 1: Completion of the Oil and Gas Assessment

Criterion 1: Arctic Council released and approved a completed oil and gas assessment by the Tromso Ministerial meeting

Indicator 2: Completion of the Revised Arctic Offshore Oil and Gas Guidelines 2009

Criterion 1: Arctic Council released and approved a revision of the Arctic Offshore Oil and Gas Guidelines

Indicator 3: Completion of Behaviour of oil and other Hazardous Substances in Arctic waters (BoHaSA)

Criterion 1: Arctic Council has released a report on the behavior of oil and other hazardous substances [BoHaSa Report]

Indicator 4: Major Preparedness and Response Deliverables

Criterion 1: Arctic Council developed and announced an instrument on Arctic marine oil pollution preparedness and response

Criterion 2: Arctic Council encouraged contingency plans, training and exercises

Indicator 5: Oil Spill Prevention Cooperation

Criterion 1: Arctic Council developed recommendations and/or best practices in the prevention of marine oil pollution

Criterion 2: Arctic Council enhanced mutual cooperation in the field of oil spill prevention

Criterion 3:

  • Arctic Council established a mechanism supporting research to prevent release of oil into Arctic waters
  • Arctic Council established a mechanism supporting technology transfer to prevent release of oil into Arctic waters