Transforming Wildlife Response: The global impact of an unlikely alliance
In this episode, we continue our journey with oiled wildlife preparedness and response. In particular, we look at the important role of Sea Alarm, a non-governmental organisation founded 25 years ago to advance wildlife response preparedness. In 2005, OSRL and Sea Alarm joined forces to address the critical gaps in oiled wildlife response preparedness, particularly in relation to industry preparedness. Back then, major oil spills like Erika, Prestige, and Tricolor exposed much of the world’s lack of readiness to protect wildlife. Governments were often overwhelmed, and NGOs had to self-organise without adequate resources. Over the last 20 years the collaboration between OSRL and Sea Alarm has transformed the landscape, making wildlife response preparedness more of a priority for governments and industry alike.
To explore this, we speak with Sea Alarm’s General Manager, Hugo Nijkamp. Hugo has been at the helm of Sea Alarm since its inception. We reflect on the achievements and transformations of the past 20 years - from developing international networks and enhancing local capabilities to mapping global preparedness. We also celebrate the partnership between Sea Alarm and OSRL and look ahead to the future and explore how we can adapt to new risks to wildlife, further improve global response capabilities, and continue to foster international collaboration.
PODCAST
Episode Ten - Podcast Links
Podcast Transcript
SPEAKERS
Paul Kelway and Hugo Nijkamp
Paul Kelway:
Hello and welcome to the Response Force Multiplier, a podcast that explores emergency planning and response. On the Response Force Multiplier, we bring together compelling experts and thought leaders to provide a fresh take on key issues and cutting edge techniques. In each episode, we'll dive into one aspect of emergency planning and response and we'll use OSRL's unique pool of experts and collaborators to gain new insights and to distill these down into actionable tools and techniques for better preparedness and response to crisis incidents and emergencies. My name is Paul Kelway, we are OSRL and this is the Response Force Multiplier. We are OSRL and this is the Response Force Multiplier.
Hugo Nijkamp:
So you've been the general manager of Sea Alarm since it first started, obvious point to start with here is just to ask you just to briefly introduce Sea Alarm in terms of the organization and its mission.
Hugo Nijkamp:
Yeah well, Sea Alarm is a team of four, based in Belgium, in Brussels, but we've got a global remit and very much also a regional, european remit. We specialize in oil and wildlife response and preparedness and we want to be very good at it and we want to act as an impartial, independent actor and we place ourselves in the middle of NGOs, industry and government, because in an oil spill with wildlife, you need all those three spheres, and so we want to make sure that all these actors in those spheres can actually work together. And in order to facilitate that, you have to be independent and impartial yourself, you have to know what you're talking about and you must become some kind of a trusted agent to all these parties, and that has been our mission. Well, the mission has been to make the world more prepared, but our positioning and the way that we try to internalize the methodology is actually the key to what we could achieve in that way, you talk about those different stakeholder parties that are really key, and OSRL and Sea Alarm are two stakeholders within that sphere.
Paul Kelway:
The reason we're talking today, of course, is that we're celebrating 20 years of the two organizations working together. So that takes us all the way back to 2005, when that relationship first started. And I wanted to ask you because, if you look back the few years before that, there was this series of remarkable events in incidents, largely in europe, but with spills like the erica, the treasure in south africa, but then also the prestige in spain and the tricolor in belgium. So I wanted to ask you a little bit about what was the state of world wildlife preparedness in those years and what gaps did that expose, and what was sea alarms role in that time yeah, I mean those were the days of the big incidents, I would say, and for sea alarm, as a starting organization in this field, it was a big baptizing.
Hugo Nijkamp:
But the preparedness in those days were very low. So the spills that you're mentioning happened in countries that were not prepared. Preparedness also is in relation to the size of the incident and these spills have become so famous because it had such an overwhelming impact on wildlife coming ashore. And with hindsight you know, with the knowledge of now, we can also conclude that it's very hard to be prepared if you get overwhelmed in such numbers. In those days governments did not know what to do. They got overwhelmed as well and also get paralyzed, almost if you want. And then you always get citizens or NGOs that are stepping into that vacuum and start to rescue whatever they can do or however it's presented to them, and they self-organize. And what we also saw in those days were that there were a number of organizations internationally that would also self-mobilize into the area also to assist and also do what they can, and that, I think, was the picture over those years. The reason that Sea Alarm actually was there was because Sea Alarm was created in order to facilitate that situation where everybody would work on islands, not being connected with governments, governments not knowing what to do, etc. So we actually came in not so much self-mobilized, so we actually were very much closely working with at that time, ITOPF, and also with P&I Clubs and the IOPC Funds, so Prestige, for instance, they asked us to mobilize into the country on their behalf and just to try to see what is happening. Can we do anything to actually make those connections? And that's what we did.
Hugo Nijkamp:
And so I must say that also in our role in those incidents, in the fact that it was overwhelming and all parties doing their best, it gave us so much lessons to learn, having seen this and also from a perspective like what are the gaps and how can we fill those gaps.
Hugo Nijkamp:
We also were identified, I think, by ITOPF as an organization that could fill also gaps for them that would take care of wildlife not being seen by the incident command and later on having lots of costs that they wanted to get compensated for but nobody knew what they had done, so they could not be compensated for that reason.
Hugo Nijkamp:
So italk actually identified in what we were aiming to do as like, okay, let's give this a chance, because if this could be solved by learning from those lessons, creating networks, let's say, of more experienced organizations that can actually be used to build a more structured and more organized wildlife response. That is worth to try. And so ITOPF basically gave us a lot of coaching and support, also to introduce us into the industry realm of shipping, P&I clubs all of that including OSRL obviously and also coached us to understand how these systems work, which we could then also project and translate towards the role of governments and the role of NGOs, and so very much in those early years ITOPF was really instrumental also for us to develop into this impartial and independent role.
Paul Kelway:
That's probably a good segue to my next question, which is you mentioned OSRL. So what were the circumstances around OSRL and Sea Alarm coming together more formally then at the beginning? What were the aims initially of that collaboration?
Hugo Nijkamp:
Well, it was also again with the assistance of ITOPF, introducing us also to, for instance, Ipieca's oil spill working group and also made sure that I would make some presentations there to get that group interested. And out of that group there were a few individuals and also ITOPF championing this. So you always need that few people that have visionary picture of where it should go and also to see like, okay, this needs some support. And there were champions also in some of the companies that also said, okay, we need to do this, we need to develop this. Companies that also said, okay, we need to do this, we need to develop this. And it actually started that Sea Alarm was invited to lead a project to actually develop a document that would indicate what is needed. You know how do you plan and how do you prepare for wildlife. That project actually resulted in the famous volume 13 in the report series of Aikika. So we were leading that project. But obviously we actually organized the whole working group around it. So we knew key people that were internationally the lead experts in wildlife response, all kinds of individuals from the industry. Itop was on board. So we actually created a multi-sectoral working group to actually look into like, how do we actually nail this. And that resulted in that document. And when the document was published by IPIECA, they also thought, yeah, okay, now we've got the document, but who's going to work on it? And that created something where they said, okay, you know, the mission of Sea Alarm is good. They've also combined and linked different groups together. Apparently they can do that.
Hugo Nijkamp:
And Sea Alarm was not well funded at that moment, you know, and it was just me and a few people that did it at that moment, most of the time almost freelance and very limited.
Hugo Nijkamp:
And I also said to the industry, like, if you want to continue this, then yeah, you know, we have to solve that, because otherwise I cannot simply do it. And so they. So they said, okay, then we actually organize something that you should maybe work with oil spill response limited to actually create that basis by which we can actually make this happen. So they actually facilitated that and in the early years I remember that also well was a bit surprised because they did not do anything. Wildlife, that was not their thing. And it was also very much like okay, a bit uneasy, you know, to be honest, and in the beginning, like what should we do? How do we do it? And it was also where we formed a steering group, where I asked if ITOPF would also be there just to facilitate that process, that we had to work together and also on a mission that was totally new, you know, for everybody, also for the industry at large, because also the companies you know they were quite live.
Hugo Nijkamp:
so you had these few champions in the industry that were also leading, influential in discussions in those forums that industry had, like the oil spill working group, and that made it happen. So it was really a journey where nobody would exactly know where it would go to and we just kicked it off and do the best we could.
Paul Kelway:
When you mention the uncertainty or just how to introduce and integrate this new topic. So it points to this to some degree. But what was the relationship to wildlife response from the oil industry at the time? Obviously, you know certain countries at that time maybe was more accepted than others, but in general, what was the experience at that time, having to engage in these conversations about taking it more seriously or integrating it more fully?
Hugo Nijkamp:
yeah, I would say the industry did not have oil wildlife response as a target because and it's totally understandable, because it happens or it doesn't happen and at that time industry was so much in that time frame still, you know working out their own good practices on how to respond to oil spills in general, and so the focus of those activities were going into broader oil spill management. So experiences with big incidents where the oil industry actually was confronted with huge wildlife impact were very limited too. There were a few officers in oil companies that had managed some of these wildlife incidents and they were actually amongst those champions that wanted to reach out to also their colleagues, like, yeah, you know, this is something that is important, but the misunderstanding, I think, and also the underestimation that everybody has was like, yeah, you know, this is something that is important, but the misunderstanding, I think, and also the underestimation that everybody has was like, yeah, you know, wildlife, that is a few ducks that actually arrive on the shore and what's the big deal here? You know, there are always NGOs that pick them up and they wash them and they release them and, yeah, why should we prepare for that? Prepare for that? And so the description of what a wildlife response is and the gradual increase in complexity that is generated by the number of animals washing ashore. That was unknown, not realized.
Hugo Nijkamp:
So that has been the effort Sea Alarm, but also many other organizations, try to increasingly describe and present so that it became something also at that level of a science to be respected by the people in those positions that would actually direct funds here and there, and I remember that was a long, long journey, and not only with the industry but also with OSRL. We actually said we need to make the world more prepared. It's not only the industry. We need to work with governments, we need to create governmental language so that governments support it. And it comes back to that, the three domains that we need to look at. And, to be perfectly fair, we also had to work with the NGOs, even the experts, to also have that education.
Hugo Nijkamp:
How do we all do it? Do we all do it the same? Are there standards? What are those standards? If we work with industry, how would we do that? What is our experience? Where are the gaps? Because everybody knew that if we go out, there is no kind of gaps and by which you are more or less standing alone. Whatever you can do. Yeah, you grab an animal, you start rehabilitating them according to good practice, that's what you do, but does that make any difference on the bigger scale of things?
Hugo Nijkamp:
That was the essence, and I I oversee, let's say, the 25 years of this work and I can say that that was the most mission-driven activities, with, in the beginning, very slow resonance that you create, but gradually you get people more interested. And it was also to actually present those incidents that we were talking about, because those were the incidents that you could actually demonstrate. But you had to tell it in a certain way so that it would resonate in the language that people would understand. And that has been a journey also for ourselves, like you know. First of all you think, oh, you know, it's a clear issue, we just present it and they will see it. But they don't, because they don't recognize what they want to see. And you always have an audience that feel it irrelevant, like, oh, the next session is about white life. Okay, you know, then I'm going to work a bit on my computer long journey.
Hugo Nijkamp:
But I think we have insisted to continue that, and gradually also as well. You know, rob ho Holland is, for instance, one of these persons that from the beginning was really interested, also personally, to get this going and he did a lot of mission work to also internally OSRL in the first place. So there are some people here like Rob Holland that did so much. So, looking back, just a number of people that we tried to link together and actually make sure that you have some kind of a critical mass of visionary people that have also some influence. And that has been, I think, a thread line over those years continuously grabbing the people that you see, oh, you know that is a person that is influential and understands it, and we always, also in Sea Alarm, try to bind those people to that mission and even we had always that kind of people also on our board to make sure that they totally understand the whole picture and the mission in itself and become missionaries.
Paul Kelway:
Well, let's talk about over 20 years. Just some of the achievements of that work together. You mentioned Rob Holland, my colleague here at OSRL. Over 20 years, just some of the achievements of that work together. You mentioned rob holland, my colleague here at osrl. So the relationship between osrl and clm has enabled a number of preparedness deliverables over the years. So one of those has been the service to osrl's members of guaranteed access to clm's technical advice. So I did want to just ask you what is that service and why is that important to OSRL's members?
Hugo Nijkamp:
Yeah, that was from the beginning. When Sea Alarm and OSRL started working together, it was obviously that it was to serve the industry in incidents. So if Sea Alarm then was the actor to actually advise and to have that growing knowledge about how it would work and how this would become effective, then we would also be a good advisor that could be activated if industry ran into a problem. From the beginning that was one of the services that OSRL and Sea Alarm defined Okay, we are going to collaborate. So OSRL would say, if one of our members gets into a wildlife incident, then yeah, we also need to act. This was a big issue for us to step into because that was 24-7. But it also motivated the fact that Sea Alarm also should be on the phone all the time. So that also motivated the funding scheme on which the collaboration was faced. The 24-7 advisory that has now been existing 20 years, and not only in real-time incident but also in exercises, and I think through exercises that role also could be visualized, where you also can demonstrate what you bring to the table. So I think that has been essential. It also has actually given us a task from the beginning like oh my God, and really that has created a lot of awareness with us, like we are in that role.
Hugo Nijkamp:
We were the only, literally the only advisor that industry would activate globally. But then you look at the world and the diversity of the world, not only in countries, but also in biodiversity. So you have tropical environments, we've got polar environments and then anything in between. Then you suddenly realize like, oh, my god, you know what are the wildlife response profiles, you know. So you say well, okay, that is important, there needs to be some advice.
Hugo Nijkamp:
But at the same time you important, there needs to be some advice, but at the same time you think like this needs to be developed. You know we need to have concepts. So it has driven in our organization, but also trying to make everybody around us aware, like, guys, you know, if this is going on and you would be mobilized also as an expert, what are you going to do? Is it in your comfort zone or outside of your comfort zone? And, to be perfectly honest, where we are now, today, we've achieved a lot, but there's still so much where our mobilization will be out of our comfort zone and that really needs to be addressed and we are addressing that. You know it is important.
Paul Kelway:
You specifically mentioned understanding the profiles of certain countries, and so another tool that was developed by Sea Alarm, again as part of the work with OSRL is indeed a database of those profiles. You have actively developed a more coherent picture or understanding of if that country has preparedness systems. So could you just introduce that as a tool and also perhaps say, having looked at that and having almost developed more of a complete picture, what does that tell us? You were alluding to it already in terms of being out of our comfort zone, but what does that tell us about the state of preparedness globally?
Hugo Nijkamp:
This was actually a project that started in those early days. We didn't have that contract with Australia, but one of the champions were people in BP and they were saying we are perfectly interested, you know, in what you're doing, but, yes, maybe we can already get you going by funding you, by giving us some profiles about how prepared our countries and they knew that we were European based. So they said, well, you know, start with Europe. And while we actually started to create those profiles, which was basically like what is the level of preparedness of different countries and governmental systems? Also the kind of wildlife scenarios that you could expect Not so much the scenarios in full extent, but just what kind of animals can you expect and so we started that for a few countries. And while we were doing that, then we actually were linked to OSRL and then OSRL and Sea Alarm said, okay, you know, this could be really a good investment to include in the project. We also were very much advocating that because, yeah, you need to know who's whom. Also, in this bill, it would be very good to pre-identify which ministries, which governmental agencies would be the leading parties. And the idea was also, if we actually did develop a profile, you need to contact the countries and, who knows, is there some resonance Like, oh, we are not prepared. And there are some countries, like Brazil, that was not aware of where they would go with wildlife response and they certainly by our interview, certainly realized we don't have it and we've got a lot of activities out there and now Brazil is one of the most prepared countries. It is not because of our country profile, but I remember that the governmental agency realized that this was a gap and to their colleagues, we need to do something. And they were actually demanding like, okay, the industry should have a plan in place. That was coming out of that process. Our role was very minimal but it lights a spark.
Hugo Nijkamp:
So over the years we have progressively done most of the coastal countries on the world. So all these profiles, they have different dimensions. What are the species? What are the governments? What can we expect if something happens? Has there been wildlife incidents in the past or big incidents, that kind of stuff? We have now over a hundred countries, so really impressive.
Hugo Nijkamp:
And that also requires that at some point you need to start maintaining it, because it's obviously always a snapshot in time. So we are very much maintaining it. Sometimes there's a new one. Sometimes we are investing into updating it.
Hugo Nijkamp:
But if you look at the world map with countries that we managed to do, we know more or less how prepared the world is.
Hugo Nijkamp:
It's a good overview.
Hugo Nijkamp:
And then you start to look at okay, you know, can we actually do some kind of a classification where you can see like, okay, there's a graduation, maybe an experience, maybe they had experience and there might be some leftovers in terms of organizations that are still interested in training themselves to the highest level, which is countries that have a plan in place and not having a plan in place but also an implementation plan, so that it's not a plan on the shelf but also a implementation program linked to it that actually keeps the resources in a good shape, program linked to it that actually keeps the resources in a good shape.
Hugo Nijkamp:
No-transcript. Fantastic. If it's a big country, then immediately you know you get a big green spot on the map, so it looks really impressive. But there's also smaller countries that do it and that you cannot see the difference. But there's certainly there. But it always highlights the absolute majority of countries that are very little or not prepared, and that is often also in areas where there's industry activities, and that raises the question okay, there are risks, and obviously it doesn't happen that often, but you need to create awareness around that.
Paul Kelway:
Well, we should say that that database is a freely available resource through Sea Alarm. It's something that stakeholders can access and look at that information.
Hugo Nijkamp:
I would say the database is not public. We have a huge database in which you also keep the organizations and also the expertise. We cannot publish that, but what we publish is the narrative. So we are describing what preparedness levels are. The aim in the very beginning, in the dialogue with BP, we both realized that doing that investigation also creates intelligence, if you want, about who's whom in those countries. So if we then are mobilized as an advisor by the industry, we also have that material immediately available. So if it's as up-to as we can keep it, it gives us this critical advantage of not having to do lots of phone calls or whatever. We immediately can actually contact people in country to see what's happening and it creates that advantage of maybe a few days where you have a good entry of information.
Paul Kelway:
Yeah, that's the great added value of building that picture and, as you say, I mean Sea Alarm. There's that technical advisory role, which is essentially just because the world is not prepared and it's at least being able to tap into that advice, building that picture, but also then hopefully working with stakeholders to move the needle and see more of those countries being proactive and moving things forward. And part of that in terms of Sea Alarm's role has been trying to create more structural relationships between these key stakeholders, between Oil Spill response organizations, government and industry. And I guess the question on that is what's been the focus of that work and what has been the achievements around that over the last 20 years?
Hugo Nijkamp:
Well, there were many achievements and I would say also the contract and the relationship with OSRL in the background has been a very firm basis under what we've done, just for the fact that to have that stability also allows us to have all kinds of activities developing in that realm. So one of the things that I would like to highlight is also our work in Europe. Obviously, this is our backyard and if you look at it globally, europe has lots of collaboration between authorities, between countries for oil spill response management and globally you've got conventions that all coastal countries have signed. You know that you have to work together, but in Europe I think it's one of the regions where there's a lot of collaboration and that originally was very much on regional seas like the Baltic Sea. You've got HELCOM, then you've got the North Sea, atlantic is Bonn Agreement and in the Mediterranean you've got the Barcelona Agreement and then you almost have covered all the coastal waters, not only coastal but also offshore waters where spill can happen. And you've got the European Commission and the European Commission being part of all these agreements, but also the party that can come with a lot of funding to do projects. That was not accessible when we were starting because we were too small and we could not make proposals. But the moment that we actually, through the contract with OSRL, had, let's say, substance and we had people really on the payroll, that was qualifying us as a party that could develop proposals and where you have to partner, so we did not waste the opportunity. And where you have to partner, so we did not waste the opportunity.
Hugo Nijkamp:
In one of the first years, I mean, we had three of those projects proposed and financed One we were leading ourselves and the others we were partnering. But they were all about wildlife response. One was a scientific project what is the impact on animal populations? How do we measure it? To develop a guideline. One was to actually train and find wildlife responders that were knowing each other. But through that project we actually started developing, working together, also looking at guidelines. And there was a third we were leading ourselves and OSRL was also partnering in that one where we actually created a European wildlife document that was actually advocating that governments should plan for it and how they do it.
Hugo Nijkamp:
And that was the start of, over the years, numerous European projects that we could actually develop that were all directed towards making sure that governments, increasingly, would take this seriously and have documents, plans and also systems in place for mutual assistance, for instance. And meanwhile, through that project we could actually build our European network, eroa. That were organizations that knew each other from these spills and knew that we were all aiming at good practices, and those projects actually allowed us to set up EUROWA, not only as a network, but also a whole philosophy of making experts more prepared, working with the government agencies to train, and that has created a huge spinoff that all these regional agreements have adopted. So all the regional agreements have plans for mutual assistance and dealing with wildlife response.
Hugo Nijkamp:
Increasing number of countries are actually venturing into planning, so Europe in that sense, has a lot of governmental standards that could also be shared internationally, like how do you do that, what are those plans? And so there's a lot of value created there that also would benefit not only responses internationally but also preparedness processes internationally. It's a question of advocating this and having all that material in your hand. So it's huge and yeah, I would say that that was unthinkable in the early days that we get that far, but it has boosted a lot of preparedness and thinking, preparedness and recognition.
Paul Kelway:
Yeah, incredible progress. So that speaks to Europe and, as you mentioned, there were some elements of that in terms of some of those projects that there was some Sea Alarm collaborated on. The other one, of course, where there was strong collaboration was on that more global integration piece, more directed at the industry, which has ended up culminating in what's now a service through GOWRS. Can you talk also just about what was the alarm's role in that conversation and trying to move the needle on that integration?
Hugo Nijkamp:
yeah, there were various reasons why that should be developed. One was obviously that for all these years, we felt very alone in that 24 on 7, because we would be an advisor, but what you would need eventually is people that can actually respond, and meanwhile, we were actually trying to bind those organizations also inviting them into meetings or workshops that we would fund out of the project, where those organizations would come together, discuss these things, but they didn't have any formal relationship with the industry at large and that was, I felt, always not a good situation. They should somehow be part of this system. The Macondo incident in 2010 was one of these big incidents that was a global game changer, also for the industry, and that did a few things. Game changer also for the industry and that did a few things. One of the things was it generated a lot of interest into wildlife response and at that point, I think OSRL, Sea Alarm were very much in a place that we had a good language for that to stimulate that, and I remember at that moment, lots of projects was reining in into Sea Alarm Many companies wanting to explore or having a plan in place for wildlife, and it was overwhelmingly much, and what we did is actually taking that as a mechanism to involve these organizations that we thought would be important to get on board so that we could work together. We could actually also exchange ideas and the philosophy of what is a good plan, what is good preparedness.
Hugo Nijkamp:
So that was one of the processes. The other process was that organizations were still working on islands and so we used international meetings like the IOSC et cetera, where these organizations would come to, but also effects of oil on wildlife conferences to start talking. And so after the Macondo we actually thought we have now funds because also the consultancies gave income and also some budget for us to actually travel to those organizations. So we visited them where they were having private conversations, like, okay, you know, how do you see this, what would be your blockages that might occur, why would you not do it and can we take that away? And also that pre-work was actually to assess if everybody was willing and would consider that collaboration. We also put them together in one room in several occasions where we get everybody around the table and try to speak about it.
Hugo Nijkamp:
So that was a process going on to a moment in an EOW in New Orleans where I thought you know, do you want it or not. You know, I want to see it. And that was really confirmation like, yes, we would like to do that. And then Rob Holland was there as well, and I remember Rob and I sitting on the terrace like, yeah, now we have to materialize this. You know that they are ready to do it, but now we need to actually have industry getting into a process that it can be developed, and that led to the idea to have an Interspill lunch meeting the famous lunch meeting in 2012, where we had champions in the room and all international organizations that mattered, and then we actually presented this is your problem, but also this is your solution. You know you can now access the world's finest experts on a mission that we are creating that service for you, and we called it immediately like that's a global wildlife response system, and that meeting actually led to an invitation from the industry saying, okay, great, write us a plan. And then we created a workforce with different organizations to develop that plan, and also we invited different industry organizations. I thought to also be part of it so that it would be a good structure, and so we had then a plan and I, with Rob, all of that we called it dragon's den, where we had to sell that proposal to industry highest levels investors. That took years. The idea was good, but the timing of funding were all kind of things that had all the priorities, so it took a few years where we had to rewrite proposal, put it in, pitch it again. Know, there was a lot of things that Rob and I did, but eventually in 2015, it was done. Okay, Ipieca actually had money post-Macondo that they wanted to spend on that.
Hugo Nijkamp:
So the project started under an IPIECA contract and then we contracted the 10 organizations that were willing to collaborate. And that was a journey as well to see how are we going to do this, what would be the standard operational procedure? What is the good practice. So those two things were, in those early days, the key. And then that's a difficult process at the same time because you have to do it internationally, so you have to come together, you have to do it during a week where everybody can attend, and then you've got the workforce and then between that, yeah, there's a bit of work, everybody busy, so it's a process that actually took more years than we anticipated.
Hugo Nijkamp:
But industry understood that and actually OSRL then stepped in to say, okay, with our members, we will actually continue funding of it. So the contracts switched to OSRL, still to Sea Alarm, because we had all that subcontracts already in place, and so we did that in a few extensions until we came to a point and that was also a third line in the development where we actually encouraged those 10 organizations to be self-governed. So from the beginning we actually did that to make sure that they had language and also some documents that would actually bind them together like a self organizing system and in the end also to make sure that they could exist outside of Sea Alarm in the first place, so that we were actually facilitating that through contracts and the whole financial management of everything that we did. But that also needed to be more independent and that led to the decision of GOWRS to actually set up their own entity and eventually they would actually provide that service, which is the assessment team service that recently now has been signed, which is over those years.
Hugo Nijkamp:
It took a long time, but for the right reasons, because it is complex. You know that 10 organizations globally with different cultures, different experiences, different systems. They need to do it together, which is a fantastic thing, and obviously we facilitated that and also providing that support. But eventually that group has organized themselves quite well and now they are self-managed and self-supporting, which is great, and now they are part of the SLA. So that was the intention post Macondo and it has maybe taken 10 years to develop it, but it's there yeah, absolutely.
Paul Kelway:
It is a fantastic achievement and it's sort of bringing up all sorts of milestones which you, I certainly remember well from my involvement as well.
Hugo Nijkamp:
That is important, paul, I mean I should also mention you because I mean you have also played that pivotal role where you were in the US and we actually asked you to join Sea Alarm and also to be involved in that collaborative process and as part of Sea Alarm you actually did huge amounts of work and also demonstrate how that network could be coordinated by playing that coordinator role, and we allowed you to do that completely, almost independent from Sea Alarm.
Hugo Nijkamp:
But this has also created that role that it was very clear what coordination would mean and that is now being taken over by GOWRS itself, by Adam is now playing that role. That it was very clear what coordination would mean and that is now being taken over by GOWRS itself, by Adam is now playing that role. So I mean your role in that whole process and we know each other also. 25 years, that's something that we should also celebrate. But your role also should be mentioned doing that from different organizations, because I talked with you when you were still working for IBR also to look at how do you see the collaboration and how can you participate into that. So, anyway, we've done lots of things together over the years.
Paul Kelway:
I mean it's a very rich history in terms of development and I think, from my perspective, I think one of the things I've always admired about Sea Alarm is not just how productive and how effective Sea Alarm is as an organization, but also as well I mean under your leadership the fact that it's always taken this systems-wide approach. It's always looked out and said, well, this is what we want to do. But to do that, we need to fix the things around us and I think always continuing to think about that and just how much I think that's brought, because ultimately, all of these issues are connected and all the stakeholders are connected and Sea Alarm has driven that and it's been fantastic to have that relationship between OSRL and Sea Alarm to really work together on that.
Hugo Nijkamp:
Yeah well, I'm also very grateful about this long history. This has been a journey, but it hadn't been possible by lots of key individuals like Rob Holland. Obviously. You are, for sure, also one of these people. It's also funny that you came from Sea Alarm but you also have a longer history in wildlife response. We've grown together. That has been a great process. I just look forward to the future.
Paul Kelway:
There's lots of work to do Absolutely, absolutely, and that is a fantastic segue, I think, into talking about the GOWRS, as a collective now provides this sla service, which is a tier 3 old wildlife assessment service. So, with eurowa as a network being established and GOWRS also now being established, how does Sea Alarm work with those networks now that they're in place?
Hugo Nijkamp:
GOWRS is now self-managed and self-governed. The SLA service is there, and that is also a journey because, in principle, you deliver those services if it's needed, but you also need to prepare for that. So OSRL also sits itself in that service because you're providing the equipment and you're also the main contact to activate it. So the three organizations, we need to deliver this together, and so we also have to explore, like, how can we maximize each other's role and perfectly define it where it sits? And that is an ongoing process, and what GOWRS is now providing in the service is the assessment, but that also should be followed by a response. So doing that together is a question of dialogue, training together, exercising together and communicating a lot Inside GOWRS. There is also representation from from Eurowa, because there are three partners of the 10 that are also in the Eurowa network.
Hugo Nijkamp:
The European network is also self-governed. That is where we still have the secretariat function. We do that pro bono. That network is self-governed and that network has national networks that sit underneath. So we have national networks in Finland, in Estonia, in the Netherlands, in Germany, and that is a fantastic system to look at, because you have, in terms of philosophy, how you respond and also the good practices and the concepts that you want to put in place.
Hugo Nijkamp:
There is in that system. It's from local networks that understand it because they are trained on the basis of those euro guidelines and training. But euro are being part of a global network that also sharing the same standards and where you have different parties in different continents that also in their immediate region, are advocating, advocating that. So you have that very logical layered system that is in place and that is really what makes the world more prepared. And then in Europe we also have the government chipping in on that, because there's also over the years we've developed those systems. So you can then see that it all meets each other and then it suddenly works.
Paul Kelway:
Yeah, absolutely. And let's talk about a more recent incident to the ones that we talked about earlier, which was the Bow Jubail incident. That happened in Rotterdam Harbor in the Netherlands in 2018, which Sea Alarm was very involved in. So you talk about these different levels of preparedness In terms of that incident. How did that incident differ in terms of Sea Alarm was very involved in? So you talk about these different levels of preparedness In terms of that incident. How did that incident differ in terms of, I suppose, the response to looking at those incidents in the early 2000s? What was different about that in relation to a lot of those that Sea Alarm that had been involved in trying to advance?
Hugo Nijkamp:
Yeah, I would say that incident. So it was a harbour spill. It was a tanker. It was empty, a chemical tanker, but it had just bunkered and it ran into a pier. The oil was actually immediately through the tidal system of the harbour of Rotterdam, was spreading out of the harbour in a few hours and just at that time there were over 600 swans in that harbor in different places that were there Also molting. You know they were very vulnerable and that oil spill actually created over 500 animals being oiled and just be on the shore, and so it actually created self-mobilizing citizens rescuing these animals, assisted by the authorities, but it's created a huge quantitative problem and then it was decided to kick in the national plan, which is owned by Rijkswaterstaat.
Paul Kelway:
And they're an aspect of the Dutch government. That's the industry that oversees.
Hugo Nijkamp:
This leading oil spill response and it's also responsible for wildlife and the environmental quality status for wildlife and the environmental quality status. So CLM in the Netherlands has been involved since 2012 to train and exercise. So it's the implementation plan. So that spill happened in the Netherlands is maybe lucky because there was a lot of preparedness and then that spill created this big problem. The plan really was for the North Sea, not for the harbour. That was a bit of an issue, but once it was activated, part of the activation in the Netherlands is that you can respond on a large scale. So there is a temporary facility that you can build up. So the authority Rijkswaterstaat has a long-term contract with a contractor that knows how to do it, that there has been an interaction between them and also the wildlife response experts. So we knew how to do it. We had also practiced it in a very expensive exercise, but we knew how it should look like, and now we had to develop it for swans. But this is where Sea Alarm, with Rijkswaterstaat, we said we need maximum quality internationally because at the national level we have experts, but it's not enough, and so they allowed Sea Alarm to actually mobilize the international network. So we mobilized not only the European experts from different countries on the basis of their availability, but also we made sure that GOWRS was aware of that and they also could indicate if they had respondents available and on the basis of that availability we also mobilized organizations from the GOWRS network from other continents and together we actually made it work. And then you see that all these levels tier one, tier two, tier three can respond. So the Bow Jubail had that effect, where this was clearly such a demonstration and for the fact that we could set up this professional system large scale was hugely impressive and it had a lot of spin-off. One spin-off was that the authorities in the Netherlands were so happy and proud that this has happened and so the respect that they achieved from the public seeing that professional and there were ministers going into that system, you know, looking around and so there was such a positive news. But also in our report to the industry, to the OSRL members, this was such a clear evidence that this tiered response is working, but also the fact that you need to have the local responders prepared to do that, and this ignited a discussion within the members that eventually also led to another investment to actually organize an industry workshop in Cyprus to explore this. So how prepared are we? Now we need to look into it. What does that response mean?
Hugo Nijkamp:
At that point there was clear that GOWRS was building up and that it was going to become a service. Then also to say is that enough, can we get away with that globally? We also were invited to organize it and you were also still in Sea Alarm and helping to organize it, and also some members of GOWRS were also involved in the organization. The big eye-opener was a simulation exercise where really you would say, well, throw a dice, and here you are in a country and now you have to make it work. And then all the participants said, yeah, you know, this is crystal clear. We need to actually invest into that tiered response and making sure that at the national level we encourage and also stimulate that response capability. The tier one, tier two are essential building blocks in the tiered response.
Hugo Nijkamp:
So that workshop resulted in a roadmap and also resulted in the community of practice which you are now leading with some industry members.
Hugo Nijkamp:
But it was also that the people in cyprus said, okay, now we have this insight, we we need to stick together.
Hugo Nijkamp:
We are actually a enlightenment group that see it, but we need to be the champions of getting this understood in our companies. So the community of practice was actually the solution to keep that as a mission, as a journey. Then the guidelines from that was also indicating how the company do that and all the participants contributed to how would the company do that and all the participants contributed to what should a company do? And that the workshop led to all kinds of insights like okay, this is what a corporate level needs to be done, this is what at a business unit level needs to be done in country, and that is where it needs to happen. And how can we support it with the international expertise that we have around us including, you know, gaus, including Sea Alarm, including OSRL, including ITOPF, Cedre and all these parties that can actually bring expertise to the table. And that was a main outcome. And from that workshop, many people they came out of that workshop really inspired and we have captured that with that community of practice.
Paul Kelway:
It was great that you bring that up. I think it brings us up almost to where we are now and I think if we look back through the last 20 years, we can see so many developments and I think the value of that collaboration and bringing these different stakeholders together. You're talking a little bit now also about what's next, what else is needed in terms of actually making sure that what has developed in the Netherlands we see in other places, because, as you say, the value there that you had all three of those components coming together in a lot of places you don't. So I mean, if we just sense, check where we are right now. Looking ahead, what do you see as the risks, the gaps that remain? What do you see as those priorities for the years ahead?
Hugo Nijkamp:
We learned to look around us, because the world is changing all the time and on that journey that you start in the beginning, you find out like yeah, things are changing, you know, fundamentally changing. You need to look around and one of the issues that we have to do is there are a number of things happening Climate change, and that is more stormy and unusual weather environment which could affect shipping. There's the energy transition, which is alternative energy, which results in wind farms at sea, but also the whole of the shipping industry now investing into alternative fuels and there are transition fuels in the meantime. So that is also where we are investing into Sea Alarm to actually study that, and we did a European project to also look at that. But it also reflects back to wildlife response and wildlife response with that Because, on the one hand, the energy transition takes decades.
Hugo Nijkamp:
We want to do it very fast, but you can see it runs into all kinds of difficulties by which the timeline is unsure, but there's a lot of political pressure and a lot of motivation also in society to go that way. So energy transition is happening. But if we look at the marine environment and the marine wildlife, what are the new risks for wildlife? On the one hand you can say, well, oil is still around and it will be still around for decades because the ship owners need to keep the current vessels going and that needs still oil. So oil is being transported. So the risks are still there. The fuel is still based on oil, even if it's alternative fuels. It is now low sulfur oil or very low self oil, and we've studied this. We are following that very with a lot of interest. But the behavior of the new intermediate fuels are different from the classical fuels. That means that also the equipment doesn't work as you would like to, so there's a need to look at it through it. But it also means that in a real incident with those fuels you know you might not be able to stop the oil from going into the wildlife areas and that oil will have similar effects, you know the same effect as the old oil. That way you can see that the risk relatively is increasing. Then you've got the real alternative fuels like hydrogen, methanol and biofuels, everything that is now coming on the market. Those come with different risks where you can say, well, yeah, there are risks and those risks are always looked at as risks to humans. But the same risk for humans is also for the animals. That's the same. Risk for humans is also for the animals. That's the same.
Hugo Nijkamp:
So we need to, as a wildlife response community, we have to migrate our knowledge with those things, and it requires research. You know what are the effects? Well, we have this conference effects of oil on animals. Yeah, oiled wildlife Great, fantastic, for decades. But that terminology needs to be widened. It's pollution effects on wildlife. That is the new for the decades to come. That's one part, and climate change also leads to shifts into where animals are, the species. They might also be a bit more at risk because they also, as a population, are more vulnerable, and so the quality of the response needs to also be there. The importance of wildlife response preparedness is only increasing, but we need to migrate with that.
Hugo Nijkamp:
The other thing that we need to do in the SLA with the members is to define and put in place the next step providing a response. Because what is now in the SLA is the assessment Is the response feasible, what is happening and if it is feasible, what is needed. And that is where the assessment stops. But the logical thing next is okay, we should respond, but that needs also a further structural embedding of how does that transition go. And I find it urgent because it's fantastic that we have the GOWRS, but we also have that expertise at tier three level.
Hugo Nijkamp:
But what we need to explore is also how effective can you be as a tier three response organization if you're landing in a country that is not prepared and on top of it, mobilized by a company that is relatively not and on top of it mobilized by a company that is relatively not as prepared for wildlife as you would like to have? What can we do? That is a serious discussion and it goes two ways that on the one hand, we need to look at the three organizations. How, harry Potter can we be? How can we make things happen in short time? At which scale? Because it's scale that is important. We can always make things happen in short time. At which scale? Because it's scale that is important. We can always make things happen. But which scale can we actually make things happen.
Hugo Nijkamp:
So the Bow jubail 500, I don't say it's easy, but you can say it's doable because you have the infrastructure and the capability. But if you have to do that in I don't know which country which is not prepared, you don't have the contractor that builds temporary facility, you don't have the authorities that are buying in on it. You don't have this. All I think are empty gaps. And then you come in as a tier three, like, oh, that's a good idea, you know? Yeah, now how how big is then the facility and what are you going to do with the other animals? That goes into all kind of things. That also you need to talk with the local entities, because it's about what can you do with an animal that you cannot treat. You know euthanasia, that is not in all cultures a straightforward thing, and so all these things are important to realize.
Paul Kelway:
Thank you for listening to the Response Force Multiplier from OSRL. Please like and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts, and stay tuned for more episodes as we continue to explore key issues in emergency response and crisis management. For more information, head to oilspillresponse. com. See you soon.
