Plan is in place, but training is lacking

A performance audit on measures to prevent and to deal with pollution from ships at sea and in harbours has found that measures to deal with such pollution from ships are generally in place.

However the National Maritime Pollution Contingency Plan, drafted in 1999, was not supported by funds for its development and for personnel training and there were problems over its ownership.

The performance audit was carried out by the National Audit Office and tabled in parliament yesterday.

The report says that structures and procedures, including inspection criteria and information systems relating to ship inspections are critical areas which need to be kept under continuous focus by the Malta Maritime Authority. An extensive project was underway within the 2002 national European Union pre-accession programme for Malta aiming to improve the quality and safety of shipping.

"Issues relating to the ownership, approval, management and operations of the National Marine Pollution Contingency Plan (NMPCP) need to be resolved as a matter of priority in order to maintain clear lines of accountability and ongoing commitment by the government and the entities involved," the report says.

The NMPCP defines the roles of the different government entities in case of an emergency or incident that threatens the marine or coastal environment. The plan aims to enhance existing (public and private) capabilities in the event of a pollution incident by ensuring a coordinated and cost-effective response.

The plan envisages three magnitudes of oil spillage - low level involving less than 10 tons, medium level of 10 to 1,000 tons and high level with over 1,000 tons of oil involved.

Low level spillages are common and cleaning up is normally carried out by the polluter.

A tier two incident triggers a coordinated response with the director of the Environment Protection Department (EPD) assuming the role of overall commander who would head the Emergency Response Command Committee (ERCC). The main players involved in such incident response would be the Environment Protection Department, the armed forces, the Malta Maritime Authority and the Civil Protection Department.

In the case of a tier three incident, the initial response process would be as for tier two. However, spillage in this category would be considered a national disaster and would need to be dealt with at the national level with optimal promptness and efficiency and with international assistance.

The report says that while key personnel of the main players were well aware of their roles, "this may not be the case in other government entities".

In the course of the audit, the National Audit Office said it interviewed key personnel involved in the drafting of the plan and they maintained that the plan had not been officially approved and adopted as government policy.

The master plan held by the Civil Protection Department referred to a national plan for combating marine pollution, not specifically the NMPCP, as the applicable contingency plan in case of marine pollution.

The report also complains of a lack of training in terms of the plan.

"The perceived absence of official approval of the plan has been mooted as one explanation, another being insufficient funds for an apparent lack of commitment to deploy human resources for training exercises.

"Indeed no maintenance and development of the plan had been made since it was drafted in 1999."

Personnel training was carried out in 1999 and a fairly extensive half day simulation exercise was held in October 2000.

A training exercise in 2001 was "very limited in scope" and a training session was held in May 2002 consisting only of a small spill containment and removal simulation exercise.

"In view of the fact that the comprehensiveness of training exercises has been reduced every year since 1999, training may have become inadequate, both in terms of preparedness of personnel as well as the identification of potential defects in the plan. The head of the Oil Pollution Response Module (OPRM) confirmed that tier three (high level) disaster scenario has never been tested," the report says.

"The plan was not supported by funds budgeted specifically for its ongoing development and for personnel training on a national basis at least once a year," it adds.

It also pointed out that in March last year, the OPRM was transferred from the Environment Protection Department to the Works Division. And the Environment Protection Department, which owned the plan prior to that date, became part of Mepa, now within the Ministry of Rural Affairs and the Environment.

"As a result of these transfers, ownership of the national plan became unclear...

"These issues are considered as diminishing accountability and the commitment required to ensure that the aims of the plan are maintained," the report said.