PORTS AND WATERWAYS SAFETY ASSESSMENT PAWSA

1. PORTS AND WATERWAYS SAFETY ASSESSMENT (PAWSA) A Risk-Based Tool for Waterway Management Decisions It’s an honor and pleasure to be here today to tell you about the Ports and Waterways Safety Assessment and its connection to the IALA risk assessment model.It’s an honor and pleasure to be here today to tell you about the Ports and Waterways Safety Assessment and its connection to the IALA risk assessment model.

2. PAWSA Background Process Sample Results Applying Results In the course of this afternoon’s presentation I will discuss some background as to how the model was derived; I will briefly walk you through the process; I will show some sample results and explain how the results were applied. In the course of this afternoon’s presentation I will discuss some background as to how the model was derived; I will briefly walk you through the process; I will show some sample results and explain how the results were applied.

3. Background Accident Analyses Probabilistic Models Risk Analyses Over the past forty or so years, the world’s maritime nations have employed various methods to determine how best to apply limited resources to serve the mariner, prevent accidents, protect the marine environment and promote the efficient movement of commerce. These have included accident analyses in which individual accidents are broken down and scrutinized to determine their root cause. Probabilistic Models in which traffic, weather, and other measurable factors are applied in an effort to calculate the likelihood of an accident and the extent of its impact.Over the past forty or so years, the world’s maritime nations have employed various methods to determine how best to apply limited resources to serve the mariner, prevent accidents, protect the marine environment and promote the efficient movement of commerce. These have included accident analyses in which individual accidents are broken down and scrutinized to determine their root cause. Probabilistic Models in which traffic, weather, and other measurable factors are applied in an effort to calculate the likelihood of an accident and the extent of its impact.

4. Background Accident Analyses Probabilistic Models Risk Analyses All of these methods have merit, but risk analysis has evolved as a promising tool. But, like any tool, it must be properly applied and suited to the task. A proper risk analysis should take into account the factors that influence the likelihood of a catastrophic event as well as the consequences of the event. All inputs to the analysis must be verifiable and assumptions should be minimized. Most importantly, the results must be defensible. In PAWSA, we are confident we have such a tool. All of these methods have merit, but risk analysis has evolved as a promising tool. But, like any tool, it must be properly applied and suited to the task. A proper risk analysis should take into account the factors that influence the likelihood of a catastrophic event as well as the consequences of the event. All inputs to the analysis must be verifiable and assumptions should be minimized. Most importantly, the results must be defensible. In PAWSA, we are confident we have such a tool.

5. Key Features Local Expert Opinion Flexible and Easy to Use Systematic Evaluation Broad Risk Driver Coverage Defensible Results The key features that distinguish PAWSA are that it’s a 2 day workshop that involve some 30 participants who represent a diverse cross-section of expert waterway users and stakeholders. These participants use their local expert opinion to drive the results of the assessment. The files used in the PAWSA have been developed on a common platform (Microsoft Office), are not hard-coded in a programming language, use fundamental statistical formulas, and were developed with ease of use in mind, which makes changes and updates relatively easy. The participants are lead through a systematic evaluation of the waterway which discusses and quantifies 24 major factors that influence the risk of a marine incident. The PAWSA was developed, in a broad sense, for gathering information to find balance between several factors in order to make an informed and defensible resource allocation decision. One factor is the needs of the waterway user and stakeholder. Without knowing the public’s concerns, it will be difficult to craft solutions to their problems. Another aspect that needs consideration are the risk drivers. While it is common to talk about risk in a ‘probabilistic’ manner, you must also consider the consequences of the event. Catastrophic oil spills are an excellent example of consequences increase ‘risk’. The probability of a major oil spill is actually very low. However, the environmental and economic impact of the spill is so great that millions of dollars, euros, and pounds are spent every year in order to minimize the probability and the consequences of such a catastrophe. The PAWSA risk model considers risk factors relating to the probability AND consequences of an incident occurring. The effectiveness of a proposed solution should also be considered during the decision-making process. No one wants or likes spending time and money on activities without a good chance of positive return. Worse, some well-intentioned solution could actually increase the risk. Finally, the cost of a proposed solution will always be a significant factor when deciding on a course of action. However, the PAWSA process leaves this part of the balancing act to the organization or government responsible for making resource allocation decisions. Nevertheless, the output of the PAWSA provides decision-makers a list of proposed actions, their estimated effectiveness, and what risk factor they address. The key features that distinguish PAWSA are that it’s a 2 day workshop that involve some 30 participants who represent a diverse cross-section of expert waterway users and stakeholders. These participants use their local expert opinion to drive the results of the assessment. The files used in the PAWSA have been developed on a common platform (Microsoft Office), are not hard-coded in a programming language, use fundamental statistical formulas, and were developed with ease of use in mind, which makes changes and updates relatively easy. The participants are lead through a systematic evaluation of the waterway which discusses and quantifies 24 major factors that influence the risk of a marine incident. The PAWSA was developed, in a broad sense, for gathering information to find balance between several factors in order to make an informed and defensible resource allocation decision. One factor is the needs of the waterway user and stakeholder. Without knowing the public’s concerns, it will be difficult to craft solutions to their problems. Another aspect that needs consideration are the risk drivers. While it is common to talk about risk in a ‘probabilistic’ manner, you must also consider the consequences of the event. Catastrophic oil spills are an excellent example of consequences increase ‘risk’. The probability of a major oil spill is actually very low. However, the environmental and economic impact of the spill is so great that millions of dollars, euros, and pounds are spent every year in order to minimize the probability and the consequences of such a catastrophe. The PAWSA risk model considers risk factors relating to the probability AND consequences of an incident occurring. The effectiveness of a proposed solution should also be considered during the decision-making process. No one wants or likes spending time and money on activities without a good chance of positive return. Worse, some well-intentioned solution could actually increase the risk. Finally, the cost of a proposed solution will always be a significant factor when deciding on a course of action. However, the PAWSA process leaves this part of the balancing act to the organization or government responsible for making resource allocation decisions. Nevertheless, the output of the PAWSA provides decision-makers a list of proposed actions, their estimated effectiveness, and what risk factor they address.

6. Using Experts Requires Cross Section of Users, Planners, and Stakeholders Promotes Participant Buy-In of Results Answers Correlate with Known Quantitative Values Not Reliant on Available Data The key to a successful PAWSA is the selection and gathering of the right participants. They need to represent a cross-section of waterway users, planners, and stakeholders and can reasonably be considered ‘experts’ in their field or constituency. Their participation helps improve buy-in of the assessment results. It’s not a distant government body, or endless tables of numbers, or a private think-tank providing the input that drives the results. The comments, suggestions, and numbers are coming from a representative body of those who would be impacted by actions resulting from the PAWSA. We’ve found that, for those risk factors which could easily be assessed using input from external sources that the results from the participants closely matches published information. We also found that attempting to ‘front load’ the risk model with that published input almost always results in extended debate on its accuracy. Finally, because all of the input comes from the participants, the PAWSA is NOT reliant on having data available. This gives the assessment the flexibility to effectively evaluate lesser used / developed waterways that don’t have established data sources.The key to a successful PAWSA is the selection and gathering of the right participants. They need to represent a cross-section of waterway users, planners, and stakeholders and can reasonably be considered ‘experts’ in their field or constituency. Their participation helps improve buy-in of the assessment results. It’s not a distant government body, or endless tables of numbers, or a private think-tank providing the input that drives the results. The comments, suggestions, and numbers are coming from a representative body of those who would be impacted by actions resulting from the PAWSA. We’ve found that, for those risk factors which could easily be assessed using input from external sources that the results from the participants closely matches published information. We also found that attempting to ‘front load’ the risk model with that published input almost always results in extended debate on its accuracy. Finally, because all of the input comes from the participants, the PAWSA is NOT reliant on having data available. This gives the assessment the flexibility to effectively evaluate lesser used / developed waterways that don’t have established data sources.

7. Systematic Process Steps Build on Each Other Expertise Evaluation Baseline Risk Mitigation Effectiveness Additional Interventions Transparent Calculations Results Traceable to Participant Input The PAWSA is a systematic process that builds on the results of the previous evaluation. Expertise Evaluation - Participants have varying expertise with respect to the risk categories, the Expertise Evaluation is used to weigh the strengths of each participant with respect to the risk categories. Calculate Risk Scales - Each of the 24 risk factors are described in qualitative terms, such that they range from a benign, best case scenario to a highly dangerous, worst case risk scenario. Two intermediate qualitative levels describe risk somewhere in between. Baseline Risk Evaluation – participants simply check the box next to the qualitative descriptor for a particular risk factor that best matches conditions in the waterway being evaluated. The qualitative descriptor has a numerical value associated with it. Mitigation Effectiveness Evaluation –participants are asked to circle a number on a 1 to 9 scale that shows the level of risk INCLUDING the existing mitigations and indicate whether they think existing mitigations address the risks for each factor (or not). Usually, participants will circle a number on the 1 to 9 scale smaller than the mark denoting the risk level. Additional Intervention Evaluation – After the participants have presented / discussed their risk mitigation ideas, they are asked to write short phrases (3 to 5 words each) describing which ideas they think have merit. The PAWSA is a systematic process that builds on the results of the previous evaluation. Expertise Evaluation - Participants have varying expertise with respect to the risk categories, the Expertise Evaluation is used to weigh the strengths of each participant with respect to the risk categories. Calculate Risk Scales - Each of the 24 risk factors are described in qualitative terms, such that they range from a benign, best case scenario to a highly dangerous, worst case risk scenario. Two intermediate qualitative levels describe risk somewhere in between. Baseline Risk Evaluation – participants simply check the box next to the qualitative descriptor for a particular risk factor that best matches conditions in the waterway being evaluated. The qualitative descriptor has a numerical value associated with it. Mitigation Effectiveness Evaluation –participants are asked to circle a number on a 1 to 9 scale that shows the level of risk INCLUDING the existing mitigations and indicate whether they think existing mitigations address the risks for each factor (or not). Usually, participants will circle a number on the 1 to 9 scale smaller than the mark denoting the risk level. Additional Intervention Evaluation – After the participants have presented / discussed their risk mitigation ideas, they are asked to write short phrases (3 to 5 words each) describing which ideas they think have merit.

8. Risk Categories and Factors

9. Risk Scales

10. Identifying the Risk

11. Charting the Results

12. Evaluating Mitigations

13. Additional Measures

14. Applying Results More than 40 assessments completed Numerous AtoN improvements Two new VTS Improved communications in an existing VTS Recognition of local safety issues Partnerships between government and industry in several ports…

15. Moving Forward IALA Generic Risk Model PAWSA IALA Waterway Risk Assessment Program (IWRAP) Continued Refinement Continued refinement by the Working Group.Continued refinement by the Working Group.

16. Additional Information Mike Sollosi, U.S. Coast Guard msollosi@comdt.uscg.mil IALA iala-aism@wanadoo.fr On the Web www.iala-aism.org