English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background: Little research has been conducted with the aim to identify and compare countries’ best practices to fund preparedness and assess their ability to respond effectively to catastrophic spills. The authors believe that important lessons can be learned from this analysis. Aims: To undertake a comparison of the North American and European approaches to deal with oil spills for building a methodology which identifies best practices and assesses their level of preparedness. Methods’. Examination through case study analysis of contingency plans, legislation and past response to selected spills in countries with two different financing approaches: (a) the government-potential polluter approach and (b) government-only approach. The soft system methodology and capability maturity model are applied to ranking countries’ practices into levels of performance. Results: A general methodology which identifies three parameters to assess preparedness systems:Oil pollution legislation,Contingency planning practices, andResponse performance in past selected spills Each parameter establishes a set of best practices (indicators) which can be used to analyse and evaluate the countries’ systems in a qualitative manner. Limitations: Ranking of countries is not presented here. This should be undertaken in consultation with responders in order to reduce the authors’ subjectivity. Nonetheless, certain conclusions regarding preparedness systems in Europe may be drawn based upon the authors’ examination of the above parameters. Practical implications: The methodology provides a quick overview of the elements of preparedness which require more attention or where further steps should be taken to improve them. It backs current efforts for a wide harmonization of standards in oil pollution response. Conclusions: The development of best practices is better achieved in countries which are implementing: (i) risk based legislation and (ii) policies promoting the participation of the oil and shipping industries, either by means of expertise assistance and/or providing sustainable means of financing preparedness measures. Key words: “assessing preparedness,” “oil spills,” “maritime policy,” “contingency planning,” “potential polluter pays”.

proceedings/proceedings /

EXPLORING A METHODOLOGY TO ASSESS COUNTRIES' PREPAREDNESS PRACTICES - OUTCOMES FROM A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE EUROPEAN AND NORTH AMERICAN APPROACHES