a 'guide to health impact assessments

Substance misuseA guide for managers and super visors in the oil and gas industr y

Health

A guide tohealth impactassessmentsSubstance misuseA guide for managers and super visors in the oil and gas industr y

Health

in the oil and gas industry

2005

Substance misuseA guide for managers and super visors in the oil and gas industr y

Health

Photographs: cover, clockwise from top left: Marci Balge & Gary Krieger (Newfields LLC); Photodisc Inc.; ChevronTexaco; BP • page 1: Corbis • pages 2, 4, 6, 10, 11 and 14: Marci Balge & Gary Krieger (Newfields LLC) •page 3: FAO • page 5: Photodisc Inc. • pages 7 and 17: BP • page 9:TOTAL • pages 11 and 15: ChevronTexaco • page 13: PSASA

A Pocket Guide to

Health Impact Assessments

This Pocket Guide is a ‘quick-reference’

supplement to the IPIECA/OGP publication

entitled A Guide to Health Impact Assessments.

It provides a summary checklist of activities

to consider when conducting health impact

assessments in the oil and gas industry.

International Petroleum IndustryEnvironmental Conservation Association


IPIECAInternational Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association

5th Floor, 209–215 Blackfriars Road, London SE1 8NL, United Kingdom

Telephone: +44 (0)20 7633 2388 Facsimile: +44 (0)20 7633 2389

E-mail: [email protected] Internet: www.ipieca.org

OGPInternational Association of Oil & Gas Producers

London office

5th Floor, 209–215 Blackfriars Road, London SE1 8NL, United Kingdom


E-mail: [email protected] Internet: www.ogp.org.uk

Brussels office

Boulevard du Souverain 165, 4th Floor, B-1160 Brussels, Belgium


E-mail: [email protected] Internet: www.ogp.org.uk

This document was prepared by NewFields Consulting (Gary Krieger and

Marci Balge) on behalf of the OGP-IPIECA Health Committee.

HIA Editorial Team

Alison Martin (BP) (Issue Group Chair), Angelo Madera (Eni),

Frano Mika (Eni-Saipem), Martin Birley (Shell), HansPeter Wiebing (Shell),

Erik Dahl-Hansen (ExxonMobil), Jonathan Ross (BG Group),

Eva Shammas (Statoil), Craig Friedmann (ConocoPhillips), Jim Allen (Unocal)

© IPIECA/OGP 2005.All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, storedin a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior consent of IPIECA/OGP.

This publication is printed on paper manufactured from fibre obtained from sustainably grown softwood forestsand bleached without any damage to the environment.

A Guide to

Health Impact Assessmentsin the oil and gas industry

A G U I D E TO H E A LT H I M PAC T A S S E S S M E N T S I N T H E O I L A N D G A S I N D U S T RY

ii

1 Purpose of this Guide

2 What is Health Impact Assessment (HIA)?3 When to carry out an HIA

4 What types of HIA are available?

5 Scope of a comprehensive HIA

8 Benefits

9 The HIA process9 Screening

9 Scoping

10 Stakeholder communication and consultation

10 Risk assessment or appraisal

13 Decision making

14 Mitigation strategies

14 Implementation and monitoring

16 Evaluation and verification of performance and effectiveness

16 Resourcing

16 Cost and time management

17 Further reading

18 List of acronyms

19 A ‘Guide to Health Impact Assessments’ on CD-ROM

This Guide to Health Impact Assessments in the Oil and Gas Industry is

also available in PDF format on the IPIECA CD-ROM of the same

title. Hyperlinks are included throughout the document to facilitate

access to related information on the Internet, and to supporting

documentation included on the CD-ROM.The hyperlinks are

indicated in this printed version by way of the blue underlined text.

Contents

Purpose of this Guide


1

This Guide defines and outlines thepurpose and value of Health Impact

Assessments (HIAs) within the oil and gasindustry. It aims to describe the overall HIAprocess as it is currently understood andpractised. HIA is a useful and beneficial toolfor business, communities and governmentpolicy makers. Experience within the oil andgas industry suggests that health is a criticalissue both to the project workforce and thesurrounding communities. The oil and gasindustry faces a complex agenda thatincreasingly requires an evaluation of health,social and environmental impacts throughoutall of its operations. This concern is oftenexpressed in all phases of exploration,production, refining and marketing activities.Initially, the impact assessment focused onenvironmental performance; however, over thepast several years, the ‘license to operate’ hasencompassed both environmental and socialperformance. These issues are sometimesconsidered part of the overall corporate socialresponsibility movement. While health andsafety issues have always received the highestpriority for any project, the traditional focus wason worker health and safety within thegeographical boundaries of a proposed project.Community health outreach programmes andassessments have frequently been performed butnot considered a mandatory performancerequirement. Within the context ofenvironmental and social issues, the oil and gasindustry is increasingly asked to addressproblems that, traditionally, are ‘outside the fence

line’ and considered responsibilities of the hostgovernment.A similar evolution and expansionof assumed responsibilities for the industry hasbeen advocated by many stakeholders in theinternational public health community. Oil andgas companies need to understand and considerthe potential public health impact of theiroverall activities and projects on host societies inorder to understand and address theirresponsibilities appropriately.

The practice of HIA is relatively new andrapidly developing, particularly in comparisonto either the environmental or social impactassessment process for new or existing oil andgas projects. Therefore, health-specific HIAstandards of practice and technicalmethodologies are less well defined andestablished.Within the HIA field, a significantdifference between ‘policy HIA’ and ‘projectHIA’ has developed. Policy level HIA couldbe developed for a specific industrial sector,e.g. extractive industries, by government andmultilateral lending institutions like the WorldBank. However, the purpose of this guidancedocument is to create a common understandingof the basic concerns, principles and practicesof HIA for the oil and gas industry thatwould be relevant across a diversity ofprojects. In this publication, the term ‘projectHIA’ includes both new proposed activitiesand existing operations.

The accompanying CD-ROM containsadditional materials that provide greater detailand depth, particularly regarding the differentsteps in the overall HIA process.


2

What is Health Impact Assessment?

‘Health Impact Assessment’ is a compoundterm reflecting two different concepts—healthand impact assessment. ‘Health’ is broadlydefined by the World Health Organization(WHO) as a state of complete physical, mentaland social well-being and not simply theabsence of disease or infirmity. Within thiscontext, health is considered as a resource foreveryday life, not simply as the object of living.Health is characterized as a positive conceptemphasizing social and personal resources aswell as physical capabilities. ‘Impact Assessment’describes the systematic analysis of the lastingor significant changes, positive or negative,intended or not, in people’s lives and thenatural environment brought about by a givenaction or series of actions.The WHO/ECHPreport Health Impact Assessment: main concepts andsuggested approach (Gothenburg consensus paper,1999) describes HIA as ‘a combination ofprocedures, methods and tools by which apolicy, programme or project may be judged asto its potential effects on the health of apopulation, and the distribution of those effectswithin the population’. As currently practiced,two key characteristics define HIA: predictingthe consequences of different options; andinfluencing and assisting decision makers. Acomprehensive HIA is a participative andinteractive process with a broad range ofstakeholders at every level within the hostsociety. In addition, health assessment, alongwith its environmental and social components,is increasingly considered by internationalstakeholders (for example non-governmentalorganizations (NGOs) and financial institutions)as an essential component of the overall impactassessment process. HIA can be used at anystage of the industry life cycle, whether this isnew country entry, exploration anddevelopment, modification of an existingactivity or closure of previous projects. HIAmakes recommendations to mitigate impactsand enhance health opportunities as part of theplanning process for health outreach

programmes that extend beyond the fence lineand into surrounding communities.This mayinclude proposals for health outreachprogrammes or for other social programmes, forexample, vocational training, local waterprojects, market gardens. All such programmescan provide health benefits.

HIA seeks to identify and estimate thelasting or significant changes of different actionson the health of a defined population. Thesechanges can be positive or negative, intended ornot, single or cumulative. Furthermore, therange of changes may or may not be evenlydistributed across the population.The potentialfor uneven differences is a major concern formany HIA practitioners and is generallyreferred to as the ‘assessment of equity’. Theoverall mitigation strategy is further developedinto an implementation plan that includes along-term monitoring (surveillance) programme.The overall programme should be periodicallyevaluated and reviewed.

The HIA process contains many of theideas and practices articulated by ‘strategichealth management (SHM)’ a concept that haspreviously been embraced by the oil and gasindustry in a 2000 OGP paper Strategic HealthManagement: Principles and guidelines for the oiland gas industry. SHM is a set of planning andcoordination principles and activities thatcover critical interactions over the life of aproject. Typically a SHM exercise would beappropriate in a large multi-year project. ManySHM concepts are integrated into the broader

Health isdetermined by amultiplicity offactors, includingsocio-economic and environmental.


3

scope of HIA, although HIA is a separateprocess. SHM principles are neverthelessrelevant in guiding the implementation ofoverall health plans developed within thegeneral HIA framework, particularly forcommunity outreach health programmes.

When to carry out an HIA

HIAs are one of several types of impactassessment considered in the oil and gasindustry. Table 1 compares the HIA withseveral other common impact assessments. It islikely that there will be some overlap betweendifferent impact assessments, particularlybetween the health and social evaluations.Coordination with environmental and socialimpact assessment teams is therefore critical toavoid unnecessary duplication of communitymeetings and stakeholder sessions. Conversely,there is substantial synergy between certainaspects of the social and environmental

assessments and the health impact analysis. Forexample, impacts of vector diseases are a cross-cutting issue between environmental, socialand health. In subsequent sections, the linkagesbetween health, environment and socialevaluations will be further explored.

There are three possible time frames inwhich an HIA may be conducted:● prospective;● concurrent or surveillance; and ● retrospective or evaluation.

Some HIA practitioners feel that the terms‘concurrent’ and ‘retrospective’ should no longerbe attached to HIA since the ‘predictive’ orprospective aspect of the HIA is one of itsdefining characteristics.The terms ‘concurrent’and ‘retrospective’ have been, and continue tobe, widely used in the literature and are wellunderstood, particularly from a classicepidemiological perspective. A prospective HIAconsiders some policy, programme or projectthat has not yet been implemented and

Table 1 Comparison of HIA and other common impact assessments

HIA EIA SIA ESIA Strategic Impact Assessment

● Recommended, by theWorld HealthOrganization, EU, WB,UNEP, ILO, FAO

● Impact on health status,with the definition ofhealth encompassingthe state of completephysical, mental andsocial well-being.Health is determined bya multiplicity of factorsincluding socio-economic andenvironmental factors

● Communityparticipation critical andintegral part of theprocess

Usually project- and location-specific; starts during project conception, its results feed decisions in the designphase, implementation and throughout the project life cycle.

Source: Guide to Social Impact Assessments, Draft 2. IPIECA 2004.

● Often required bylegislation

● Impact on theenvironment (soil,air, water, wastes,fauna, flora andhuman activities)

● Consultation phaseoften legislated

● Usually carried outvoluntarily by theCompany

● Impact oncommunities(including impactson socio-economics,culture, religion,commit, beliefs,values andorganization)

● Consultationrequired all throughthe process, and as atool to collectbaseline information

● Often required bylegislation

● Impact on bothenvironment andcommunities (butoften restricted tosocio-economicimpacts). Healthimpacts are rarelydetailed and oftenrestricted tonegative impacts

● Consultation phaseoften legislated

● Usually carried out voluntarily by Company

● National and regional policy and impacts considered

● Integrates health, social, environmental and policy issues

● Starts well in advance of plan or project execution


4

considers the potential consequences. Mitigationmeasures can be actively designed andimplemented so that primary prevention isachieved. In a concurrent or surveillance assessment,the consequences are monitored as the project isimplemented such that mitigation activity canbe undertaken promptly. In a surveillanceexercise, consequences are expected but theirnature is uncertain. Early recognition of adverseimpacts allows for timely intervention orsecondary prevention.A retrospective or evaluationassessment looks at the consequences of apreviously implemented policy, programme,project or unplanned event. Frequently a givenactivity may be too small to produce identifiablelasting or significant changes. However, if thereare many small activities, the perceived totaleffect may create a major or cumulative impact.In response to this concern, there has beenconsideration for assessments to be carried outat national or regional levels—a process knownas ‘strategic impact assessment’. Assessments atthe strategic impact level often cover issues andconcerns over which a potential project hasrelatively little control or influence.

What types of HIA are available?

There are two basic types of HIA that arecurrently performed:● Comprehensive HIA: This approach

consists of a detailed process that includesthe basic elements of screening, scoping,

stakeholder consultation, risk assessment,implementation and monitoring, qualityassurance and verification.A comprehensiveHIA is a time-intensive study that is suitablefor large, complex and high profile projects.In the past, some HIA practitioners haveargued for an ‘intermediate’ HIA; however,this term has largely been replaced by therapid appraisal HIA concept.

● Rapid appraisal HIA: These are lessintensive efforts and are often subdividedinto ‘mini HIA’ and ‘desktop HIA’. Amini HIA uses information already availableor easily accessible. New data collection isnot considered, and this is a definingcharacteristic. Some type of limitedworkshop or discussion with key internaland external stakeholders is planned.Specific and relatively narrow boundariesor parameters are specified. A fullyquantitative risk assessment exercise is notperformed; however, a qualitative assessmentis documented. A record for externalrelease is developed. In contrast, a desktopHIA is internal to the organization andused to inform and comment on theproposal direction. Community or externalstakeholder consideration is not performedand an external record is not developed.These descriptions are not meant to imply

that flexibility and choice are not available. AnHIA practitioner can exercise professionaldiscretion and add, where appropriate, different


Large pipelineprojects areappropriate forcomprehensive HIA.

Examples of impactson health include:respiratory diseaserisks from road dust;accident risks fromincreased traffic;STIs from informalovernight stops; andnoise pollution.


5

elements of the comprehensive HIA process toeither the mini or desktop HIA.

Within the oil and gas industry there is thepotential for an almost limitless range ofprojects to be proposed and eventuallyexecuted. The vast majority of projects willnot require a comprehensive HIA. Rapidappraisal HIA will be suitable for manyprojects that involve minor or modestupgrades to existing production facilities.Similarly, the majority of marketing andindividual retail operations are unlikely torequire a comprehensive HIA. However, ifenvironmental and/or social impact assessmentsare considered as part of the proposed projectpreparation a comprehensive HIA is alsoappropriate. Large oil field developments,pipelines, liquid natural gas (LNG) facilities,chemical plants and refineries are major capitalinvestments that would be appropriate projectsfor a more comprehensive HIA.

Scope of a comprehensive HIA

Given the broad definition of ‘health’, HIAshave potentially extremely wide scope andlatitude.The underlying philosophical modelof the HIA often drives the scope of the HIA.The two basic models are biomedical andsocial or socio-environmental.The biomedicalmodel of health focuses on disease and illnessand related causal mechanisms. In contrast, the

socio-environmental model tends to focus onthe broader factors or determinants thatcontribute to health and well-being. Healthdeterminants are the personal, social, cultural,economic and environmental factors thatinfluence the health status of individuals ordefined populations. Examples include age,sex, genetic factors, air, water, housingconditions, income, employment and education.There is a continuous spectrum between a purebiomedical and socio-environmental assessmentmodel. Policy level HIA tends to utilize abroadly defined socio-environmental modelwhere significant emphasis is placed ondeterminants of community health such aspoverty and income. In contrast, project levelHIA is more narrowly focused on specifichealth outcomes, for example potentialproject-attributable changes in disease-specificrates for, say, malaria or sexually transmittedinfections. Many HIA practitioners try tocapture some elements of both the biomedicaland socio-environmental methodology. Forexample, the WHO socio-environmentalapproach considers six general health issues,namely: communicable diseases; non-communicable diseases; accidents and injuries;malnutrition; psychosocial disorders; and socialwell-being. Table 2 illustrates the potentialscope of this approach.

This model is useful since it includesboth general disease categories and health

Communicable diseases

Non-communicable diseases

Accidents and injuries

Malnutrition

Psychosocial disorder

Social well-being

Vector-borne

Pesticide exposure

Construction and traffic-related

Vitamin A deficiency

Substance abuse

Quality of life, equity

Large, reliable

Reliable, generalizable

Reliable, some statistics

Variable, potentially quantifiable

Poor reliability, cultural variation

Variable reliability

Health issue Example Knowledge base

Table 2 WHO model for HIA


6

determinants. However, this approach does notnecessarily capture the impacts, positive andnegative, that can occur across broad sectorssuch as housing, sanitation and transportation.In contrast, the World Bank has developed thescope of HIA for sub-Saharan Africa andother low Human Development Index (HDI)settings within the context of environmentalhealth. From this perspective, there is a cleardifferentiation between the traditionaldefinition of ‘public health’, with its disease-specific focus, and the broader definition of‘environmental health’, which encompasses the‘human living environment’ and emphasizesprimary prevention through interventions inhousing, sanitation, solid waste control, water,food, transportation and communication.TheWorld Bank approach and scope emphasizesthe potential linkages between infrastructure-related activities and overall environmentalhealth. Sectors defined by the World Bank are:housing; water and food; transportation; andcommunication and information management.

The World Bank approach represents a shiftfrom the traditional disease-specific focustowards an examination of the relationshipsbetween overall disease burden andinfrastructure impacts. For example, theassessment of potential malaria impacts is animportant consideration for many projects.However, a cross-sectoral examination thatcombines and integrates the broader potentialadverse and beneficial effects of non-healthsectors, e.g. transportation, housing and urbandevelopment, can conceivably accomplish morethan an assessment focused only on theimmediate project workforce. In the WorldBank system, the scope of the HIA shifts froma disease-specific morbidity, mortality anddisability towards a broader consideration of thesectoral linkages between the proposed projectand environmental health.This integration ofhealth and infrastructure is compatible with thedesign and execution of large, capital intensiveoil and gas projects in low HDI settings. In

addition, the World Bank environmental healthapproach tends to mirror many of therequirements and considerations found in theirenvironmental and social guidance documents.

The WHO has also developed a similarmethodology known as the assessment of theenvironmental burden of disease (EBD). Datadeveloped for both the WHO EBD and theWorld Bank environmental health linkagemethods indicate that approximately 25–33 percent of the global burden of disease can beattributed to environmental risk factors. Keyconsiderations in these types of analyses are twoquestions: ‘What will be included as anenvironmental risk factor?’ and ‘What is meantby ‘disease’?’ In terms of health, the definition ofenvironmental risk factor has largely excludedbehavioural and lifestyle factors including diet,smoking, alcohol, sexual practices and geneticrisk factors. Similarly, the focus on ‘disease’ isdirected towards the environmental componentof the total burden of disease, not of the totalburden of ill health.These relatively restrictivedefinitions of environmental risk factor anddisease are appropriate, and are commonly usedin the estimation of EBD and in ‘environmentallinkage’ literature. However, from an HIAperspective, these definitions may be too narrowand could miss some of the potential impactsthat oil and gas projects could have on the socialdeterminants of health, in particular those relatedto lifestyle factors including nutrition, smoking,


Health infrastructureand capacity shouldbe considered.


7

alcohol and sexual behaviour. In addition, issuessurrounding the role of host country healthinfrastructure and capacity, referred to as ‘healthsystems’ should be considered.

The World Bank has estimated thatdeficiencies in a low-HDI country’s healthcare system could account for approximately18 per cent of the overall burden of disease.Other published literature supports theobservation that human resource staffing andskill levels correlate significantly with healthoutcomes and health systems performance, andare a major social determinant of the overall

burden of disease. The combination of bothEBD and health systems deficiencies couldaccount for approximately 50 per cent of theoverall burden of disease.

For many large and complex oil and gasprojects, particularly those in low HDIsettings, some of the EBD and sectoral linkageconcepts can be incorporated into a project-level HIA framework by defining broad healthareas of concern that consider both social andbiomedical determinants of health. A potentialset of critical health areas of concern (HAOC)is shown in Box 1.

Respiratory infections● Including, but not exclusive to: acute respiratory infections (ARIs—bacterial and viral); pneumonias; tuberculosis (TB)

Vector-related disease● Including, but not exclusive to: malaria; typhus; dengue

Sexually transmitted infections (STIs)● Including, but not exclusive to: HIV/AIDS; genital ulcer disease; syphilis; gonorrhea; chlamydia; hepatitis B

Soil and water borne disease● Including, but not exclusive to: soil transmitted helminths (STH); leptospirosis; schistosomiasis; meliodosis; cholera

Food and nutrition-related issues● Including, but not exclusive to: stunting; wasting; micro-nutrient deficiencies; changes in agricultural practices;

gastroenteritis (bacterial and viral); and food safety

Accidents and injuries● Including, but not exclusive to: traffic and road related incidents; construction (home and project related); and drowning

Exposure to potentially hazardous materials● Including, but not exclusive to: pesticides; inorganic and organic fertilizers; road dusts; air pollution (indoor and outdoor

related to vehicles, cooking, heating or other forms of combustion/incineration); landfill refuse or incineration ash; anyother project related solvents, paints, oils or cleaning agents; etc.

Psychosocial● Including, but not exclusive to: relocation; violence; security concerns; substance abuse (drug, alcohol, smoking);

depression; and communal social cohesion

Cultural health practices● Including, but not exclusive to, the role of traditional medical providers, indigenous medicines and unique cultural or

ethnic health practices

Health systems infrastructure and capacity● Including, but not exclusive to: physical infrastructure; staffing levels and technical capabilities of health care facilities at

local, district and provincial levels● Including, but not exclusive to, coordination and alignment of a project with existing national and provincial level

health programmes, for example malaria, TB, HIV/AIDS

Box 1 Basic health areas of concern


8

The use of the HAOC approach moreclearly integrates certain key aspects of theHIA into a framework that is commonly usedby both the environmental and social assess-ment process. This overall integration isimportant so that the HIA is viewed as anintegral and essential part of the overall impactassessment process.

Benefits

A well-executed HIA can prevent new projectdelays by anticipating, soliciting and appro-priately incorporating stakeholder concernsand suggestions into the overall project design.Similarly, existing operations can also benefitby the timely assessment and evaluation of abroad range of impacts. One of the keybenefits of the HIA process for stakeholders isthe awareness that health is a relevant andsignificant cross-cutting issue. Additionalbenefits include:● Identifying factors, positive or negative, that

may otherwise not have been adequatelyassessed. This process allows for timelyproject design and modifications in a cost-effective manner.

● Quantifying the positive and negativeimpacts more precisely than would haveotherwise been done.

● Clarifying the potential elements of policytrade-offs. The HIA can become aneffective risk management tool for allstakeholders.

● Describing the potential interactions andrelationships among the different environ-mental health areas and sectors.

● Allowing a clearer analysis of potentialmitigation strategies for negative effects orenhancement of positive benefits.

● Making the overall project decision processmore transparent for key stakeholders.

● Providing a structured environment forstakeholder input and engagement in bothnew projects and existing operations.This

allows for early input into the overalldecision-making processes.

● Building consensus within stakeholdercommunities so that mutual trust isdeveloped and enhanced during all phasesof project development, construction,operations and decommissioning.

● Securing funding from financial and aidinstitutions. Many financial institutions suchas the International Finance Corporation(IFC) and the major development bankshave specific requirements for themanagement of health issues.

● Specifying responsibilities between theproject sponsors and the host government.The HIA can be a vehicle for documentingand delineating the roles, responsibilitiesand issues that are relevant for the hostgovernment, local communities and theproject sponsor. The HIA can assist inunderstanding the wider health issues andtrends that may already be occurring in thehost country or community.

● Establishing an accurate and appropriatebaseline for future comparison during thedevelopment, operation and eventualclosure of a project.

● Enhancing project benefits: the HIA canhelp provide the basis for large- and small-scale investment and development plans inthe health sector and other areas (forexample, education) for the benefit of theoverall community.

● Contributing to overall health systemscapacity, infrastructure and developmentincluding preservation of traditional healthproviders and culturally important practices.


The HIA process


9

There have been many descriptions of the HIAprocess in published literature. Many companiesin the oil and gas industry already have aframework for performing an HIA. Internationalagencies and many national governments havepublished detailed guidelines covering HIAexecution and practice, although these guidelineshave largely been implemented in high HDIsettings.While there can be differences betweenthe HIA guidelines formulated by individualcompanies, governments or agencies, there aregenerally many common elements across all ofthe available processes (see Figure 1).

Screening

Screening includes a preliminary evaluation todetermine if a proposed project is likely to poseany significant health questions. A descriptionand general knowledge of the projectcovering location, size, workforce, surroundingcommunities, operations and likely exposures isessential. This initial review will determine

whether an HIA may be appropriate, andprovides an indication of its potentialcomplexity, i.e. rapid appraisal or comprehensive.

Scoping

Scoping is generally a process for outlining therange and types of hazards and beneficialimpacts. The overall types and categories ofquestions that must be addressed are defined atthis stage. For example, it is vital to:● consider which phases of a project should

be assessed (for example, construction,operation, decommissioning);

● determine who is at risk during thedifferent phases of a project (for example,construction workers, contractors, employees,community residents); and

● assess which related activities are underconsideration (for example, movement ofproduct and/or feedstock, secondary in-migration and development such assquatter camps).

Figure 1 The HIA process

R E V I E W

legislationand projectinformation

modellingand ranking

significancecriteria effectiveness

screening scopingrisk assessment;

impactassessment

decision making;establishing

priorities;reporting

implementationand

monitoringevaluation

health context define TOR baseline data

mitigationstrategies;

health actionplan (HAP)

surveillancesystem audit

stakeholder communication and consultation

project conception design and engineering construction; operations;decommissioning

definingroles and

responsibilities

hazard types;identification ofhealth hazards


10

The output of the scoping exercise can beused as a basis for formally developing a set ofterms of reference (TOR). Either internal orexternal consultants, or a combination of both,can use the TOR.

Stakeholder communication and consultation

This is a process of mutual dialogue andinformation exchange between the projectand stakeholders, i.e. those individuals andgroups that are affected by, or express aninterest in, the project. Stakeholders caninclude individuals and groups, including localand international NGOs, at all levels of society,including the project-affected communities.Stakeholder communication has evolved rapidlyinto a systematic process that is incorporatedinto the overall impact assessment strategysuch that an active and integrated commun-ication process has become an essential part ofboth environmental and social evaluations.Since the communication process is two-way,the project and stakeholder perspectives,concerns and needs can be fully developedand expressed through a formal StakeholderSteering Committee. The communicationprocess is not just a one-way exercise ininformation dissemination; it includes con-sultation, active feedback and participation.Ideally, the optimal timing for initiating a

stakeholder communication programme wouldbe as early as possible in the overall businessproject development cycle. However, such aprogramme should be carefully considered andplanned in a coordinated and systematic fashionthat is responsive to overall business objectives.

Risk assessment or appraisal

Risk assessment includes the key set ofactivities that investigates, appraises andqualitatively or quantitatively ranks the impactsthat the project is likely to have on the healthof the defined population. A crucial part ofthe risk assessment process is determining thespectrum of potential impacts, their relativeimportance and at what level they areexpected to occur. Impacts can occur singly orin combination at an individual, household,community/village, population, organizational(NGOs) and institutional level.The assessmentneeds to consider the advantages anddisadvantages of concentrating on one levelversus another. It may be difficult to developthe database necessary to assess all levels or keyunits simultaneously. Clearly defining the unitof assessment is critical since it can help focusstudies and concentrate resources as well asfacilitate understanding of the linkages thatexist between the different levels. As part ofthe risk assessment process it is important toconsider the strength of cause-and-effectrelationships and to assess, either qualitativelyor quantitatively, the likelihood of potentialimpacts. One of the benefits of the riskassessment process is that it can facilitate theranking of impacts so that they can beaddressed in a priority fashion.

The investigation phase of the assessmentconsists of several steps that are related togathering objective evidence and data.

Evaluating dataExisting sources of information must becollected, collated and evaluated for accuracy,

The HIA process

Building consensuswith stakeholderscan involveindividuals andgroups at all levelsof society, includingthe project-affectedcommunities.


11

relevance and completeness. The data usuallyconsists of both qualitative and quantitativeinformation. Literature reviews, academic orNGO studies, and official or governmentrecords or surveys may exist.An overall appraisalof the available data is critical.The criteria forjudging and assessing the trustworthiness ofinformation are well established and arecommonly considered at two levels:i. Conventional scientific level, i.e. internal

validity (proof of causal relationship);external validity (degree to which findingscan be applied to other contexts orgroups); reliability (degree of reproducibilityin the same or similar situation); andobjectivity (lack of bias).

ii. Social participatory level, i.e. length anddepth of engagement; persistent and parallelobservations; cross checking; expressions ofdifferences among stakeholders; researchdiaries; and field notes and observations.

After the weight and trustworthiness of thedata have been assessed and documented, adata-gap analysis should be performed todetermine whether the collection of new datamay be required. Data collection should becoordinated with the efforts of the social andenvironmental assessments.

Baseline dataBefore new data are collected, a series ofrelevant study questions should be carefullyformulated. Data must be collected in aculturally sensitive and ethical manner with aclear understanding of how the data will beutilized in the HIA (for example in impactclarification or characterization, or for baselinedefinition for subsequent monitoring activities).

There are a wide variety of evidence anddata-collection methods that can be selectivelyemployed, including:● focused stakeholder interviews and discussions;● key informant questionnaires and surveys of

knowledge, attitudes, beliefs and practices;

● objective health screening surveys for certaindiseases or conditions, e.g. malaria, micro-nutritional deficiencies;

● health needs assessments;● demographic and health surveys; and ● food consumption and nutrition surveys.

The overall data establishes the baselinefrom which estimated and actual projectimpacts on workers and the community canbe measured.

Baseline datacollection caninclude healthsurveys.

Ranking impacts: sociological,epidemiological and toxicologicalapproachesThe determination of relative importance canbe made qualitatively, semi-quantitatively orquantitatively. The general approaches toranking potential impacts are derived fromthree disciplines: sociology, epidemiology andtoxicology.

The socio-environmental approach tends tobe broader and qualitative in nature andassumes a holistic definition of health. Thebroader perspective places significant importanceon stakeholder concerns and has a greaterfocus on a qualitative or semi-quantitativeassessment of the interaction of determinantsor modifying factors of health. In addition,equity issues are extremely important. Anequity assessment means that the potential


12

impacts within the target population areanalysed in terms of gender, age, ethnicbackground and socio-economic status. In thiscontext, ‘equity’ actually has a negativeconnotation and is generally used to conveypresumed unfair or unjust differences. Equityconsiderations can provide important input intothe overall decision-making process wheremitigation strategies for adverse health impactsare formulated. The sociological or socio-environmental approach can be used to generatequalitative, semi-quantitative or fully quantitativerankings. Qualitative rankings are performed byexpert judgment using a basic ‘no effect’, ‘low’,‘medium’ or ‘high’ impact categorization system.This type of ranking can be transformed intosemi-quantitative information by assigning anumerical value for each impact category, forexample: 0 = no effect; 1 = low, etc. In addition,descriptive or diagrammatic presentations canbe included.

Many quantitative epidemiological modelsand approaches are available that can be usedaccording to the availability of input data. Someof the commonly used models and methods are:● PREVENT: uses epidemiological data to

predict the population effects of healthpromotion interventions.

● POHEM (Population Health Model):longitudinal microsimulation model ofhealth and disease that allows alternativehealth interventions to be compared whileconsidering the effects of diseaseinteractions.

● Global Burden of Disease (GBD) andComparative Risk Assessment (CRA):largely developed by WHO, the GBDprovides comparable, valid and reliableepidemiological information on a widerange of diseases, injuries and risk factors.The prevalence of risk factor exposure andhazard size has been determined so thatpopulation-attributable fractions areestimated; attributable fractions can becombined with incidence rates in the

target population in order to calculateannual numbers of cases. The calculatedcases are then converted into disabilityadjusted life years (‘DALYs’) or qualityadjusted life years (‘QALYs’) by estimatesof severity and duration.

CRA is a systematic counterfactualapproach to estimating health gaps (i.e.changes in health expectancy) which arecausally attributable to a risk factor orgroup of risk factors. A counterfactualexposure is an alternative exposure distrib-ution used as a baseline for estimating theburden of disease caused by the exposuredistribution of interest.

● ARMADA (age-related morbidity anddeath analysis): developed to comparebaseline disease rates (for examplemortality and morbidity) in a definedpopulation with the effects due toimplementation of a specific economicdevelopment. ARMADA was specificallydeveloped for use in HIA.

● Disease-specific models: Certain infectiousdiseases like malaria, schistosomiasis andSTIs including HIV/AIDS have beencharacterized by dynamic and statictransmission and amplification mathematicalmodels; the effects of different preventionstrategies have also been studied andmodelled, for example the ‘AVERT’simulation package for HIV/AIDS.The toxicological ranking procedure is

generally quantitative and follows amethodology that was published in 1983 bythe US National Academy of Sciences andextensively developed by the US EnvironmentalProtection agency (US EPA). The US EPAquantitative risk assessment methods have beendistributed and used worldwide for more than15 years. There are four components to thisapproach: hazard identification (identificationof the potential agents or sources); exposureassessment (estimation of the magnitude,frequency and duration of exposure including

The HIA process


13

calculation of exposure point concentrations);dose- or exposure-response assessment(consideration of the relationship betweenquantity of exposure or amount absorbed andan outcome effect); and risk characterization(calculation of the risk to the individual orpopulation, attributable to the definedexposure). The toxicological model followsthis basic sequence:

Source ➞ Exposure ➞ Dose ➞ Health effect

i. Source: the project is the assumed overallsource; sources must be defined andspecified, for example air emissions, waterdischarges, etc.

ii. Exposure: a source releases potentiallyhazardous materials that move through theenvironment to a defined location knownas the exposure point; at the exposurepoint a concentration is defined and theprobabilities of exposure for the targetpopulation are assigned.

iii. Dose: a concentration-response or dose-response relationship exists or can bedefined, i.e., disease or adverse outcomeper unit of exposure.

iv. Health effect: the concentration orexposure-response relationship is applied tothe population at risk.The WHO has largely adopted this strategy

in its approach to the assessment of the‘environmental burden of disease’ (EBD), andhas endorsed a framework known as DPSEEA(pronounced ‘deepsea’) for this purpose.Thecomponents of the DPSEEA framework are:● Driving force (developmental) ● Pressure (distal cause–after the fact)● State (proximal cause–the triggering cause)● Exposure (physical/pathophysiological cause)● Effect (outcome)● Action

DPSEEA is a hierarchical model thatdescribes the interactions of specified causeson health outcomes from environmental or

related behavioural conditions. DPSEEA canbe used quantitatively if numerical functionsare assigned to the various proposed linkages.In this configuration, a ‘causal web’ isconstructed and serves as the framework foran EBD assessment. If this approach is used tostudy the impact of policies on the exposurevariable and subsequent change in thepredicted disease burden, then it is also knownas a Policy/Risk Assessment Model (PRAM).

All of these approaches—sociological,epidemiological and toxicological—havestrengths and weaknesses. A highly quantitativeoutput requires a significant level of baselinedata that may either not exist or be difficult toobtain easily and reliably.

Decision making

Decision making considers the rankingsarising from the risk assessment and develops awritten health action plan (HAP) in order topotentially mitigate identified impacts.Mitigation is a systematic process to avoid,reduce, remedy or even compensate forpotentially negative impacts.The HAP considers:the types of health protection processes thatmay be required; the availability of differentmitigation strategies; timelines of mitigationstrategies; the availability of interim measuresor modifications; local capacity to absorb theproposed mitigation strategies; and the cost/benefit of the proposed action.

Impacts are often categorized as:● insignificant, no effect, positive benefit;● significant but mitigitable; and ● significant but not mitigitable.

Some type of system that transparentlydefines ‘significance’, ‘insignificance’ and‘mitigation’ should be considered. Significancecriteria or hierarchies are often developed andconsider these types of inputs:● legal requirements (national, international);● lender requirements (safeguard standards

and requirements);


14

● standards (international best practices,internal company);

● stakeholder-opinions (perspectives,sensitivities);

● expert judgment; and● reputation risk (high impact/outrage but

low probability).

Mitigation strategies

One of the most important benefits of theentire HIA process is the identification ofproblems that could be potentially avoided byfocused primary design changes. An exampleof this strategy would be selective rerouting ofa pipeline in order to avoid impacts to certainlocal populations. From a health perspective,this can be considered primary prevention ofpotential effects. Similarly, secondary preventionstrategies can be utilized to reduce impacts atboth a defined geographical location and/orto a given population.Tertiary prevention orovert treatment (remedy) is the third level ofmitigation that can be employed. Remedyinterventions may include restoration or repairto essential needs like water wells or vegetablegardens. Finally, when there is irrevocable lossor damage some type of compensation maybe appropriate. Compensation strategies areoften employed in both the social andenvironmental action plans.Therefore, carefuland consistent coordination is essential.

Implementation and monitoring

ImplementationAfter an action or decision plan is created it isstill necessary to decide how the mitigationstrategy will be implemented and monitored.If adverse consequences are predicted duringthe risk assessment, it is likely that theirnature, size and timing will be uncertain. Asurveillance plan that can capture early effectsand unanticipated consequences is appropriate.

Defining responsibilitiesOne of the most critical aspects of theimplementation plan is the division ofresponsibilities between the project and thehost government at local, regional and evennational levels. Specific and detailed division ofresponsibility must be considered andarticulated. An analysis of local, regional andnational health infrastructure and managementcapacity is a key consideration during the riskassessment. If there are systematic weaknessesin the host country health systems thencapacity considerations will become one ofthe most important issues. Capacity building isa long and slow process. Close coordinationand training of host resources require long-term planning and commitment. Theabsorptive capacity of host institutions, at alllevels, is often the limiting factor for successfulimplementation of the mitigation strategy.Primary and secondary prevention strategiesare more likely to be successfully implementedparticularly where local capacity is weak.Thisassignment of responsibility includes projectcontractors since day-to-day responsibility isoften devolved to prime contractors,particularly during the construction phase of aproject. Contractor responsibilities can beassigned by requiring specific and detailedhealth implementation plans from each majorcontractor. These types of issues need to beanticipated early in the project so that theproper contract vehicles can be developed and

The HIA process

Surveillance plans cancapture early effectsand unanticipatedconsequences.


15

unplanned budget overruns avoided. Properstaffing levels also require careful considerationsince projects frequently underestimate thetime and staffing levels required forimplementation and monitoring.

MonitoringMonitoring (also referred to as surveillance) isa critical component of the overallimplementation plan. For a large andgeographically diverse project—for exampleoil field development and pipelineconstruction—a formal system of monitoringshould be considered. A monitoring orsurveillance system is designed to ensure thatprogress is satisfactory and, in particular, will

capture unanticipated effects or provide anearly warning system that problems, eithersingly or cumulative, are occurring at thepopulation level. Local or even regionalsentinel surveillance systems (SSS) can bedeveloped for large and complex projects. In aproject with diverse geography and distinctpopulation groups it may be appropriate toconsider some type of SSS. To some degree,the effectiveness of a SSS is dependent on anaccurate characterization of the pre-projectbaseline status for key indicator variables.Theidentification and assessment of cumulativeimpacts is a difficult and uncertain process. Adifferent version of the SSS known as aDemographic Surveillance System (DSS) has

HIA is a new and rapidly evolving field, and the number of projects for which some type of HIA process is required isincreasing rapidly. Because of the intensity of interest and activity, there is often subtle confusion in terminology,together with real and substantial differences in overall approaches, performance and execution. However, this state ofaffairs is changing, driven by a combination of international stakeholder involvement, international institutions (forexample the World Bank and International Finance Corporation (IFC)) and staff pressure within internal company HealthSafety and Environment (HSE) departments. For a successful process, the following key principles apply:

● Choose the overall HIA level, policy, project or both.

● Choose the appropriate type of HIA—rapid appraisal or comprehensive.

● Routinely integrate some level (rapid appraisal or comprehensive) of the HIA process into the overall projectdevelopment process.

● Carefully consider and design the scope of the assessment so that it is realistic and achievable.

● Define and document appropriate baseline conditions.

● Stakeholder consultation and communication is critical and such a programme should be carefully planned andimplemented where appropriate.

● A well-executed and documented qualitative or semi-quantitative ranking system is more realistic than an overlyuncertain and theoretical attempt at quantification.

● Certain high profile diseases like malaria, tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS may require separate intensive evaluation andassessment.

● A realistic implementation plan should be developed that recognizes host country capacity constraints but stillclearly defines roles, responsibilities and accountability.

● For large and high profile projects that are likely to impact multiple communities, a well-designed surveillance andmonitoring system is appropriate so that early awareness of novel or unexpected impacts is available.

● Senior management commitment to the process is critical.

● National and international sensitivities to certain topics addressed must be recognized. This includes recognizing thatthe analysis may include potential issues that may adversely reflect on the existing conditions in certain cultures orcommunities.

Box 2 HIA guiding principles


16

been designed to capture long-term trendsacross large populations. Formal DSS sites arecurrently operating in many locations acrossAsia and sub-Saharan Africa in a structureknown as the In Depth Network.

The implementation plan should alsoconsider specifying target completion goals forspecific activities over specific phases of theproject, for example construction, operationsand decommissioning. These completiontargets provide a clear and transparent scorecardboth for project management and stakeholders.

Evaluation and verification ofperformance and effectiveness

Evaluation and verification of performanceand effectiveness is one of the most importantand often overlooked steps in the entire HIAprocess. A system for determining thatimplementation has been accomplished and isachieving the intended results should beconsidered. As part of the implementationplanning process, target milestones are oftencreated, for example vaccination rates, malariaincidence rates, etc. Auditing against thesetarget goals and objectives can be readilyperformed. In order to foster a better sense oftransparency with stakeholders, the use ofexternal, independent auditors should beconsidered, although many companies havetheir own rigorous and well-designed internalassessment systems. Contractor health perform-ance should also be verified and assessed foreffectiveness and compliance with the plan.

Resourcing

Many oil and gas companies have large andsophisticated medical, environmental andsafety departments capable of successfullycarrying out a comprehensive HIA. However,for some projects, some level of specialtyconsulting support may still be required. Inaddition, external consultants or an independent

review process may help identify gaps orother issues not fully considered by aninternal team and enhance validity andtransparency. For some extremely high profileprojects, appointment of an independentadvisory board may be appropriate, particularlywhere cultural sensitivities may conflict withthe need to thoroughly assess certain diseases,for example HIV/AIDS.

Cost and time management

Costs are largely a function of scope, scheduleand final deliverable report. Clear terms ofreference are a key tool for managing bothinternal and external consultant costs. Theadequacy of baseline data is one of the mostimportant considerations. New data collectiontakes time and money and is often an iterativeprocess generating frequent travel and per diemcosts. In many areas of the world the availablesupport infrastructure is weak so that surveyand health data collection is a difficult andslow process.The time required to complete acomprehensive HIA will depend on the scopeof the project, availability of adequate baselinedata and the complexity of the stakeholderengagement and consultation process.

The HIA process


17

Further reading

Reference Areas covered

continued …

Banken, R. September 2001. Strategies for institutionalizing HealthImpact Assessment. Health Impact Assessment Discussion Paper,Number 1.WHO European Centre for Health Policy. Brussels,Belgium.

enHealth Council, Commonwealth of Australia. September2001. Health Impact Assessment Guidelines. Canberra, Australia.

Environment Canada. June 1999. Canadian Handbook on HealthImpact Assessment.Volume 1:The Basics. Quebec, Canada.

European Union. May 2004. European Policy Health ImpactAssessment (EPHIA).

Health Impact Assessment Research Unit, University ofBirmingham. 2003. Health Impact Assessment Training Manual2003. Birmingham, United Kingdom.

Institute of Public Health in Ireland. 2003. Health ImpactAssessment: A Practical Guidance Manual. Dublin, Ireland.

International Health Impact Assessment Consortium. 2001.The Merseyside Guidelines for Health Impact Assessment.Liverpool, United Kingdom.

Kemm, John, et al. (eds). 2004. Health impact assessment: concepts,theory, techniques and applications. Oxford University Press.Oxford, United Kingdom.

King’s Fund Information and Library Service. Reading List: HealthImpact Assessment. December, 2004. London, United Kingdom.

National Assembly for Wales. 1999. Developing Health ImpactAssessment in Wales. Cardiff,Wales.

NHS Health Development Agency. 2002. Introducing Health ImpactAssessment: informing the decision making process. London, UK.

Prüss-Üstün,A., Mathers, C., Corvalán, C. and Woodward,A. 2003.Introduction and methods:Assessing the environmental burden of diseaseat national and local levels.World Health Organization EnvironmentalBurden of Disease Series, No. 1. Geneva, Switzerland.

Public Health Advisory Committee (New Zealand). March 2004.A guide to health impact assessment: A policy tool for New Zealand.National Health Committee.Wellington, New Zealand.

US EPA. 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Part A.Washington D.C., USA.

US National Research Council. 1983. Risk Assessment in theFederal Government: Managing the Process.Washington D.C., USA.

An overview and guide to HIA



Presents a standard generic methodology for HIA for EUpolicies and activities




Multi-authored overview of health impact assessment

List of books and reports on health impact assessment



An overview of the approach to environmental burden ofdisease analysis with emphasis on the use of global burdenof disease and comparative risk analysis


Detailed guidance manual for performance of quantitativerisk assessment

Framework for Risk Assessment in the Federal Agencieswhich first presented the basic four-part toxicology riskassessment model


18

Further reading

Reference Areas covered

World Bank. 2001. Bridging Environmental Health Gaps.Washington D.C., USA.

World Bank. 2004. World Development Report 2004Washington D.C., USA.

World Health Organization (WHO). December 1999.Health Impact Assessment: Main Concepts and Suggested Approach.Gothenburg consensus paper. Geneva, Switzerland.

Glossary of HIA terms

Additional OGP/IPIECA reference material:

IPIECA Guide to Social Impact Assessment; and OGP guides onEnvironmental Impact Assessment, Strategic HealthManagement and Blood-borne Pathogens

OGP/IPIECA. 2005. Pocket Guide to Health Impact Assessment.London, United Kingdom.

ARI Acute Respiratory Infections

ARMADA Age Related Morbidity and Death Analysis

CRA Comparative Risk Assessment

DALY Disability Adjusted Life Years

DPSEEA Driving Force Pressure State Exposure EffectAction Model

DSS Demographic Surveillance System

EBD Environmental Burden of Disease

ECHP WHO European Centre for Health Policy

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

ESIA Environmental Social Impact Assessment

GBD Global Burden of Disease

HAOC Health Area of Concern

HAP Health Action Plan

HDI Human Development Index

HIA Health Impact Assessment

HIV/AIDS Human Immunodeficiency Virus/AcquiredImmunodeficiency Syndrome

LNG Liquid Natural Gas

NGO Non-Governmental Organization

OGP International Association of Oil & Gas Producers

POHEM Population Health Model

QALY Quality Adjusted Life Years

SHM Strategic Health Management

SIA Social Impact Assessment

SSS Sentinel Surveillance System

STH Soil Transmitted Helminths

STI Sexually Transmitted Infection

TB Tuberculosis

TOR Terms of Reference

US EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

WHO World Health Organization

This review written by World Bank consultants providesa detailed analysis of an approach to environmentalhealth assessment.

An overview of economic and social development across theworld. Chapter 8 contains an analysis of health systems issues.

An overview of HIA and consensus approach to the issue

A glossary of HIA terminology published by the WorldHealth Organization. Also available on the WHO websiteat www.who.int/hia/about/glos/en/.

Overview guides to SIA, EIA and SHM for the oil andgas industry

A pocket accompaniment to this 20-page Guide to HealthImpact Assessment in the Oil and Gas Industry

List of acronyms

A ‘Guide to Health Impact Assessments’on CD-ROM


This document is also included on the attached CD-ROM in PDF format†.The file includes linksto related information throughout the document, to other files on the CD-ROM and to resourceson the Internet*. The links are represented in this printed version by the blue underlined text.

†Requires Acrobat Reader™ — available from the Adobe website: www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html

* Web browser and Internet connection required

All rights reserved. No unauthorized copies of this CD-ROM may be made without prior agreement with IPIECA/OGP

©2005 International Association of Oil & Gas Producers • International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Asso

ciatio

n

A Guide to

Health Impact Assessmentsin the oil and gas industry

This CD-ROM contains the joint OGP/IPIECA publication

A Guide to Health Impact Assessments in PDF format. The PDF

version includes links to related information on the

Internet and to supporting documentation

on this CD-ROM.

This CD-ROM is designed to runautomatically. If it fails to start,browse to the file called ‘HIA’ anddouble-click to begin. (RequiresAdobe Acrobat Reader v.4 or later)

The OGP/IPIECA Membership

Company membersADNOCAgipKCOAmerada HessAnadarko Petroleum CorporationBG GroupBHP BillitonBITOR BPCairn EnergyChevronCNOOCConocoPhillips DONG Denerco OilEncanaENIExxonMobilGNPOCHalliburtonHellenic PetroleumHocolHunt Oil CompanyHydroJapan Oil, Gas & Metals NationalCorporation Kuwait Oil CompanyKuwait Petroleum CorporationMærsk Olie og Gas ASMarathon OilNexenNOC LibyaOXYOMVPapuan Oil SearchPetroCanada PetrobrasPDVSAPEMEXPDOPetronas/Petronas CarigaliPetrotrin Premier OilPTT EP Qatar PetroleumRasGasRepsol YPFSaudi Aramco Shell International Exploration & Production SonatrachStatoilTNK-BP Management TotalTullow OilWoodside Energy

Association and Associate membersAustralian Institute of PetroleumAmerican Petroleum InstituteARPELASSOMINERARIA Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers Canadian Petroleum Products InstituteCONCAWEEnergy Institute European Petroleum Industry AssociationInstitut Français du PétroleIADC IOOAM-I SwacoNOGEPA OLF PAJRECSOSchlumberger South African Petroleum Industry Association UKOOAWEGWorld Petroleum Congress

International Association of Oil & Gas Producers (OGP)

OGP represents the upstream oil and gas industry before international organizations

including the International Maritime Organization, the United Nations Environment

Programme (UNEP) Regional Seas Conventions and other groups under the UN

umbrella. At the regional level, OGP is the industry representative to the European

Commission and Parliament and the OSPAR Commission for the North East Atlantic.

Equally important is OGP’s role in promulgating best practices, particularly in the areas

of health, safety, the environment and social responsibility.

International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association (IPIECA)

The International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association

(IPIECA) is comprised of oil and gas companies and associations from around the world.

Founded in 1974 following the establishment of the United Nations Environment

Programme (UNEP), IPIECA provides one of the industry’s principal channels of

communication with the United Nations. IPIECA is the single global association

representing both the upstream and downstream oil and gas industry on key global social

and environmental issues including: oil spill preparedness and response; global climate

change; health; fuel quality; biodiversity; and social responsibility.


a 'guide to health impact assessments

Documents