European Commission, Directorate General for Environment

Final Report

Training course in the field of marine pollution:

“Response to oil pollution at sea and on the coast”

30 June- 05 July 2003 in Bremen, Germany

Grant Agreement ref: SUB /03/349080

Submitted by: and

Institut für Kreislaufwirtschaft GmbH (Institute for Recycling and Environmental Protection) Neustadtswall 30 28199 Bremen Germany Tel.: ++49-(0)421-59052326 Fax.:++49-(0)421-59052380 ikrw@hs-bremen.de www.ikrw.de Director: Dr. Martin Wittmaier

BLG CONSULT GmbH Faulenstr. 23 28195 Bremen, Germany, Tel.: ++49 (0) 421 9588030 (Secretariat) Fax: ++49 (0) 421 9588031 blg-consult@blg.de Director: Karsten Brünings

24. November 2003

2

Acknowledgements This training course and the resulting final report was only possible due to the subsidy granted by the European Commission. We are grateful for the trust which has been set into us. This course was carried out in cooperation with the German Central Command for Maritime Emergencies (CCME). We would like to thank the Director, Mr. Monsees, and Mr. Voss, Mr. Bluhm, Mr. Bustorff and Mr. Rauterberg for their contributions to the course regarding practical response technologies which represented a core element of this course and without which this course would not have been possible. Also we especially would like to thank them for their contributions in planning, organising and implementing the demonstration exercises of response equipment at sea and on the shore. For the implementation of the demonstration exercises at sea we also need to thank the Captains and the crews of the vessels “Eversand”, “Knechtsand” “Neuwerk” who let us visit the vessels and provided a lot of practical information. We would like to thank the German THW and all the volunteers involved for carrying out the demonstration exercise on response equipment at the shore on a Saturday morning. Also we would like to thank the German Red Cross who provided a good hot meal at the shore. The following lecturers provided valuable contributions which were essential for this course:

• Dr.-Ing. Wolfgang Begler, MBU GmbH, Rostock, Germany • Dipl.-Biol. Karl-Heinz van Bernem, GKSS –Research Centre, Geesthacht, Germany • Dipl.-Ing. Bernd Bluhm, German Central Command for Maritime Emergencies

(CCME) , Cuxhaven, Germany • Capt. Karsten Brünings, BLG Consult GmbH, Bremen • Capt. Ulf Bustorff, German Central Command for Maritime Emergencies (CCME) ,

Cuxhaven, Germany • Mr. Tjalle Hijlkema, Boso b.v., Sneek, The Netherlands • Capt. Karl Jacob, Kapitän Karl Jacob – Beratungen, Ulm, Germany • Dipl.-Ing. Jens Rauterberg, German Central Command for Maritime Emergencies

(CCME), Cuxhaven, Germany • Prof. Dr.-Ing. Wilfried Schütz, University of Applied Sciences, Bremerhaven • Dr. Katharina Stanzel, ITOPF • Dr. Lars Stemmler (BLG Consult GmbH), Bremen • Dr. Johanna Wesnigk (Max-Planck-Institute for Marine Microbiology, Bremen,

Germany) • Dr. Martin Wittmaier (Institute for Recycling and Environmental Protection- Institut für

Kreislaufwirtschaft), Bremen • Dr. Michael Wunderlich, German Federal Institute of Hydrology, Koblenz, Germany

Last but not least we would like to thank the participants for their enthusiasm, dedication and contributions to the course.

3

Table of content Page 1. Objectives 4 2. Performance of the course 5 2.1. Overall performance 5 2.2. Lectures 8 2.3. Simulation exercise on response to oil pollution 10 2.4. Demonstration Exercise of response equipment at sea 13 2.5. Demonstration Exercise of response equipment on the coast 16 3. Results und Conclusion 18 3.1 Evaluation of the course 18 3.2 Conclusion 20 Annex 1: Course schedule Annex 2: Table of Contents of course folder (incl. all distributed papers within the course) Annex 3: a) List of participants, b) Presentation of the Delegates:

Presentation of the Belgian Delegates (Mr. Schallier, Mrs. Price) Presentation of the German Delegate (Mr. Reininghaus) Presentation of the Irish Delegates (Mr. Carter, Mr. Donnelly) Presentation of the Norwegian Delegate (Mrs. Lauvrak) Presentation of the Portuguese Delegate, Mr. Almeida, Presentation of the Portuguese Delegate, Mr. Sousa, Presentation of the Portuguese Delegate, Mr. Trabuco Presentation of the Spanish Delegates (Gracia, Ventosa) Presentation of the Delegates from the UK (McDonald) Annex 4: Certificate Annex 5: Simulation Exercise: Damage Evaluation

a) The task, Scenarios 1 and 2 b) Group formation c) Results of the exercise from groups 1 –6

Annex 6: Demonstration exercise of response equipment, on the coast Annex 7: Evaluation sheets

a) Evaluation forms (from EC and own evaluation form) b) EC Evaluation – summary of results c) IKrW /BLG Consult Evaluation – summary of results.

4

1. Objectives The course “Response to oil pollution at sea and on the coast”, performed in Bremen, June 30- July 05 2003, was one course in a series of related training activities in the field of accidental marine pollution subsidised by the European Commission’s Directorate General for Environment. The overall aims of the general training course were :

• The provision of additional practical insight into technical and management aspects for combating oil spills. This practical know-how will be a baseline for a better understanding of the complex task to fight oil spills and for working out solutions on the level of operational and administrative decision makers.

• The promotion of the co-operation between the member countries in dealing with oil spills by offering opportunities for becoming acquainted with various aspects and prospects of the problems.

• The enhancement of information exchange between professionals inside of the European Union and the evaluation of the experience gained in this context by offering various opportunities in the form of lectures, presentations, discussions and an exercise.

To reach the overall aims, the following objectives were set for the participants of the course:

1. Overview of national and international regulation / legislation as well as conventions and agreements concerning oils spills;

2. Further background information concerning oil in the marine environment, including shipping of oil and pollution risk, properties, behaviour and fate of oil in the marine environment and its effects;

3. Better understanding of management aspects for oil spill response actions including contingency and response planning;

4. Enhancement of practical knowledge about the state of the art of mechanical, chemical, physical and biological response options for oils spills at sea and on the coast (including tools and techniques, cost and benefit, constraints, safety aspects);

5. Overview of aspects which need to be considered in addition to direct fighting measures, including overhaul and transport of the technical equipment, sampling and analysis, transport and storage of oily waste, treatment options for oily waste, in particular bioremediation.

5

2. Performance of the course

2.1. Overall Performance The course on “Response to oil pollution at sea and on the coast” was executed by the Institut für Kreislaufwirtschaft GmbH (Institute for Recycling and Environmental Protection) in cooperation with the BLG Consult GmbH and the German Central Command for Maritime Emergencies CCME. Thirty participants from fourteen States (Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Finland, Great Britain, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain and Sweden) participated in the course (see figure 1). The course was carried out according to the timetable given in the course folder which has been prepared for the participants (see Annex 1). The course is described in detail in the course folder. The folder consists of the following: the course programme, a list of lecturers, biographies or CV’s of lecturers, list of participants, abstracts, papers of the lectures and additional information material and brochures, which were handed out by the lecturers and participants during the course. Annex 2 lists the content of the course folder including all additional papers. The event started on Sunday evening, 29.06.03 at the Hotel Westfalia in Bremen with an address of welcome by the Course Director, Dipl.-Ing. Susanne Findeisen (Institut für Kreislaufwirtschaft GmbH) and a welcome dinner. The welcome dinner and the guided City Walk through the old City Centre of Bremen which was organised for Tuesday evening served to acclimatise and for the group to get to know each other better. On Monday morning the course started with an address of welcome by Dr. Martin Wittmaier (Director of the Institute for Recycling and Environmental Protection) and Capt. Brünings (Director of BLG Consult GmbH). The week programme was introduced by Mrs. Findeisen. Dipl.-Ing. B. Bluhm from the German Central Command for Maritime Emergencies (CCME) did the opening of the course and gave an introduction on the German strategy for spill response (figure 2). The participants were offered the opportunity to introduce themselves to the group and to present their background and experience. As this was notified in advance the participants had prepared short presentations. Most used the chance to use visual aids. Please see Annex 3a and 3b for the list of participants their presentations. One of the main features of the course were lectures by experts to provide the necessary theoretical background upon various aspects of response to oil pollution (see chapter 2.2) (figure 3). In addition a number of opportunities were offered to the participants for own contributions and exchange of ideas and experiences, e.g. a desk-based simulation exercise on response to oil pollution (see Chapter 2.3). As a special feature of this course two demonstration exercises of response equipment, at sea and on the coast, were carried out by the Central Command for Maritime Emergencies and the German THW (see Chapter 2.4 and 2.5).

6

At the end of the week the participants were asked to evaluate the course. Two evaluation sheets were filled in, one prepared by the organisers, focusing on the content of the course, and one used by the EC DG Environment for evaluation of all related training courses, focusing on the overall arrangements (Chapter 3.1). Finally every participant was handed a personal certificate which certified his or her participation in the training course (Annex 4). Apart from the formal opportunities arranged during the lectures and exercises the organisers provided additional possibilities for the participants and the lecturers of the respective day to communicate and exchange views and ideas. All meals during the week were pre-organised and taken together, either on the premises of the University of applied Sciences, in restaurants or in the hotel. Additionally two half hour breaks per day were planned in the schedule to leave ample time for discussions within the group and/or with the lecturers.

Figure 1: Thirty Participants from twelve EU-member countries, Norway and Iceland visiting the oil combating vessels in Bremerhaven From left to right: Eyjolfur Magnusson (Iceland), Anders Geldermann (S), João Pericão de Almeida (P), Claus P. Múnk (DK), Zissis Proias (Greece), Wolfgang Kress (Ger), Albert Ventosa Carulla (E), António José da Silva Trabuco (P), Ari Tapani Mäkinen (Fin), Frank Hartmann (Ger), Aurelio Caligiore (I), Claus Rainer Gottschling (Ger), Katharina Stanzel (Lecturer from ITOPF), João Alberto Coelho Sousa (P), Roberto Giangreco (I), Joan Gracia Forcades (E), Frank Reininghaus (Ger), James Carter (Ire), Donald McDonald (UK), Silvia Giuliani (I), Konstantinos Korizis (Greece), Neil Forde (Ire), Kristjan Geirsson (Ice), Jan Kool (NL), Machteld Price (B), David Taylor (Ire), Kerry Anderson (UK), Ronny Schallier (B), Thord Tärnbrant (S), Ingrid J. Lauvrak (N) Martin Donnelly (Ire).

7

Figure 2: Mr. Bluhm, German Central Command for Maritime Emergencies, is opening the course

Figure 3: Mr. Rauterberg, German Central Command for Maritime Emergencies, gives a lecture on shoreline clean-up

8

2.2. Lectures The lectures given from national and international experts dealt with a wide range of aspects in relation to response to oil pollution. Objective 1

• Relevant regulation on national and international level concerning oil pollution response were presented by Dr. L. Stemmler, BLG Consult GmbH. He introduced IMO conventions, EU-Erika package, enforcements and summarised advantages and disadvantages of the current regulatory framework.

• Dr. Stanzel (ITOPF) gave on overview on the broad topic of liability and compensation, giving information on civil liability and fund conventions.

Objective 2

• Examples of marine pollution incidents were presented by Capt. K. Brünings, BLG Consult GmbH, focussing on selected major accidents of the last 30 years and in particular on the “Erika” and “Prestige” accidents. He stressed the role of the involved parties and that human error is mostly the reason for accidents. He pointed out that in history the driving force behind regulations and better practices always have been accidents.

• Dr. J. Wesnigk (Max-Planck-Institute for Marine Microbiology) introduced the topic of oil and waste in the marine environment by giving an overview on their types, properties, quantities, origin environmental impacts and the limits of naturally occurring bioremediation.

• Dipl.-Biol. K. van Bernem from the GKSS-Research Centre, Institute for Coastal Research, Geesthacht, Germany gave a lecture on sensitivity mapping while focussing on tidal flats of Germany to explain a strategy for sensitivity mapping. He stressed the importance of sensitivity studies of coastal areas as a prerequisite for decision-making on response options.

• This talk was complemented by Mr. Geirsson, the participant from Iceland, who had offered to present the work which is currently carried out on sensitivity mapping of Iceland’s shorelines.

Objective 3

• Dipl.-Ing. Rauterberg (German Central Command for Maritime Emergencies) introduced contingency planning for shoreline and near shore cleanup operations. He pointed out what factors needs to be considered and presented the VPS System, a tool developed for contingency planning in Germany.

• Dr. Stanzel from ITOPF gave a talk on an important aspect in oil fighting: clean-up termination. She pointed out options available and that factors like environmental issues, amenity, economy and costs need to be considered for terminating both, clean-up at sea and on shorelines.

9

• Dr. Stanzel (ITOPF) also gave a talk on the up-to date “Prestige” incident. She summarised the event, external factors and aspects of management which were involved leading to severe pollution.

Objective 4

• Capt. Bustorff from the German Central Command for Maritime Emergencies gave a talk on response to high sea oil spills and presented the German combating strategy as an example. He introduced aerial surveillance, types of vessels and technical equipment, e.g. for heavy duty collection like on the German vessel “Neuwerk”, and stressed the need for regular exercises.

• Dipl.-Ing. Bluhm (German Central Command for Maritime Emergencies) introduced options for response to oil spills in coastal areas. The lecture contained information on methods, separation processes, technology and equipment, and their selection depending on a number of factors, like type of substance or type of environment.

• The topic “cleaning of beaches” was presented by Dipl.-Ing. Rauterberg (German Central Command for Maritime Emergencies). His lecture mainly focussed on different types of shorelines, clean-up methods and techniques, industrial and specialised equipment for beach and shoreline clean-up and costs.

• Dr. Wunderlich, from the German Federal Institute of Hydrology introduced the option of using chemical dispersants in case of oil spills. He informed the participants about framework conditions for application, technology, effectiveness and costs and summarised advantages and disadvantages of these methods.

• The use of sorbents in the maritime environment was presented by Mr. Hijlkema from the dutch company Boso b.v.. Apart from explaining the physical process of absorption he introduced the variety of products available, application, use in practice and limitations.

• Aspects of health and safety were introduced by Dr. Begler from MBU GmbH, Rostock. He stressed the fact that this issue is most important, especially when working with volunteers. However not much work has been done so far on this topic and further studies are recommended.

Objective 5

• Thermal waste treatment was introduced by Prof. Dr. Schütz from the University of Applied Sciences in Bremerhaven. In his talk he gave a definition of waste, outlined targets for thermal waste treatment and explained the processes, plants and facilities. Finally he talked about the problems arising from salt in waste as present in waste from marine pollution.

• Dr. M. Wittmaier, Institute for Recycling and Environmental Protection, gave a talk on bioremediation. He explained the different methods which can be applied for biological processes, ranging from natural attenuation to in-situ and ex-situ bioremediation (on-site and off-site options), and requirements or conditions needed. Dr. Wittmaier concluded with the applicability of bioremediation in the marine environment, technical applications, practical experiences and process development including preliminary laboratory and pilot studies.

10

• One of the challenges pollution combating forces are confronted with on site is the storage and transportation of large quantities of pollution waste. Capt. K. Jacob gave practical insight information on technical equipment, organisational procedures and legal requirements.

• A talk on maintenance and management of specialised equipment was given by Dipl.-Ing. Bluhm on site of a storage facility for response equipment of the German combating forces in Cuxhaven.

On Monday evening the organisers and participants agreed to extend the timetable by one lecture and to use to chance to visit the public talk of Dr. Augustin Blanco-Bazan from the International Maritime Organisation (IMO), who talked about “Erika and Prestige: the reaction of the international community.” This talk was organised by the GAUSS mbH, Bremen and the University of Bremen, Department of Law.

2.3 Simulation exercise on response to oil pollution Apart from the round of introductions at the beginning of the course, the participants were asked to contribute actively at a simulation exercise on response to oil pollution. Dr. Johanna Wesnigk formulated oil spill scenarios and tasks for the participants and moderated the exercise. The participants were supported by Dr. Katharina Stanzel (ITOPF) who was available as a expert resource person. The exercise was set in the context that some traces of a product, which looked like heavy crude oil, has been discovered close to the port entrance. Not much detailed information was given by the moderators, the participants were expected to further create their own scenario. The exercise was divided into six different scenarios (Annex 5a):

1. Location: Ireland 2. Location: Wadden Sea 3. Location: Greece 4. Location: Sweden 5. Location: Portugal 6. Location: Baltic Sea

Accordingly the participants were split into 6 groups of 5 persons, with different nationalities, professional backgrounds and levels of experience, so that each group could deal effectively with one scenario (Annex 5b). Each group was asked to study the problem from their perspective and develop a strategy to avoid the worst from happening according to their experience and information obtained. In real life, a number of different parties are involved to plan, coordinate and execute response operations. Therefore this was essentially a role-play exercise. The teams should represented typical task forces made up of members from different departments, organizations and specializations:

• Oil pollution combating authority • Port authority • Port operating company

11

• Oil refinery being in charge of some equipment • Local community authority where the products may reach the beach • Ecologist/ Modeller from a nearby University.

The following tasks were set for the groups:

• Draft a planning checklist, what needs to be done • Decide who works on which question to obtain more information • Determine the ecologically sensitive parts in your area • Make a rough forecast, how your spill will develop under the conditions stated • List and discuss possible options and combating measures • Develop your combating strategy accordingly.

The groups were provided with charts of the affected coastlines, short description of the declared incident, information on various aspects of response to oil pollution by the preceding lectures, overhead transparencies, and flip-chart as aids to presentation. Three hours were allocated for working (figure 4). After this time each group was asked to present the results (figure 5). The exercise was designed as an integral component of the course and to be an important step in the progression of learning through knowledge, understanding and synthesis. The participants should further improve their skills in integrating the factors that feed into the decision-making process concerning the options available. The objectives of the exercise were: • to provide scenarios within which participants can recommend appropriate options for

spill response, • to encourage a multidisciplinary, team-based approach to the implementation of selected

response options, • to demonstrate the significance of science-based evidence and the quality of information

required in developing management plans, • to provide the opportunity for participants to develop own checklists and flow charts on

procedures necessary. All groups were working very actively and dedicated and presented the results afterwards to the other participants (please see Annex 5c for results). The moderators found that the exercise was successful in harnessing the talents and professional experience of the participants and complementing the information provided during the course itself. In conclusion the simulation provided a vivid insight into the challenges of identifying relevant factors which need to be considered in response to oil pollution and the problems on decision-making whilst working in an international forum within strict time limits.

12

Figure 4: Participants working in groups on their scenario

Figure 5: The working groups presented the results to the participants

13

2.4. Demonstration exercise of response equipment at sea One of the special features of the course were demonstration exercises of response equipment. The Central Command for Maritime Emergencies had organised a demonstration of three German vessels: The twin hull vessel “Eversand”, the special oil recovery vessel “Knechtsand” and the multi-purpose vessel “Neuwerk” which was deployed at the “Prestige” incident (figures 6- 12). The participants had the opportunity to visit every ship and to get information on the equipment and operation by the team of the Central Command for Maritime Emergencies, the captains and crews.

Figure 6: The twin hull vessel “Eversand” is well equipped with special oil recovery equipment

Figure 7: The Captain explains the equipment of the “Eversand” to the participants

Figure 8: The “Eversand” can be split open along the fore-and –aft centreline

14

Figure 9: The multi-purpose vessel “Neuwerk”, which is designated for oil and chemical spill response as well as emergency tug, fire fighter and ice breaker

Figure 10: Oil containment and collection can be carried out with a sweeping arm (weir skimmer) installed on the “Neuwerk”

15

Figure 11: “MV Knechtsand”, a special oil recovery vessel

Figure 12: The “Knechtsand” is equipped with an oil skimming system and a tank capacity of more than 330 m³ oil

16

2.5 Demonstration exercise of response equipment on the coast A demonstration exercise of response equipment on the coast was organised and implemented by the Central Command for Maritime Emergencies, supported by the German THW and volunteers, at the City of Cuxhaven. The following types of equipment were demonstrated to the participants (figures 13-20):

• oil boom • high-pressure cleaner • hose pumps • different skimmers • suction shovel • temporary storage tanks • first response container • all terrain vehicle • kranecontainer • vacuum tank • tank truck • transfer pump.

(please also see Annex 6).

Figure 13: Manual beach cleaning Figure 14: Oil mop, which is towed over the

water surface

17

Figure 15: Boom to contain oil, which can be collected by suction shovels

Figure 16: Weir Skimmer, to use with external pump

Figure 17: Pumping oil and contaminated sludge

Figure 18: Cleaning with high-pressure

Figure 19: All-terrain vehicle with container for temporary storage of waste

Figure 20: Temporary storage pit

18

3. Results and Conclusions

3.1 Evaluation of the course The participants were asked to evaluate the course according to an own evaluation sheet from the organisers and the DG Environment’s course evaluation sheet (Annex 7a). The scale of the organisers evaluation ranged from “good”, “adequate” to “poor”. The scale of the DG Environment evaluation was different with every question, using 3, 4 or 5 grades. The results of the evaluation results are summarised in detail, please see Annex 7b and 7c. Objectives of the event Almost all (28 from 30) participants felt that the objectives of the event were met well or completely (EC Questionnaire, Question 1), two of them did not give an evaluation here. Accordingly, in IKrW Questionnaire, Question F, all 30 participants stated a good (best rating) achievement of course objectives. Own objectives The evaluation shows that the objectives of the participants were overall consistent with those set for the course. 29 participants found that their objectives have been met by the course completely or well. One participant declared that his/her objectives have been met only partly. Please see Annex 7 b and 7 c for the own objectives for the training stated by the participants. Content The content was considered relevant (8 times) or even very relevant for their jobs (22 times) (EC Questionnaire, Qu. 3a). 28 delegates found that the content covered was about right (EC Questionnaire, Qu. 3b). According to the answers on the EC Questionnaire, the level of content was about right for most participants (27 times) (EC Questionnaire, Qu. 3c). Only two participants found that the level was too advanced, for one participant it was too elementary. The content of each lecture was evaluated on the IKrW Evaluation sheet. The content of the topics altogether received mainly the best mark “good” (28 times out of 30) (IKrW Questionnaire, Qu. A). Of 22 lectures evaluated with regard to content, 17 were mainly evaluated as “good” and only 5 were mainly evaluated as “adequate”. The demonstration exercises of response equipment at sea and on the coast received 26 and 27 times, respectively, the best mark. Please see Annex 7 b and 7 c for the comments on the content of the course. Format The amount of topics covered was mostly rated about right (28 times) (EC Questionnaire, Qu. 3b). Reflecting this, 24 persons found the length of the event about right, four persons found the course too long, and two persons found it too short (EC Questionnaire, Qu. 3d). The majority of the participants evaluated the skills of most speakers to be very good (EC Questionnaire, Qu. 4). On a scale from 0 (poor) to 3 (very good), four speakers mainly received a “2”. Only one speaker received a “1”, whose skills to use the English language were limited. According to the IKrW Questionnaire (Qu. C) 26 out of 30 delegates

19

summarised that the quality of the lecturers deserved the highest mark. In addition, most participants thought that their performance and methodology used was very good (EC Questionnaire, Qu. 5; IKrW Questionnaire, Qu. B and D). Organisation The seminar organisation and administration received the best mark (IKrW Questionnaire, Qu. E) from all 30 participants. Overall According to the EC Questionnaire (Qu. 6 and 7) the overall event was found to be very good (24 times) or good (6 times), and everybody would recommend this type of event. Organiser’s comments on the evaluation by the participants The participants had a wide range of backgrounds, experiences and professional interests so that expectations and evaluations concerning quality and the emphasis set for the presentations or some parts of the course differed (Please see Annex 3 b for the background of the participants). This was reflected by comments and suggestions by the participants. Some participants, for example, mentioned that it was important to give an overall picture on the topics, others would have preferred more emphasis on single topics e.g. management or logistics. The diverse background of participants however was very valuable and used well in the group works. The evaluation shows that the course has been received well and the concept of the course was appreciated. At the end of the course the participants got the opportunity for a final round of comments. Some delegates were commenting on the new perspectives they gained within the week. Most participants also commented on the course itself and the experience they had. They emphasised that the course contributed to broadening and deepening their knowledge on the variety of aspects important for oil combating which is needed for decision-making. It also contributed to an insight into the strategies and management of other countries, and to get personal contacts with colleagues from other countries in order to exchange ideas and to establish networks. Overall the course was found balanced and to provide dynamic learning. It was stated that there is a need for further courses.

20

3.2 Conclusion Everything went very well from the organisational point of view due to the engaged lecturers and due to the interest, openness and the lively contributions of all participants. The group was heterogeneous. But the diverse background of participants was very valuable and used well in the group works. Everybody was actively involved in the simulation exercise and in the information exchange throughout the course. Although there was a range of objectives and expectations from the participants the course has been received well. The participants used the time during the lectures, the group work and breaks for the exchange of professional experience intensely. The joint meals gave extra time for this exchange, which was appreciated and made use of. With completion of the course, the participants increased their theoretical and practical knowledge on a variety of aspects which need to be considered for decision-making at oil spill incidents. Apart from that they gained an insight into the respective strategies and management of other countries. Finally the course was used to establish personal contacts with colleagues from other countries in order to exchange ideas and to establish networks. 30 delegates from 12 EU-member-states, Norway and Iceland participated in the course on “response to oil pollution at sea and on the coast”. This reflects the great interest from the states and the professionals in this topic and the awareness of the added value from EU-wide cooperation. Further courses on basic and intermediate level will probably be received very well. Bremen, 24. November 2003 BLG Consult GmbH Institut für Kreislaufwirtschaft GmbH i.A. Dipl.-Ing. Susanne Findeisen, MSc Dr. rer. nat. Martin Wittmaier Course Director Director