Christian Bueger – The devastating oil spill that wreaked havoc on Mauritius’ coastline raises the question of whether the government’s response was appropriate. Wasn’t the country prepared for a disaster of this magnitude? Were officials overconfident or did they misjudge the risk?
The evidence indicates that Maurice was very well prepared; the event was not a surprise. Above all, the country has handled similar incidents with great success before. However, a public inquiry will have to answer a number of questions.
Disaster response
The Mauritius disaster took place on the evening of July 25. The bulk carrier MV Wakashio ran aground on its way from China to Brazil near the coast of Mauritius. The causes are the subject of an ongoing investigation.
The first analyzes indicate that the weather was not the problem. However, the vessel deviated from the usual path of traffic in the area. The ship was on a collision course.
No oil spilled at the ground. The Mauritian coast guard has taken preventive measures. The government activated its national oil spill contingency plan the next day.
On July 28, Dutch salvage company Smit Salvage was hired to work with local logistics giant CELERO to keep MV Wakashio afloat and pump over 4,000 tonnes of oil and diesel. When the first of four tugs arrived three days later, the recovery operation was ready to begin.
The minister responsible for the environment said he was convinced that all “necessary precautionary measures to prevent any type of pollution at sea” had been taken.
The weather conditions were contrary to the minister’s plans. The recovery operation was interrupted. The sea was too rough.
On August 5, observers spotted minor oil reflections around the ship. The “risk of an oil spill was still low”, argued the minister.
Hours later the MV Wakashio flooded and began to sink the next morning. Oil began to flow into the sea at a high rate. As a result, the now well-documented catastrophe unfolded. Government officials have radically changed their tone.
In response, the Prime Minister not only declared a “state of environmental emergency” but also said the country lacked “the skills and expertise to refloat stranded ships”. The Minister of Fisheries told international media: “This is the first time that we have faced a disaster of this type and we are not sufficiently equipped to deal with this problem.”
The foreign minister called on the UN, the EU, India, its neighbor, France, as well as other countries and organizations for emergency aid.
These public statements by government officials raise the question of whether authorities were unaware of the risk and were unprepared.
Maurice was prepared
A look in the archives reveals that the government was not at all prepared. The opposite seems to be the case. This shows that until the disaster, Maurice was the poster boy for regional oil spill prevention.
Mauritius was one of the first African countries to finalize an oil spill contingency plan in 1990 with the support of the International Maritime Organization and the United Nations Environment Program.
Between 1998 and 2003, Mauritius was one of the beneficiaries of the West Indian Ocean Islands Oil Spill Contingency Planning Project managed by the World Bank. With the help of the project, the government updated the national emergency plan. Workshops and trainings were organized and a regional agreement was signed.
The maritime route development and prevention project from 2007 to 2012 continued this work. Funded by the Global Environment Facility, the country received more training in oil spill prevention and reviewed the plan. After the end of this project, Mauritius received training under the UNEP Regional Seas Program and the Nairobi Convention.
In addition, the country is also one of the main beneficiaries of the European Union MASE project under which maritime security structures are being developed for the region.
As part of these projects, between 2003 and 2012, the country organized five larger oil spill prevention drills and exercises. In addition, Maurice intended to conduct an exercise later this year.
In short, the country has benefited from quite substantial capacity building assistance from the United Nations family and other actors. Government officials regularly participated in workshops and organized training exercises.
Level of preparation
Just months before the disaster, government officials attended a workshop on the topic. In March 2020, the United Nations Environment Program organized the workshop on “Cooperation in Preparedness and Response to Marine Pollution Incidents” in Zanzibar.
As the archives show, representatives of the Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of Fisheries of Mauritius were present. They made a presentation on “National Oil Spill Preparedness” of countries.
The meeting records reveal, first of all, that officials were keenly aware that the country is at high risk of oil spills due to its proximity to one of the world’s busiest shipping routes. . Second, it shows that the country had a range of sophisticated tools for disaster planning, response and assessment.
Third, Mauritian officials pointed out that not all elements of the strategy were very practical and that some of its elements were missing, such as a wildlife response plan.
The presenters stressed that regional cooperation was not working very well and that the country had too “limited resources in terms of funds and human capacities”.
Previous incidents
In the event of a disaster, a good plan is not enough. Practical experience matters. Have the Mauritian authorities encountered any real incidents? While not necessarily on the scale of the MV Wakashio incident, authorities have had to deal with two major cases in recent years.
In April 2005, a collision occurred off Port Louis between the MSC Katie and the MV Nordsun. MSC Katie sustained cracks and ran aground on a reef to avoid sinking. Mauritian authorities managed to prevent an oil spill.
An incident very similar to the grounding of the MV Wakashio occurred in June 2016. The MV Benita ran aground not far from the site of the current oil spill.
While the vessel was damaged, a rescue company was prompt on the scene. The contractors pumped the fuel off the vessel and only one very minor spill occurred. The company pulled the MV Benita to India. En route, the ship sank.
As a result, Mauritius was not only aware of the risk and had developed planning tools, the authorities also had experience of such incidents.
Is that why the Minister of the Environment was so confident that everything was under control? It probably is.
The Mauritian oil spill tells us what can happen even if you are well prepared. Planning does not always go as planned. Capacity building and training have their limits.
A public inquiry: Questions to ask
Mauritius will have to launch a public inquiry into the accident. The investigation will certainly establish that the government’s response was not perfect. It will identify areas in which the agencies could have performed better.
First, the authorities had stored an insufficient amount of containment equipment such as dams. The response had to wait for the arrival of equipment or rely on improvised devices made by volunteers.
Second, was the right rescue company chosen and did the Dutch experts have the right strategy? The owner Nagashiki Shipping hired the company. Yet it is important to know how the experts cooperated and coordinated with the Coast Guard and the government in general.
A third major question is whether knowledge of the maritime situation could have detected the vessel at an early stage. Better maritime surveillance could have recognized the ship earlier. We need to know if the catastrophe could have been avoided by an interception of the coast guard.
Finally, the regional dimension must be examined. Why did the regional maritime security and environmental disaster mechanisms developed in the various capacity building projects play no role in the response? Would it have made a difference if the government had relied on the expertise of organizations like the Regional Center for Maritime Information Fusion?
Learning these lessons will help other countries prepare for and prevent the next disaster. In addition, the lessons could lead to a better integration of maritime security and environmental efforts into capacity building. Perhaps they will even help build a less fragmented regional architecture in the Western Indian Ocean.
Professor Christian Bueger is the Director of SAFE SEAS and Professor of International Relations at the University of Copenhagen. He has been studying maritime security issues, counter-piracy operations, capacity building and maritime awareness since 2010 and has published widely in the region. He is also the principal investigator of the Lessons Learned Consortium of the Piracy Contact Group off the coast of Somalia. Further information is available on his personal website.
This article originally appeared on SafeSeas.net and is republished with permission.