Stakeholder Engagement &

Decommissioning

Searching for Win-Win Solutions

The 13th NPF North Sea Decommissioning Conference

Solstrand, February 12th, 2013

Anne-Mette Jrgensen

Director Projects

LNSF320

2

IMSA AMSTERDAM

Some clients: Independent sustainability think tank and consultancy since 1985

1. Stakeholder mapping and engagement processes:

Develop win-win solutions for people, planet & profit

Independent facilitator, with full mandate and own

hypothesis

2. Prepare companies for a hot, flat and crowded world:

Strategies for Sustainable Development towards a

Circular Economy

Long term trends & scenarios based on World3 model

3. Special events on sustainability Our mission is to build shared value for business and society

and to bring industry, science and civil society together in

pursuing a long-term sustainable course.

3

KEY MESSAGES

North Sea stakeholder community: complex, diverse, strong interrelations & growing

competition.

Decommissioning is currently a non-issue for most stakeholders, but that could change with

increasing knowledge, experience & activities.

Stakeholders traditional concerns about decommissioning relate to pollution & waste and

cumulative, spatial impacts. Very few stakeholders have a clue about the societal costs.

Growing awareness of value of man-made hard substrate & new challenges to North Sea region

(climate change, unsustainable fisheries, demand for renewable energy) could effect attitude

towards decommissioning.

Stakeholder engagement by industry primarily focuses on individual fields and technical aspects.

Effective stakeholder engagement needs a win-win opportunity:

Reuse of offshore materials for ecosystem purposes (building with nature), offshore mari-

culture, coastal protection?

Coordination between decommissioning activities & renewable energy construction to avoid

competition?

Increased societal benefits through decreased decommissioning costs?

4

OUTLINE OF THE PRESENTATION

1. Who are stakeholders & why should we bother

about them? - Key principles of stakeholder

engagement

2. Stakeholders in the North Sea & their relationship

to decommissioning

3. Lessons learnt: opportunities for win-win

solutions?

5

STAKEHOLDERS INFORM AND INFLUENCE: THEY FORM A FILTER

BETWEEN YOU AND PUBLIC OPINION

Key stakeholders inform and influence the public opinion and political decisions

Understanding the concerns of the key stakeholders is understanding potential issues

Facts are facts but perception is reality (Einstein)

Green NGOs

Fisheries

National governments

International regulators

Scientists

Shipping industry

Renewable energy sector

Local communities

Public

opinion

Oil and gas

industry

Stakeholder

Individuals, groups or organizations who are, in one way or another, interested, involved

or affected (positively or negatively) by a particular project or action towards an issue

6

ISSUE LIFE CYCLE: STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT SERVES TO

PREVENT DECOMMISSIONING FROM BECOMING AN ISSUE

Publicity / Exposure

Time

Birth Growth Development Maturity

Triggering

event

Concern with

opinion leaders

Media attention

Societal unrest

Public outrage &

mobilisation

Public actions &

pressure on regulators

Reactively managed

Proactively managed

Issue fatigue

(Self-) regulation

Reincarnation

Post-maturity

Governments/society being surprised by decom costs

Decom incident (collision, pollution, safety)

Ecosystem damage

7

GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT:

TRANSPARENCY, RESPECT, CREDIBILITY & WIN-WIN

7

Mutual respect: willingness to listen & understand

Willingness to share dilemmas

Full transparency

Science-based analysis & hypothesis based research

Stakeholder involvement:

Participation in fact-finding process

Formulation of research question(s)

Access to intermediate and final results

Independent management/facilitation, providing integer advice to all stakeholders

Potential for a win-win solution: whats in it for them? Why should stakeholders

participate in decommissioning dialogue?

8

STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT IN DECOMMISSIONING

PROJECTS: TIMING & CLARITY ON SCOPE &

OBJECTIVES

Start up engagement in early stages of programme development: there still must be room for change!

Be clear about objectives & scope of engagement:

Why do you want stakeholders input?

What is the scope of the engagement; structure, field, several fields, wider ecosystem, ...?

How far are you willing/able to go in meeting their needs?

What could be needs that you will be unable to meet & why?

Help stakeholders understand the consequences of their choices/requests: technical aspects, costs (incl. Government costs!), environmental trade-offs, societal impacts, safety aspects.

Do not forget that most stakeholders are entirely dependent on you when it comes to technical aspects: building trust is key!

Ask yourself why you would want to participate if you were the stakeholder: look for a win-win & make sure you address their concerns, not just your own.

Beware that stakeholders expectations towards you are formed by their expectations/confidence in government and other stakeholders

9

THE NORTH SEA IS ONE OF THE MOST INTENSIVELY USED SEAS IN

THE WORLD: COMPLEX STAKEHOLDER COMMUNITY

International setting ->

complex regulatory framework ->

influence of key stakeholders high

10

KEY ISSUES DOMINATING THE NORTH SEA DEBATE

Most North Sea stakeholders are concerned with other issues than O&G operators & contractors:

Spatial stress: industries, Marine Protected Areas, need

for planning and coordination

Cumulative effects of human impacts (knowledge gaps &

policy failures)

Unsustainable fishing practices

Effects of climate change: acidification, sea-level rise,

biodiversity loss, extreme weather conditions

Pollution: chemical discharges, produced water, oil spills,

marine litter, noise

Nature conservation (MPAs & restoration)

Stakeholder communities develop around key issues; O&G operators & contractors are often perceived to be absent

Decommissioning is currently a non-issue for most stakeholders, but it does have an impact on key issues

11

LESSONS LEARNT: CLEAN SEABED IS THE ANSWER,

BUT WHAT WAS THE QUESTION?

Most stakeholder engagement on decommissioning focuses on individual fields & specific (technical) challenges;

creating win-win opportunities is extremely difficult at this

level

Discussions hardly move out of OSPAR 98/3 frame:

Clean Seabed principle = Holy Grail

Environmental assessments focus on pollution effects rather than biodiversity value

Little room for discussions about cumulative effects of decommissioning activities

Concerns about safety for fisheries & shipping dominate over safety for decommissioning personnel

Only in Norway discussion about environmental impact of decommissioning on coastal communities (e.g. aqua-culture)

Isolated discussion: no link with key North Sea issues or processes (Marine Strategy Framework Directive, OSPAR

Ecosystems Approach, Marine Spatial Planning, etc.)

Stakeholders assume that Operators pay the bill: then high costs are OK. Little awareness of government costs

Renewable energy: It is good if parties

clean up their own rubbish

International regulator: Taking part in marine spatial planning may even enhance the process of derogations

Offshore service industry: It is tremendously costly to remove gravity-based structures. Is it worth it? 70% of the costs are

spent by the government

Fisheries: These pipes are everywhere. You cant get away from

them

12 12

SO HOW COULD WE TURN DECOMMISSIONING INTO A WIN-WIN

PROCESS?

Decommissioning

costs: 50 -100 billion

Offshore

installations =

biodiversity

hotspots

Need for

protection of

marine habitats

Most heavily

used sea in the

world ecosystem not in

good shape &

high competition

for space

Unsustainable

fishing practices

Demand for

renewable

energy

Toxic waste that

is nobodys responsibility

13

NEED TO RECONSIDER DECOMMISSIONING IN A BROADER CONTEXT

Bottom line:

Everyone has to clean up his garbage, but what if garbage has turned into valuable habitats???

Pollution (risks) need to be minimized

Safety is key for both decommissioning personnel, shipping & fisheries. But who is responsible

for what and who pays?

In the past, chemical pollution was a key issue. In the future, we are facing new challenges:

Sea-level rise & extreme weather conditions resulting from climate change -> huge

investments needed in coastal protection

Growing need for protein production in the light of declining fish stocks: need for creative,

sustainable fisheries solutions

Temperature increase & acidification increase pressure on vulnerable key species & habitats:

need for additional protection & nature building to ensure robust ecosystem

Transition to renewable energy production, CO2 storage, etc. while O&G production

continues: need for spatial combinations & synergy

Societal cost-benefit analysis of decommissioning approaches needed, in broader context: what do

we want the North Sea to look like in the future & how can ensure maximum ROI on each spent

on realizing that vision?

Thank you!

For more information, please visit www.imsa.nl or contact me at

anne-mette.jorgensen@imsa.nl