Report to the 16 th MACHC from the 1 st Risk Assessment Meeting Sam Harper – UKHO International Hydrographic Projects Manager UKHO – External Engagement

At MACHC 15, action placed upon UK to: ● Form a correspondence group in order to develop a risk assessment tool UKHO tried three times over the course of 2015 to coordinate such a group…….and failed! ● Unclear as to the extent of the global community ● Time zones very difficult ● No plans for a face to face inaugural meeting ● Subject matter very complex ● Lack of a clear objective In order that the sentiment of the action was fulfilled, UKHO convened the risk assessment meeting alongside the MACHC Background

Series of presentations followed by group discussion Meeting Format TopicSpeaker UKHO Risk Based Survey PrioritisationSam Harper - UKHO Chart Adequacy Evaluation MethodologyAnthony Klemm - NOAA Risk-based improvement of the survey policy for the Netherlands Continental Shelves in the North Sea and Caribbean Sea Leendert Dorst - RNLN Similarities and differences with the work by the Resurvey Working Group of the North Sea Hydrographic Commission Leendert Dorst – RNLN IALA Waterways Risk Assessment ToolStephen Bennett - IALA Plans for a Caribbean Risk Assessment projectKeith Miller - UWI Weight matrix tuning in risk assessment methodsNicolas Seube - CIDCO Multi criteria decision aidLaurent Kerleguer - SHOM Key aim to answer the question: how should this work be continued?

Assessing risk is a fundamental responsibility of decision makers, including hydrographic professionals Many different approaches being taken One size does not fit all situations Each coastal state is responsible for identifying their own policy and procedures There is inconsistency in the way some terminology is being used The general principles of risk are being used to inform survey prioritisation, chart adequacy/modernity and waterway management/traffic management amongst other things Observations

Some of the key data sources required are incomplete, expensive or difficult to handle Care must be taken to understand what these tools do not show Where importance weighting of inputs is employed, it should be acknowledged that this can represent a qualitative input into a quantitative process Examples of collaborative activities were given – UWI involvement in the Pacific Regional Navigation Initiative General feeling that the topics discussed were of interest and the sharing of information was useful Observations

Several options were discussed: ● New subordinate working group created ● Seminar/workshop held alongside future MACHCs ● Members of the MACHC offer papers as and when there are developments ● Best practice or fundamental principles developed for IHO members ● Issue raised at IRCC However, the same issue arose…what is it that we want to achieve? The answer depends on what is driving our interest in risk assessment methodologies: ● Informing national hydrographic priorities ● Capacity building Options for the Way Ahead

The 16 th MACHC participants are requested to: Note the observations of this report Consider the relevance of this subject to the MACHC region Consider the options for progressing this work Summary

Thank you to all who presented and attended