Proceedings magazine is a communication tool for the Coast Guard's Marine Safety & Security Council. Each quarterly magazine focuses on a specific theme of interest to the marine industry.
Issue link: https://uscgproceedings.epubxp.com/i/578020
21 Fall 2015 Proceedings www.uscg.mil/proceedings Since the 9/11 attacks, the Coast Guard has developed and implemented risk-informed policy for operational measures to mitigate the various security risks within the marine transportation system (MTS). Using a risk-informed approach ensures that the Coast Guard's constrained resources are used effectively. As conditions change and/or its understanding of risk improves, the Coast Guard peri- odically reviews and adjusts its policy. Mitigating Risk America's Energy Renaissance and maritime security. by LCDR John EgAn Antiterrorism Division U.S. Coast Guard Offce of Maritime Security Response Policy Mr. AlAn PEEk Antiterrorism Division U.S. Coast Guard Offce of Maritime Security Response Policy New Energy and Its Maritime Impacts Maritime Security — the Basics As the Department of Homeland Securi- ty's lead agency for maritime security, the Coast Guard facilitates safe, secure, and lawful trade; travel; recreation; and other MTS uses while preventing and protecting against attacks to infrastructure or marine transportation system use for illegal activ- ities. In partnership with the maritime industry, the public, and other govern- ment agencies, the Coast Guard pursues maritime security governance using a three-element strategy: • maritime security regimes, • maritime domain awareness, • maritime security and response oper- ations. Maritime industry members have the primary responsibility to mitigate the maritime securit y risk s facing their vessels and facilities at all times and in all locations. As the level of maritime secu- rity risk increases, or when needed risk- mitigation measures exceed reasonable expectations of commercial vessel/facility owners, state, local, tribal, and territorial government agencies conduct risk miti- gation measures in addition to and in coordination with the maritime industry's measures. At the highest levels of risk, the Coast Guard and other federal agencies add their risk mitigation measures. Threat, Vulnerability, Consequence There are three components to maritime security risk: threat, vulnerability, and consequence. Threat is the likelihood that an adversary will attack a maritime target (such as a vessel or facility), largely based on the adversary's capability and intent. Vulnerability is the measure of a vessel's or facilit y 's susceptibilit y to various attack scenarios. Finally, a successful terrorist attack may have a number of consequences, including injuries and deaths, primary and secondary economic impacts, environmental impacts, and national security impacts. Risk Assessment There is not enough capabilit y and capacity across all stakeholders to miti- gate all MTS security risks. As a result, maritime security risk stakeholders must use risk-informed approaches to mitigate these risks. For example, the Coast Guard's maritime security and response opera- tions policy is risk-informed. As condi- tions change and /or risk understanding improves, the Coast Guard re-evaluates and periodically adjusts its maritime secu- rity and response operations policy. The Coast Guard uses the Maritime Security Risk Analysis Model (MSRAM), a terrorism risk-assessment model, to improve its understanding of risk. MSRAM is deployed to feld units to help them perform security risk analyses for the MTS, critical infrastructure, and other targets, and the results are used to support a variety of risk management decisions at strategic, operational, and tactical levels. The growth in the maritime industry accompanying Amer- ica's Energy Renaissance is the latest driver for the Coast Guard to re-evaluate and adjust, if appropriate, its security policy with respect to crude oil and liquefed natural gas (LNG) production and transport. While this re-evaluation is ongoing, initial crude oil transport assessments indi- cate that risks have not changed appreciably and remain low. Additionally, the risks associated with LNG — while