The itig comprises representatives from insurance companies, the tunnelling industry and other industry bodies including the International Tunnelling Association (ITA) and the International Association of Engineering Insurers. The group says it meets as a critical conduit for knowledge sharing between tunnelling and insurance industries and to discuss best practice in the risk management of underground infrastructure projects.

In 2003, in response to a series of significant tunnelling incidents and losses, a group representing both the Association of British Insurers (ABI) and the BTS released “The Joint Code of Practice for Risk Management of Tunnel Works in the UK” which became known as the Joint Code of Practice (JCOP).

This group was effectively the fore-runner to ITIG which, when formed after release of the JCOP, oversaw the launch of “A Code of Practice for Risk Management of Tunnel Works”

colloquially known as the international Tunnel Code of Practice (TCOP). The TCOP was first launched in 2006 and then subsequently released as a 2nd Edition in 2012 incorporating official acknowledgement by both the ITA and the International Association of Engineering Insurers (IMIA).

The stated objective of the Code(s) is “…to promote and secure best practice for the minimisation and management of risks associated with the design and construction of tunnels, caverns, shafts and associated underground structures…”.

It is intended as a project management tool to promote best practice in risk management and reduce the occurrence of accidents. It has been the inspiration behind the approach to risk management on numerous underground projects around the world, whether formally in contract documentation or as a benchmark reference document.

With nearly 15 years of experience since the first publication of the JCOP, the ITIG has been re-energised with the aim of reviewing the penetration and effectiveness of the Code(s) around the world. The scope of the review includes i) the experience of tunnelling projects before and after the release of the Code and with and without ‘application’ of the Code, ii) regional variations in the application of risk management methods and iii) other developments in risk management (including health and safety and environmental standards and legislation) practices and how they may have impacted the environment in which tunnelling projects have been delivered.

In February ITIG launched a survey with the aim of reviewing the penetration and effectiveness of its code around the world. The survey sought feedback on the application and experience of the code (or other risk management approaches) and was targeted at all relevant parties (clients, designers, contractors and insurers). It released its initial findings this July.

INITIAL FINDINGS

¦ The survey has real validity. There were more than 100 respondents representing all facets of the tunnelling and insurance communities, split approximately two-thirds, one-third. Responses were received from contributors in more than 20 different countries, with coverage from all continents of the world. The engagement was best illustrated by over 500 qualitative comments added by respondents and the high number (67 per cent) requesting to be in some way involved in any future revision of the code.

¦ The substantial majority response (>90 per cent) was that risk management has had a positive impact on the industry, supported by other initiatives such as geotechnical baseline reports, health and safety legislation and the sharing of lessons learned.

¦ Formal risk management processes appear to be wide-spread and to represent best practice on most projects and in most areas of the world. However it appears that more work is required to derive the full benefit at site level, to optimise the management of risk (as opposed to risk management). Other notable trends were concerns with competence and expertise of both technical and risk professionals.

¦ The majority (73 per cent) of respondents expressed a preference for an update or revision of the code and the suggested changes were welcomed. Consideration to instrumentation and monitoring and to BIM were both strongly endorsed. Other qualitative comments were provided containing many valuable suggestions.

NEXT STEPS

ITIG needs to review all the feedback in more detail and in particular analyse the extensive qualitative commentary. The group said it is too soon to conclude with certainty pending this detailed analysis but it would appear that a limited review and update of the code is appropriate. However, since the feedback is generally so positive, it is not envisaged that the fundamental concept, scope or structure of the code will be changed.