The effectiveness of maritime safety policy instruments from the Finnish maritime experts’ point of view – case Gulf of Finland and prevention of an oil accident

• Autorzy: Lappalainen J. , Storgård J. , Tapaninen U.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.12716/1001.07.03.05

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Sea accidents are aimed to be prevented with an extensive amount of maritime safety regulation. The purpose of this paper is to present the findings of a questionnaire study that was targeted at Finnish maritime experts and addressed the question: how to prevent an oil accident in the Gulf of Finland. This study also includes a literature study about the problems of the current maritime safety regime. The findings of the questionnaire study are compared to the findings of the literature study. The questionnaire study showed that many kinds of policies have improved maritime safety, and they are needed to ensure maritime safety. For instance, ship construction, fairway maintenance, nautical charts and rules of the road at sea can be considered the cornerstones of maritime safety. However, the results ranked voluntary activities of companies as the most effective way to improve maritime safety in the future. Self-regulative approaches could solve some problems connected to more traditional policy-making.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Maritime Safety; oil accident; Gulf of Finland; Prevention of Oil Spill; Oil Spill; Maritime Safety Regulation; Maritime Safety Regime; Maritime Safety Policy

• Wydawca: Faculty of Navigation, Gdynia Maritime University
• Czasopismo: TransNav : International Journal on Marine Navigation and Safety of Sea Transportation
• Rocznik: 2013
• Tom: Vol. 7, no. 3
• Strony: 353--362
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 52 poz., tab.

Twórcy

autor

Lappalainen J.

• University of Turku, Centre for Maritime Studies Maritime University, Finland

autor

Storgård J.

• University of Turku, Centre for Maritime Studies Maritime University, Finland

autor

Tapaninen U.

• University of Turku, Centre for Maritime Studies Maritime University, Finland

Bibliografia

• 1 Furger, F., 1997. Accountability and systems of selfgovernance: the case of the maritime industry. Law & Policy 19 (4), 445‐476.
• 2 Goss, R., 2008. Social responsibility in shipping. Marine Policy 32, 142‐146.
• 3 Goulielmos, A.M., 2001. Maritime safety: facts and proposals for the European OPA. Disaster Prevention and Management 10 (4), 278‐285.
• 4 Greiner, R., M.D. Young, A.D. Macdonald and M. Brooks. 2000. Incentive instruments for the sustainable use of marine
• 5 Hassler, B., 2010. Global regimes, regional adaptation; environmental safety in Baltic Sea oil transportation. Maritime Policy & Management 37 (5), 489‐503.
• 6 Hawkins, J., 2001. Quality shipping in Asia Pacific Region. International Journal of Maritime Economics 3, 79‐101.
• 7 HELCOM (2009). Overview of the shipping in the Baltic Sea. Available at http://www.helcom.fi/stc/files/ shipping/Overview%20of%20ships%20traffic_updateAp ril2009.pdf >, viewed 7.8.2013.
• 8. Helle, I., Lecklin, T., Jolma, A. & Kuikka S. 2011. Modeling the effectiveness of oil combating from an ecological perspective ‐ A Bayesian network for the Gulf of Finland; the Baltic Sea. Journal of Hazardous Materials 185(1):182‐192.
• 9 Holma, E., Heikkilä, A., Helminen, R. & Kajander, S. (2012). Baltic Port List 2011. Market review of cargo development in the Baltic Sea ports. University of Turku.
• 10 Hänninen M., and Kujala P. 2012. Influences of variables on ship collision probability in a Bayesian belief network model. Journal of Reliability Engineering and System Safety 102: 27‐40.
• 11 Hänninen M., Mazaheri A., Kujala P., Laaksonen P., and Salmiovirta M. 2012. The effects of an enhanced navigation support information service on maritime traffic risks in the Gulf of Finland. 11th Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management Conference (PSAM) and the Annual European Safety and Reliability Conference (ESLEM) 25‐29.6.2012, Helsinki, Finland.
• 12 Hänninen, M. 2011. The Effects of Safety Culture on Ship Collision Risk. Ergoship 2011 ‐ 1st Conference on Maritime Human Factors, September 14‐16, Gothenburg, Sweden.
• 13 Ihaksi, T., Kokkonen, T., Helle, I., Jolma, A., Lecklin, T. & Kuikka, S. 2011. Combining conservation value, vulnerability, and effectiveness of mitigation actions in spatial conservation decisions: an application to coastal oil spill combating. Environmental Management 47(5): 802‐813.
• 14 IMO (2007). Formal Safety Assessment ‐ Consolidated text of the Guidelines for Formal Safety Assessment (FSA) for use in the IMO rule‐making process (MSC/Circ.1023 ‐ MEPC/Circ.392). Available at: http://www.safedor.org/ resources/FAS‐updated‐guidlines‐MSC83‐INF.2.pdf, viewed 2.7.2013.
• 15 IMO, 2012. Human Element. Available at: http://www.imo.org/OurWork/HumanElement/Pages/D efault.aspx), accessed 27 June 2012.
• 16 Kern, K., (2011). Governance for sustainable development in the Baltic Sea region. Journal of Baltic Studies 42 (1), 21‐ 35.
• 17 Klemmensen, B., Pedersen, S., Dirckinck‐Holmfeld, K.R., Marklund, A., and Rydén L. (2007). Environmental policy – Legal and economic instruments. The Baltic University Press, Uppsala, Sweden. Baltic University Press, 2007.
• 18. Knapp, S., Franses, P.H., 2009. Does ratification matter and do major conventions improve safety and decrease pollution in shipping. Marine Policy 33, 826‐846.
• 19 Knudsen, F., 2009. Paperwork at the service of safety? Workers’ reluctance against written procedures exemplified by the concept of ‘seamanship’. Safety Science 47, 295‐303.
• 20 Knudsen, O.F., Hassler, B., 2011. IMO legislation and its implementation: accident risk, vessel deficiencies and national administrative practices. Marine Policy 35, 201– 207.
• 21 Kontovas, C.A. and Psaraftis, H.N. (2009). Formal Safety Assessment: A critical review. Marine Technology 46: 1, 45‐59.
• 22 Kujala, P, Hänninen, M, Arola, T, Ylitalo, J., 2009. Analysis of the marine traffic safety in the Gulf of Finland. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 94 (8), 1349‐ 1357.
• 23 Kuronen, J., Tapaninen, U., 2010. Evaluation of maritime safety policy instruments. WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs 9 (1), 45‐61.
• 24 Lecklin, T., Ryömä, R., and Kuikka, S. 2011. A Bayesian network for analyzing biological acute and long‐term impacts of an oil spill in the Gulf of Finland. Marine Pollution Bulletin 62:2822‐2835.
• 25 Lehikoinen, A., Luoma, E., Mäntyniemi, S. & Jolma, A. 2013. Optimizing the Recovery Efficiency of Finnish Oil Combating Vessels in the Gulf of Finland Using Bayesian Networks. Environmental Science & Technology, 2013, 47 (4) pp 1792–1799
• 26 Lois, P., Wang, J., Wall, A. and Ruxton, T. (2004). Formal safety assessment of cruise ships. Tourism Management 25, 93–109
• 27 Marlow, P.B. & Gardner M.B. (2006). The marine electronic highway in the Straits of Malacca and Singapore ‐ an assessment of costs and key benefits. Maritime Policy & Management, 33: 2, 187‐202.
• 28 Mazaheri A, Montewka J & Kujala P (2013). Correlation between the Ship Grounding Accident and the Ship Traffic – A Case Study Based on the Statistics of the Gulf of Finland. International Journal on Marine Navigation and Safety of Sea Transportation, Volume 7 (1): 119‐124.
• 29 Mitroussi, K., 2004. Quality in shipping: IMO’s role and problems of implementation. Disaster Prevention and Management 13 (1), 50‐58.
• 30 MSC/83/21/1 (2007). Formal safety assessment: FSA ‐ liquefied natural gas (LNG) carriers. IMO, London (submitted by Denmark).
• 31 MSC/83/21/2 (2007). Formal safety assessment: FSA ‐ container vessels. IMO, London (submitted by Denmark).
• 32 MSC/83/INF.8 (2007). Formal safety assessment: FSA ‐ container vessels. IMO, London.
• 33 MSC/85/17/1 (2008). Formal safety assessment: FSA ‐ cruise ships. IMO, London.
• 34 MSC/85/17/2 (2008). Formal safety assessment: FSA—RoPax ships. IMO, London.
• 35 Psaraftis, H.N., 2002. Maritime safety: to be or not to be proactive. WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs 1 (1), 3‐16.
• 36 Psaraftis, H.N. (2012). Formal Safety Assessment: an updated review. Journal of Marine Science and Technology 17, 390–402.
• 37 Roe, M.S., 2008. Safety, security, the environment and shipping: the problem of making effective policies. WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs 7 (1), 263‐279.
• 38 Roe, M., 2009. Multi‐level and polycentric governance: Effective policymaking for shipping. Maritime Policy & Management 36 (1), 39‐56.
• 39 Rosqvist, T. & Tuominen, R. (2004). Qualification of Formal Safety Assessment: an exploratory study. Safety Science 42, 99–120.
• 40 Ruud, S. and Å. Mikkelsen 2008. Risk‐based rules for crane safety systems. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 93: 1369‐1376.
• 41 Sundberg P., 2011. Varustamobarometri [Shipping Barometer]. Publications from the Centre for Maritime Studies University of Turku B 185/2011. Available at: http://mkk.utu.fi/dok/pub/B185‐Varustamobarometri‐ 2011.pdf, accessed 27 June 2012.
• 42 Trafi, 2012. Finnish Merchant Fleet Statistics 2011. Publications of Finnish Transport Safety Agency 10/2012. Available at: http://www.trafi.fi/filebank/a/ 1340610083/9a7eb50cd570b2b2dd021925f777a84e/994Ka uppalaivastotilasto_2011.pdf, accessed 27 June 2012.
• 43 Trucco, P., Cagno, E., Ruggeri, F., Grande, O., 2008. A Bayesian Belief Network modeling of organizational factors in risk analysis: a case study in maritime transportation. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 93, 823‐834.
• 44 Walker, W.E. (2000). POLSSS: overview and costeffectiveness analysis. Safety Science, 35, 105–121.
• 45 Vanem, E., P. Antão, I. Østvik, F. Del Castillo de Comas 2008. Analysing the risk of LNG carrier operations. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 93 (9): 1328‐1344.
• 46 Wang, J. & Foinikis, P. (2001). Formal safety assessment of containerships. Marine Policy 25, 143‐157.
• 47 Van Leeuwen, J., van Tatenhove, J., 2010. The triangle of marine governance of Dutch offshore platforms. Marine Policy 34, 590‐597.
• 48 Vedung, E. (2003). Policy instruments: typologies and theories. In: Bemelmans‐Videc, M.‐L., Rist, R.C. and
• 49 Vedung, E. (eds.): Carrots, sticks and sermons: policy instruments & their evaluation. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
• 50 Westerlund, K. (2010). The Collection of FSA Studies in the Baltic Sea Area. Deliverable No. D WP6 4 05, Efficient, Safe and Sustainable Traffic at Sea project. Available at: http://efficiensea.org/files/mainoutputs/wp6/d_wp6_4_2. pdf, viewed 3.7.2013.
• 51 Vieira, J., F. Moura and J.M. Viegas. 2007. Transport policy and environmental impacts: The importance of multiinstrumentality in policy integration. Transport Policy 14: 421‐432.
• 52 Wuisan, L., van Leeuwen, J., van Koppen, C.S.A., 2010. Greening international shipping through private governance: A case study of the Clean Sea Shipping Project. Marine Policy 36, 165‐173.