Page 32 - 02

32 Y.A. SOYADI, Y.A. SOYADI, Y.A. SOYADI ve Y.A. SOYADI

Coastquard Agency (MCA). Two years later, in 1995, MSC 65 agreed that FSA should be a
high priority on its agenda and in 1997 MSC at its 68th session and the Marine Environment
Protection Committee (MPEC) at its 40th session approved the “Interim guidelines for the
application of Formal Safety Assessment to the IMO rule making process”. Experience from
the trial applications since 1997 the guidelines (MSC Circ. 1023) that were adopted at MSC 74
and MPEC 47, superseded the interim guidelines. The new guidelines are called “Guidelines
for Formal Safety Assessment for use in the IMO rule making process” (MSC Circ. 1023 and
MPEC Circ. 392, 5 April 2002).

In 2002 the International Maritime Organization (IMO) approved guidelines for the Formal
Safety Assessment (FSA) as “a rational and systematic process for assessing the risks associated
with shipping activity and for evaluating the costs and benefits of IMO's options for reducing
these risks”(IMO, 2002; MSC-MEPC.2/Circ.12, LONDON, UK; 2013). The basic philosophy
of the FSA is that it can be used as a tool to facilitate a transparent decision-making process. In
addition, it provides a mean of being proactive, enabling potential hazards to be considered
before a serious accident occurs. However, the description of the method can give an impression
that the definition of the word “risk” does not fully reflect the way the risk is further explained
and it seems that the components relevant for risk description change depending on the context.
In the context of risk analysis, presented in the FSA guidelines risk is defined as a combination
of the probability (P) and consequences (C) of a given action (IMO; Aug, 2012). Further in the
guidelines, in Chapter 7 “Risk control options”, the risk is decomposed and the uncertainty
aspect of two risk components (P, C) is added as an important element of the decision process.
Moreover, for the identification of risk control measures, Sub-chapter 7.2.2 suggests developing
causal chains of events leading to an accident, which means that the definition of risk includes
an insight into certain scenarios leading to the undesired situations. Finally, Chapter 10,
“Presentation of FSA results”, stresses the need for a discussion about the assumptions,
limitations and uncertainties of a risk model. It has been argued that the FSA, presented as a
proactive, highly technical and complex method, can be misused, yielding results which may
not fully reflect the relevant features of the analyzed system (Devanney, 2013; Kontovas,2009).

The IMO organized an international conference which culminated in the Torremolinos
International Convention for the safety of fishing vessels, in order to recognize the need for
attention to safety of commercial fishing vessels in 1977. It established uniform principles and
rules regarding design, construction and equipment for fishing vessels 24 m in length and over.
It was adopted at the Torremolinos Protocol of 1993 relating to the Torremolinos International
Convention for the Safety of Fishing Vessel, 1977. The IMO convention on standart of
training, certification and watch keeping for seafarers (STCW) 1978 is another important factor.
Notable among these efforts is the Document for Guidance on Fishermen‟s Training and
Certification, An International Maritime Training Guide. London (IMO, 1988) and Code of
Safety for Fishermen and Fishing Vessels, Part A – Safety&Health Practices for Skippers and
Crew, London (IMO, 1975a). Furthermore, Voluntary Guidelines for the Design, Construction
and Equipment of Small Fishing Vessels, an International Maritime Training Guide.
London(IMO, 1980) and Code of Safety for Fishermen and Fishing Vessels, Part B –
Safety&Health Requirements for the Construction and Equipment of Fishing Vessels,
London(IMO,1975b). These standarts are jointly prepared by IMO and two other United
Nations subsidiaries, Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and International Labour
Organization (ILO).

GiDB|DERGi Sayı 1, 2015