What is Formal Safety Assessment?

What is Formal Safety Assessment?

One way to ensure that necessary measures are taken before a disaster occurs is to use the Formal Safety Assessment (FSA) process.

The process is described as “a logical and systematic process for assessing the risks associated with maritime shipping activities and evaluating the costs and benefits of options that the International Maritime Organization (IMO) may adopt to reduce those risks”.

It can be used as a tool to help evaluate new regulations or compare proposed changes with existing standards. It also provides a balance between various technical and operational issues (including human factors) and safety and cost.

The Formal Safety Assessment (FSA) was originally developed, at least in part, in response to the 1988 Piper Alpha accident in the North Sea, when an explosion on an offshore platform killed 167 people. It is now being used in the IMO rulemaking process.

The FSA Guidelines were approved in 2002 for use in the IMO rulemaking process (MSC/Circ.. 1023/MEPC/Circ.392). MSC/Circ subsequently revised the Guidelines.. 1180-MEPC/Circ.474 and MSC-MEPC.2/Circ 5. The Guidelines have now been superseded by MSC-MEPC.2/Circ.12/Rev.2.

The revisions include a revision to Section 3 “Methodology”, with a new paragraph stating that the accident reports, near misses, and operational failure data must be reviewed objectively, and their reliability, uncertainty, and validity assessed and reported. Additionally, the assumptions and limitations of the data must be clearly communicated.

The Committee agreed to establish a correspondence group to resolve outstanding issues further, particularly the issue of inconsistent results from different ship safety assessments (FSAs) on the same subject, and to clarify the techniques used for specific FSAs.

The Committee also agreed to establish a risk assessment expert group, if necessary, to review risk assessment studies when the Committee intends to use them to make decisions on specific issues. The safety assessment review process was agreed upon.

The MSC agreed in principle that the proposed expert group would review risk assessment studies on specific topics submitted to the Organization, as directed by the Committee, and prepare relevant reports for submission to the Committee. The composition of the expert group was left for future discussion; however, the Committee agreed in principle that members participating in the expert group should have experience in risk assessment, a maritime background, and knowledge/training in applying risk assessment guidance.

What is FSA?

FSA formal safety assessment is a structured, systematic approach to enhancing maritime safety, including the protection of life, health, the marine environment and property, through risk analysis and cost-benefit assessment.

A marine safety assessment (FSA) can be used as a tool to help evaluate new maritime safety and marine environmental protection regulations, or to compare existing regulations with improved regulations, with a view to achieving a balance between various technical and operational issues (including human factors) and maritime safety or marine environmental protection and costs.

A maritime risk assessment consists of five steps:

Hazard identification (list all relevant accident scenarios and their possible causes and consequences);

Risk assessment (assess risk factors);

Risk control options (develop regulatory measures to control and mitigate identified risks);

Cost-benefit assessment (determine the effectiveness of each risk control option);

Decision recommendations (provide information on hazards, their associated risks, and the effectiveness of alternative risk control options).

In short, these steps can be summarized as:

What could go wrong? = Hazard identification (list all relevant accident scenarios and their possible causes and consequences);

How serious and likely is the accident? = Risk assessment (assess risk factors);

Can the situation be improved? = Risk control options (develop regulatory measures to control and mitigate identified risks).

What would it cost? How much would it improve? = Cost-benefit assessment (determine the effectiveness of each risk control option);

What actions should be taken? = Decision recommendations (provide information on risks, associated risks, and the cost-effectiveness of alternative control options).

The application of MRAs may be particularly relevant to regulatory proposals that have far-reaching cost implications for the shipping industry or that may create administrative or legislative burdens.

It is achieved by providing clear arguments for proposed regulatory measures and supporting comparisons of various options for these measures. This is consistent with the fundamental philosophy of the Fisheries Safety Convention, as it can serve as a tool to promote transparency in the decision-making process. Additionally, it enables proactive review of potential risks before a major incident occurs.

The Fisheries Safety Convention represents a fundamental shift from the fragmented, reactive regulatory approach of the past to a proactive, integrated approach, based, above all, on transparent, sound risk assessment and management. This approach promotes wider compliance with the maritime regulatory framework, thereby improving safety and environmental protection.

One area where the Fisheries Safety Convention is already being applied is the safety of bulk carriers . In December 1998, the Maritime Safety Committee , the highest technical body of the International Maritime Organization ( IMO ), approved a framework that sets out the objectives, scope and implementation of the project. The framework aims to:

Inform IMO of future decisions on measures to improve the safety of bulk carriers;

Apply the Fisheries Safety Convention approach to the safety of dry bulk cargo transportation ; and

Ensure international cooperation and agreement.

The Food Standards Agreement is a highly technical and complex document. However, it offers a way forward and breaks past deadlocks, which were often delayed until problems arose, leading to measures based more on public opinion and political considerations than on technical merits.