Abstract
This paper analyzes the effectiveness of the current maritime safety policy system as a whole. It offers an overview of different kinds of policy instruments that are used to enhance maritime safety and the criteria for effective policy instruments. It provides a criticism and goes through the weak points of the current maritime safety policy system, and finally, the system is analyzed in the light of the criteria for effective policy. The paper is based on literary sources, mainly on articles published in academic journals. The conclusion of the article is that the development of individual policies will not greatly improve the current level of maritime safety, and more fundamental changes are needed in the governance of maritime safety.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Bennett, P. 2000. Environmental governance and private actors: Enrolling insurers in international maritime regulation.Political Geography 19: 875–899.
Bennett, P. 2001. Mutual risk: P&I insurance clubs and maritime safety and environmental performance.Marine Policy 25: 13–21.
Boisson, P. 1994. Classification societies and safety at sea: Back to basics to prepare for the future.Marine Policy 18 (5): 363–377.
Branch, A. E. 2007.Elements of shipping. 8th ed. London: Routledge.
Eide, M. S., Ø. Endresen, Ø. Breivik, O. W. Brude, I. H. Elligsen, K. Røang, J. Hauge, and P.O. Brett. 2007. Prevention of oil spill from shipping by modeling of dynamic risk.Marine Pollution Bulletin 54: 1619–1633.
European Commission. 2009. 3rd Maritime Safety Package — Flag states. http://ec.europa.eu/transport/maritime/safety/doc/2009_03_11_package_3/fiche01_en.pdf.
Faure, M., and W. Hui. 2008. Financial gaps for oil pollution damage: A historical mistake.Marine Policy 32: 592–606.
Finland’s Ministry of Transport and Communications. 2009.Ohjelma Itämeren meriturvallisuuden parantamiseksi: Työr yhmän taustaraportti [Baltic Sea Maritime Safety programme: Report of the working group]. Publications of the Ministry of Transport and Communications 13/2009. http://www.lvm.fi/c/document_library/get _file?folderId=339549&name=DLFE-7220.pdf&title=Julkaisuja%2013-2009 [in Finnish].
Goss, R. 2008. Social responsibility in shipping.Marine Policy 32: 142–146.
Goulielmos, A. M. 2001. Maritime safety: Facts and proposals for European OPA.Disaster Prevention and Management 10 (4): 278–285.
Greiner, R., M. D. Young, A. D. Macdonald, and M. Brooks. 2000. Incentive instruments for the sustainable use of marine resources.Ocean & Coastal Management 43: 29–50.
Hetherington, C., R. Flin, and K. Mearns. 2006. Safety in shipping: The human element.Journal of Safety Research 37: 401–411.
Huppes, G., and U.E. Simonis. 2009. Environmental policy instruments. InPrinciples of Environmental Sciences. Ed. Boersema J. J. and L. Reijinders. Aldershot: Springer Science + Business Media B.V.
Hänninen, H.2007. Negotiated risks-The Estonia accident and the stream of bow visor failures in the Baltic ferry traffic. PhD diss. Helsinki School of Economics A-300.
Hänninen, M. 2008.Analysis of human and organizational factors in marine traffic risk modeling — Literature review. Helsinki University of Technology, TKK-AM-4. http://www.merikotka.fi/safgof/Hanninen_2008_Analysis.pdf.
IMO. 2009a.Voluntary IMO Member State Audit Scheme.
IMO. 2009b. Goal-based construction standards for new ships.
Kaps, H. 2004. Quality shipping — Incentives, disincentives.WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs 3 (1): 85–97.
Karvonen, T., A. Keltaniemi, P. Sundberg, R. Tikkanen, T. Nyman, M. Porthin, S. Sonninen, and H. Honka. 2006.Merenkulun turvallisuuden hallinta [Governance of maritime safety]. Merenkulkulaitoksen julkaisuja 6/2006 [Publications from the Finnish Maritime Administration 6/2006]. http://portal.fma.fi/portal/page/portal/ fma_fi/tietopalvelut/julkaisut/julkaisusarjat/2006/Merenkulun_turvallisuuden _hallinta_6_2006.pdf [in Finnish].
Klemmensen, B., S. Pedersen, K. Dirkinck-Holmfeld, A. Marklund, and L. Rydén. 2007.Environmental policy — Legal and economic instruments. Uppsala: The Baltic University Press.
Knapp, S., and P. H. Franses. 2007.Comprehensive review of the maritime safety regimes — Present status and recommendations on improvement. Econometric Institute Report 2007–19 Erasmus University Rotterdam. http://publishing.eur.nl/ir/repub/ asset/10097/EI%20Working%20Paper%202007–19.pdf.
Knapp, S., and P.H. Franses. 2009. Does ratification matter and do major conventions improve safety and decrease pollution in shipping.Marine Policy 33: 826–846.
Kovats, L. J. 2006. How flag states lost the plot over shipping’s governance: Does a ship need a sovereign?Maritime Policy & Management 33 (1): 75–81.
Kujala, P., M. Hänninen, T. Arola, and J. Ylitalo. 2009. Analysis of the marine traffic safetyinthe Gulf of Finland.Reliability Engineering and System Safety 94 (8): 1349–1357.
Kuronen, J., and U. Tapaninen 2009.Maritime safety in the Gulf of Finland — Review on policy instruments. Publications from the Centre for Maritime Studies University of Turku A49. http://mkk.utu.fi/dok/pub/A-49%20maritime%20safety.pdf
Lappalainen, J. 2008.Transforming maritime safety culture — Evaluation of the impacts of the ISM Code on maritime safety culture in Finland. Publications from the Centre for Maritime Studies University of TurkuA46 2008. http://www.merikotka.fi/metku/ Lappalainen_2008_transforming_maritime_safety_culture_v2.pdf.
Lawford, H. 2002. Criminal responsibility in shipping. Presentation held in MLA-ANZ Conference, 3 October, Melbourne, Australia. www.mlaanz.org/docs/Herry %20Lawford.doc.
Lois, P., J. Wang, A. Wall, and T. Ruxton 2004. Formal safety assessment of cruise ships.Tourism Management 25 (1): 93–109.
Noussia, K. 2007.The principle of indemnity in marine insurance contracts: A comparative approach. Berlin: Springer.
Permanent Commission of Enquiry into Accidents at Sea 2000.Report of the enquiry into the sinking of the ERIKA off the costs of Brittany on 12 December 1999. http:// www.ismcode.net/legal_and_technical_reports/Erika_Final_Report.pdf.
Rambøll Danmark A/S. 2006.Navigational safety in the Sound between Denmark and Sweden (Øresund) — Risk and cost-benefit analysis. http://www.sofartsstyrelsen.dk/ SiteCollectionDocuments/Publikationer/Sejladssikkerhed/Navigational_safety _Oresund.pdf.
Roberts, J. 2007.Marine environment protection and biodiversity conservation: The application and future development of the IMO’s particularly sensitive sea area concept. Berlin: Springer.
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.
Roe, M. 2009. Multi-level and polycentric governance: Effective policymaking for shipping.Maritime Policy & Management 36 (1): 39–56.
Ruud, S., and Å. Mikkelsen 2008. Risk-based rules for crane safety systems.Reliability Engineering and System Safety 93: 1369–1376.
Sage, B. 2005. Identification of ‘High Risk Vessels’ in coastal waters.Marine Policy 29: 349–355.
Stopford, M. 2009.Maritime economics. 3rd edition. London: Routledge.
Trucco, P., E. Cagno, F. Ruggeri, and O. Grande. 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.
Uggla, Y. 2007. Environmental protection and the freedom of the high seas: The Baltic Sea as a PSSA from a Swedish perspective.Marine Policy 31: 251–257.
Vanem, E., P. Antão, I. Østvik, and F. Del Castillo de Comas. 2008. Analysing the risk of LNG carrier operations.Reliability Engineering & System Safety 93 (9): 1328–1344.
Vieira, J., F. Moura, and J. M. Viegas. 2007. Transport policy and environmental impacts: The importance of multi-instrumentality in policy integration.Transport Policy 14: 421–432.
Walker, W. E. 2000. POLSSS: Overview and cost-effectiveness analysis.Safety Science 35: 105–121.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kuronen, J., Tapaninen, U. Evaluation of maritime safety policy instruments. WMU J Marit Affairs 9, 45–61 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03195165
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03195165