351
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Researchfield
Thereisnouniversallyacceptedgeneraldefinitionof
arisk,butonecommonlyappliedandauthoritative
resolutioninmostindustrialcontexts,definestherisk
as“acombinationoftheprobability,orfrequency,of
occurrenceofadefinedhazardandthemagnitudeof
the consequences of the occurrence” (Krist
iansen
2010). According to the International Maritime
Organization(IMO), the risk is the “combination of
thefrequencyandtheseverityoftheconsequence”,
which thereby articulates two components of the
likelihood of occurrence and the probability of
severityofthe(un)predictableconsequences.“Safety
management objectives of the company
should…establish safeguards against all identified
risks”asstatedinpa
ragraph1.2.2.2oftheISMCode
(InternationalSafetyManagement Code). According
toISO8402:1995/BS4778theriskmanagementwhich
includesthe maritime riskassessmentis defined as:
“Theprocesswherebydecisionsaremadetoaccepta
knownorassessedriskand/ortheimplementationof
act
ionstoreducethe consequencesorprobabilityof
occurrence.”
Manyscientistshavestudiedtheproblemofrisk
managementand riskassessment indifferent fields,
particularly in maritime transportation. It is
necessarytomentiononeoftherecentbooksdevoted
to this problem (Kristiansen 2010). The author
considersallaspectsofma
ritimeriskandsafetyfrom
engineeringandoperationalperspectives,aswell as
safetyrequirements.Thebookdescribestheproblem
in the fields of shipping management, ship design
andnavalarchitectureandtransportmanagement,as
Risk Assessment for Fishing Vessels at Fishing
Grounds
S.S.Moyseenko,L.E.Meyler&V.A.Bondarev
BalticFishingFleetStateAcademyoftheKaliningradStateTechnicalUniversity,Kaliningrad,Russia
ABSTRACT: Safety and efficiency of fishing fleet activity depend largely on the quality of management
decisions.Cause‐and‐effectrelationshipsofaccidentsinvolvingfishingvesselswereidentifiedbymeansofan
analysisofemergenciesandfishingincidents.Thesuggestedmethodofriskscalculat
ionisbasedontheuseof
statistical methods, fuzzy sets/expert estimations method and the probability theory. The following most
commontasksarepresentedandsolved:
‐thereisanimpactoftwoormoreindependentnegativefactors/eventsonthevesselsuchasfailureofasonar,
avesseloperatorerror,anot
hervesseloperatorerror.
‐ a transport vessel carries out loading and unloading of fishing vessels under different environmental
conditions.Thevalueoftheriskofanemergencyincidentisdetermined.
‐ the fishing vessel navigation performs under various meteorological conditions. A priori probability of
incident‐freeoperationiscalculatedaccordingtoexpertesti
mations.
http://www.transnav.eu
the International Journal
on Marine Navigation
and Safety of Sea Transportation
Volume 9
Number 3
September 2015
DOI:10.12716/1001.09.03.07
352
well as safety management, insurance and accident
investigation.
Some paper at the TransNav’ conferences and
journalhavepresentedresultsfrominvestigationsin
thefieldofnavigation.Forexample,thenavigational
risk is defined (Gucma 2008) as the product of
probability of failure occurrence and the
consequences it can cause. The
possibility of
applying risk analysis in the area of ship handling
withthefocusonthehumanfactor(Kobyliński2009)
wasinvestigated.
The researchers (Jin et al. 2002) developed a
fishingvessel accidentprobabilitymodel forfishing
areas.Theresultsindicatethatmedium‐sizedvessels
have the highest accident
probability, while small
vessels have the lowest ones. The suggested
probabilitymodel is an important building block in
the development and quantitative assessment of
management mechanisms related to safety in the
commercialfishingindustry.Anapproachtofishing
safety policy was also elaborated (Perez‐Labajos
2008). In the field of fishing
safety policy, it is
acknowledged that the development of a working
legalframeworkofreferenceisavitalpriorcondition
for the implementation of measures aimed at
improvingsafety.
An analysis of problems of the safety of marine
cargotransportation includingmethodsand models
of risk assessment are given in
recent publications
(Moyseenko & Meyler 2011, Kirichenko et al. 2014).
Both organizational aspects of safety of the marine
transportation of different kinds of cargo and risk
managementareconsideredthere.
Fishery has been and remains one of the most
dangerous of all human activities. A feature of
oceanic fishery and the
transport service of the
fishing fleet at the fishing grounds is that all
operations are carried out under conditions of
impactsfrommanyinternalandexternalfactorsand
theʺaggressiveʺ environment. The safety and
effectivenessofthefishingfleetlargelydependenton
the quality of management decisions related to the
safetyofnavigationandfishing.
In this regard, the actual task is the risk
assessment and management during oceanic
fisheries. The problem of risk management in the
fisheryhasbeenstudiedbyscientistsandexpertsof
some European countries (Perez‐Labajos 2008), in
particular countries around the Baltic Sea (Final
Report
2014). But it is necessary to note that this
problemhasnotbeensufficientlydeveloped.Cause‐
and‐effectrelationshipsofaccidentsinvolvingfishing
vessels are identified by means of the analysis of
emergencies and fishing occurrences. Methods of
calculating the level of a predicted risk for various
combinationsofnegative
factorsinthe externaland
internal environment are elaborated. The suggested
method of risks calculation is based on the use of
statisticalmethods,thefuzzysets/expertestimations
methodandtheprobabilitytheory.
1.2 Scenarioofemergencydevelopment
There are a variety of risks which inherent to the
workofthe fishing
fleet at the fishing grounds and
cargo transportation to a port. In the frame of this
paper selection of risks in four main groups is
considered:
1 theriskofvesselandcargolosses;
2 theriskofaccidentsandemergencyincidentsthat
wouldnotimplythelossofa
vesselandcargo;
3 the risk of the failure of technical facilities
providing storage, transportation and cargo
safety;
4 theriskofarisingfishingaccidents(forexample,a
damageorlossoffishinggear).
The analysis of a large number (over 500) of
accidents / incidents of emergency occurring with
fishing
and transport vessels (Moyseenko et al.
2014a)makesitpossibletoconcludethatthescenario
ofanemergencyduringoperationofthefleetatthe
fishing ground and the transport service of fishing
vessels is developed in the most general form
accordingtotheschemeshowninFigure1.
This
paperdefinesthecircumstanceasacondition
or a set of conditions that directly or indirectly
contributetoanemergencyorarethedirectcauseof
an accident. For example, de‐energizing a vessel
bounding for berthing can often be the cause of an
emergency and accidents. Under certain
circumstances (lack
of necessary information about
theweather,approachingahurricane,tsunami,etc.),
severe weather conditions cause emergency
situationsresultinginavesselbeingdashedagainst
therocks,structurally destroyed and flooded. Thus,
thecircumstancesgeneratetheriskoffailures,errors,
irresistible forces of nature that cause accidents
(collisions, groundings, losses of
the vessel and
cargo).
Figure1.Generalschemeofaccidentscenariodevelopment
The scenario of the development of emergencies
anddisastersoffishingandtransportvesselsduring
cargo operations and transportation is shown in
Figure 1. It can be used as a general model in the
calculation of the risk of disaster emergency in the
process of the fishing vessels work at the
fishing
ground and the fishing fleet transport services
(Moyseenkoetal.2014b).
2 METHODSOFTHERISKASSESSMENTOF
FISHINGVESSELSACCIDENTSAND
EMERGENCYINCIDENTSDURINGTHE
OCEANICFISHERY
2.1 Typesoffishingincidents
Anemergencyfishingincidentis,firstofall,theloss
of the fishing gear. It is
associated with such
353
ʺprovocativeʺ reasons as failures of technical
equipment,errorsofvesselsoperatorswhilefishing,
meteorologicalconditions, etc. Forexample, failures
ofequipmentsuchasasonarcancauseasnaganda
lossofthetrawlwhentrawlingonheavy(e.g.rocky)
grounds.
Afailureofatrawl winchcan
alsocausefishing
geardamage,becausetheoperatorwillnotbeableto
control the process of the trawl movement, in
particularwhenchangingahorizonoftrawling,etc.
Operatorerrorsareprimarilyduetotheincorrect
assessmentofthesituation,especiallywhenworking
inagroupofvessels,andtherefore
awrongchoiceof
a vessel manoeuvre. An operator error may also
happen due to a wrong estimation of the degree of
influenceofmeteorologicalconditionsontheprocess
of fishing. For example, there is a risk that vessel
stability will lose with the threat of squally gusts
when hauling
gear and capsizing the vessel
(Moyseenkoetal.2014b).
Assessment of the risk of accidents and fishing
emergency incidents can be done by experts and
methods of the probability theory. However, it is
necessarytohavearepresentativestatisticalbasis,i.e.
a large amount of accidents data and fishing
incidents in
order to use rigorous mathematical
methods.Moreover,thesedatashouldbegroupedby
the type of vessels, fishing grounds, types of
accidents/incidents, fishing gear, causes and
consequences,timeofyear/season.However,such a
statisticalbasis,properlysystematized,doesnotexist
today.
2.2 Theemergencyriskassessmentduringfishingbythe
groupofvessels
Due to the lack of statistics about fishing vessels
accidents/incidents during fishery it is possible to
applythemethodofexpertestimatesusingthefuzzy
sets theory. Let us consider the most common
practice of emergency situations and methods for
riskassessmentofnegativeconsequences.
Three independent events,
the occurrence of
which could cause a critical situation and fishing
accident/incident can occur during the process of
trawlingbythegroupofvessels:thefirst(A
1)‐sonar
failure;thesecond(A
2)–anoperatorerror;thethird
(A
3)–anothervesseloperatorerror.Itisrequiredto
find the probabilistic risk assessment of fishing
accident/incident.The solution algorithmconsists of
severalsteps.
The first step is determining expert estimates of
theprobabilitythatduringthetrawlingprocessnone
oftheevents(A
1,A2,A3)willappear.Expertsdefined
theminimumandmaximumvaluesofprobabilities.
Then the calculation is performed by the formulae
(Ventzel&Owcharov1973,Moyseenkoetal.2013):
P
i
exp
=(Pi
min
+4Pi
mp
+Pi
max
)/6 (1)
where P
i
exp
= a priori probability of the i‐th failure
expectation; P
i
min
= the minimum value of the i‐th
probability of the failure; P
i
mp
= the most probable
valueoftheprobabilityofthei‐thfailure(Formula2);
andP
i
max
=themaximumvalueofthei‐thprobability
ofthefailure.
P
i
mp
=(2Pi
min
+Pi
max
)/3 (2)
Thedispersioniscalculatedbytheformula:
δ
2
=[(Pi
max
‐Pi
min
)/6]
2
(3)
Letussupposethattheresultofcalculationsofa
prioriprobabilitiesoftheoccurrenceofeventsP(A
1),
P(A
2),P(A3)whicharerespectivelyequalto0.95,0.90,
0.85hasbeendetermined.
Thesecondstepistheprobabilitythatnoneofthe
independent events A
i will appear. It can be
calculated by multiplying the probabilities (Ventzel
&Owcharov1973):
P(A
1A2A3)=P(A1)∙P(A2)∙P(A3) (4)
P(A
1A2A3)=0.95∙0.90∙0.85=0.727
Theprobabilitiesthattherewillbethei‐thevent
isrespectivelyequalto:
1–0.95=0.05;1–0.90=0.10;1–0.85=0.15
Thus, the probability that all three events may
appear during the process of fishing, and cause an
accident,
is:
P(A)=0.05∙0.10∙0.15=0.00075
Thus, the probability (risk) of a critical situation
appearance when a vessel works in the group of
vesselsisequalto0.00075.
An analysis of a solution to such a type of
practical problems shows that as a rule, the
probability
of the jointoccurrence of theseeventsis
small. But the probability of critical situations
increases dramatically in terms of the work on
fishing vessels during the autumn‐winter period at
small fishing grounds and a large gathering of
vesselsthere.
For example, when the fishing fleet operates in
the
regionof Antarcticainthewinter period witha
priori probabilities of 0.85; 0.75; 0.70 (these are
evaluations by experts who know this area of
operationwell)theprobabilityoftheriskofafishing
accident/incidentincreasesto0.011.Toneglectsucha
riskisdangerous.
2.3 Theriskassessmentof
accidents/incidentsinthecase
ofaco‐occurrenceoftwoormoredependentevents
Let us define an event B
i as the cause of the i‐th
damage of fishing vessel/fishing gear/environment
(marine pollution). The risk of the fishery can be
estimated by a mathematical expectation of the
damageafter the possible accident. The price of the
risk is calculated by formulae (Topalov & Torskiy
2007,Moyseenkoetal.2014a):
R=M(w) (5)
354
whereM(w)=afunctionofadamage.
Componentsofthefishingriskofaccidentsorthe
damage to the vessel can be represented by the
followingexpression:
R=M(w)=ƩP(B
i)∙wi (6)
where∑P(B
i)=theprobabilityoftheeventBi;andwi
=theestimatedamountofadamageprice.
Letusconsidermethodsoftheriskassessmentof
accidents R
A. For this goal the event is defined
causing the i‐th type of the damage to the
vessel/fishinggearafteranaccidentB
i:
Bi=AՈCi (7)
where A = the event of a fishing accident/incident;
and C
i = the event of implementation of the fishing
accident/incidentaccordingtothei‐thscenario.
The probability of the event associated with the
damagetothevesselaftertheaccidentisdefinedby
theexpression(8),becauseAandC
iarejointevents
(Ventzel&Owcharov1973):
P(B
i)=P(AՈCi)=P(A )P(Ci|A) (8)
Substituting(8)into(6)weobtain:
R
A=∑P(A)P(Ci|A)wi (9)
ThevalueofP(A)isthecausalcomponentinthe
risk of an accident R
A and the second value
ΣP(C
i|A)wi describes the expected consequences of
theaccident.
Evaluation of casual components of the risk is
carried out by statistical methods, methods of the
fuzzy sets theory and expert estimates and
simulation modeling techniques of
emergencies/scenarios.
Evaluation of the expected consequences of
accidents/incidents with fishing vessels is mainly
based on the
analysis of “the event tree” using a
mathematical apparatus (Abchuk 1983, Ventzel &
Owcharov 1973, Topalov & Torskiy 2007). Let us
considertheexampleofthepracticalimplementation
ofthemethod.
A voyage of any fishing vessel is carried out
under various meteorological conditions. Let us
assume,inparticular,thatthe
vessel’soperatingtime
under good weather conditions is 50 %, under bad
weatherconditionsis30%,butthevesselcanoperate
onfishery.Underthemostsevereweatherconditions
the vessel’s operating time is 20 % and the vessel
either may operate or not. According to experts
estimations of
a priori probabilities of trouble‐free
operations under conditions of the good, bad and
heavyweatherarecalculatedbyformulae(1–3).Let
thevalueofthembe,respectively0.98;0.95;0.80.Itis
necessary to determine the probability that the
voyage will complete without fishing
accidents/incidents.
Letusintroduce
thenotation:A=theeventofthe
successful completion of the trip; and B
1, B2, B3 =
events of the vessel operations under different
weatherconditions.Then:
P(B
1)=0.50;P(B2)=0.30;P(B3)=0.20
TheeventAoccursinacaseoftheappearanceof
one of the events B
1, B2, B3, which form a complete
groupofdisjointevents.Thentheprobabilityofthe
event A is the sum product of the probabilities of
eacheventofB
1,B2,B3ontheconditionalprobability,
respectively.
n
ii
i1
PA PB PA|B
(10)
Conditionalprobabilities:
P(A|B
1)=0.98;P(A|B2)=0.95;P(A|B3)=0.87
Theprobabilitythatthevoyagewillbecarriedout
withoutfishingaccidentsandincidentsiscalculated
bytheformula(10):
P(A)=0.5∙0.98+0.3∙0.95+0.2∙0.87=0,949
Thus the probability of a favourable outcome of
the trip of a fishing vessel
is equal to 0.949 and a
probabilistic assessment of the risk of a fishing
accidentorincidentis:1–0.949=0.051,respectively.
Ifforexamplethe amountof the damage(in the
case of an accident or incident) is equal to $100,000
thepriceoftheriskisequal
to0.051∙100,000=$5,100.
Thepossiblecommercialprofitofthevesselworkat
thefishinggroundisexpectedtobeequalto$50,000.
Theestimatedamountofthepriceoftheriskisnota
considerable sum in comparison with a possible
commercial profit for the fishing vessel of
the
mediumsize.
2.4 Theintegratedriskassessment
Theintegratedriskassessmentduringoceanicfishery
canberepresented(Moyseenkoetal.2013)as:
thesumofprobabilitiesofaccidentsateachstage
offishingoperationofthefishingvessel;
theaverage‐weightedprobabilityoftheriskofan
accident;
the average‐weighted price of the risk of an
accident;
thetotalamountoftheriskpriceateachstageof
fishingoperationofthevessel.
The algorithm for making the integrated risk
assessmentcanbepresentedbysequentialsteps:
1 Todefinetheprobabilityofthefailure
according
to statistical data or expert assessments (mini‐
max).
2 Todefinetheweightestimatesofthej‐typefailure
mode/conditionsthosehavecausedtheaccidents.
3 To estimate the conditional probability of the
eventBi(accidents ofthei‐type). Thecalculation
is performed for all j, i, and l
(stages, routes,
modesoftransportation).
355
4 To define values of the maximum probability,
what types of failures/conditions are most likely
toleadtotheeventBi(accidentsofthei‐type).
5 Tomaketheintegralassessmentofanemergency
or the event Bi probability. The integral
assessment P(Bil|Ajl) is calculated according to
thelaw
ofadditionofprobabilities.
6 Tocalculatetheaveragecostoftheriskasasum
ofproductsofweightedestimatesofthej‐typeof
the failure and the i‐type of the damage at the
ground l, to the cost of risk. This cost is
determinedbymultiplying
theprobabilitiesofan
accident arising to the amount of the damage
fromit.
7 Tocomparethecalculatedcostoftheriskwiththe
permissible amount of the risk. It is recognized
thatiftherearenocasualties,andthecostofrisk
is less than the expected commercial profit,
the
riskmaybeacceptable.
3 CONCLUSIONS
Theriskassessmentmethodologyinoceanicfisheries
is based on the use of the general model of the
scenarioofemergencysituations,thetheoryoffuzzy
sets and expert assessments. The calculation of risk
assessments should take into account the causal
relationships in
the logic ofʺthe
circumstances/conditions‐cause‐consequences.ʺ
The proposed risk assessment methodology
includesbothmethodsforcalculatingtheprobability
of risk assessments during the oceanic fishery and
calculating the price of the risk, i.e. the expected
amount of the damage of the vessel, cargo,
environmentinacasethesituationof
theriskwillbe
realized(theaccidentoccurs).
Tomakeadecisionregardingtheadmissibilityof
the risk (assuming that there is no threat to human
life)thevalue of the riskprice should be compared
with the expected commercial profit of the fishing
vessel operation. In the case where
the expected
profit is higher than the risk price, such a risk for
commercial reasons is acceptable. Calculations of
probabilistic risk assessments make it possible to
estimate the degree of the risk and to develop
measuresto reduce thelevel of risktoits allowable
values.Riskmanagementwillimprovethe
safetyof
thefishingfleetinoceanicfishery.
REFERENCES
Abchuk V.A. 1983. Risk theory in the marine practice.
Leningrad:Sudostroenie(inRussian)
Final Report of Flagship Project 2014. “To lay the
groundwork for developing a plan to reduce the
number of accidents in fisheries”. EU strategy for the
Baltic Sea region. Baltic Sea Advisory Council.
http://www.bsac.dk/archive/
Dokumenter/Flagship%20Project/BSAC%20Safety%20R
eport%20FINAL.pdf
Gucma
M. 2008. Combination of processing methods for
varioussimulationdatasets.TransNav,theInternational
Journal on Marine Navigation and Safety of Sea
Transportation,2(1):11‐15
JinD.,Kite‐Powell H.L.Thunberg, E.Solow A.R.& Talley
W.K. 2002. A model of fishing vessel accident
probability.JournalofSafetyResearch,33:
497‐510
KirichenkoA.V.,LatukhovS.V.,NikitinV.A.&RagevO.A.
2014.Organizationalandtechnicalfoundationsofshipsand
port facilities security. S.‐Petersburg: SUMRF of Adm.
S.OMakarovPubl.House(inRussian)
Kobyliński L. 2009. Risk analysis and human factor in
preventionofCRGcasualties.TransNav,theInternational
Journal on Marine Navigation and Safety of Sea
Transportation,3(4):443‐448
Kristiansen S. 2010. Maritime Transportation: Safety
ManagementandRiskAnalysis.Elsevier
Moyseenko S.S. & Meyler L.E. 2011. Safety of marine cargo
transportation. Kaliningrad: BFFSA Publ. House (in
Russian)
Moyseenko S.S., Meyler L.E. & Faustova O.G. 2013.
Formation of
the integrated risk assessment of a
disaster in multimodal cargo transportation. Proc. X
Balticintern.maritimeforum,Swetlogorsk28–31May2013.
Kaliningrad:BFFSAPubl.House(inRussian)
Moyseenko S.S., Meyler L.E., Bondarev V.A. & Faustova
O.G.2014a.Analysisoftheproblemofriskassessment
in commercial fishing. Proc. XI Baltic
intern. maritime
forum,Swetlogorsk26–30May2014.Kaliningrad:BFFSA
Publ.House(inRussian)
Moyseenko S.S., Skrypnik V.P. & Faustova O.G. 2014b.
Differential‐integral approach to modeling the
processesofdevelopmentofemergenciesinnavigation
andoceanfishing.Bulletin of State University of sea and
river fleet of admiral S.O. Makarov
4(26): 47‐53. (in
Russian)
Perez‐Labajos,C.2008.Fishingsafetypolicyandresearch.
MarinePolicy,32:40‐45
Topalov V.P. & Torskiy V.G. 2007. Risks in navigation.
Odessa:Astroprint(inRussian)
Ventzel E.S. & Owcharov L.A. 1973. Theory of probability.
Moscow:Nauka(inRussian)
