See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/281273974

RAPORT – Guidance for Port Risk Assessment

Conference Paper · October 2010

CITATIONS READS

5 5,334

5 authors, including:

Phanthian Zuesongdham Pedro Antão

Hamburg Port Authority AöR ISCTE - University Institute of Lisbon
11 PUBLICATIONS 32 CITATIONS 63 PUBLICATIONS 935 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Pedro Antão on 18 October 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 RAPORT – Guidance for Port Risk Assessment
Author Name(s): Phanthian Zuesongdham1), Elisabetta Noce2),
Maria Valeria Salaris, Ana Maria Gómez Arche3), Pedro Antao4)

1)
Hamburg Port Authority AöR, Germany, Email: Phanthian.Zuesongdham@hpa.hamburg.de
2)
D’Appolonia, Italy, elisabetta.noce@dappolonia.it
3)
ISDEFE, Spain, mvsalaris@isdefe.es; amgomez@isdefe.es
4)
Instituto Superiore Técnico (CENTEC), Portugal, pantao@mar.ist.utl.pt

Abstract as supporting information for decision-makers on risk

management of the port operators.
RAPORT (Risk Assessment for PORT) is a web-based
platform provided as guidance tool for port operators Chapter 3 explains how RAPORT has been conceived.
and personnel dealing with safety issues; it is aimed at RAPORT is a web-information platform that supports
supporting risk assessment according to Formal Safety port operators (users) in performing their first risk as-
Assessment (FSA) as recommended by the International sessment in a specific area of port operations, created in
Maritime Organization (IMO) in the accordance with port process model defined in EF-
MSC/Circ.1023/MEPC/Circ.392. FORTS project.

RAPORT aims to support operational parties in ports as
well as regulatory bodies and community parties to
agree upon accepted residual risks for port operations,
and is a key result of the research project EFFORTS
(EFFective Operations in poRTS) funded by the Euro-
pean Commission in the scope of the 6th Framework
Programme.
This paper describes RAPORT concept and provides a
short description of the information available in its re-
positories as well as a demonstration of the application
presented by a case study.
Keywords
Risk Assessment; Port Operation; Safety; Security;
Formal Safety Assessment
Following the FSA methodology (recommended by
IMO) five steps are defined and their associated infor-
mation is provided.
A description on how the user can go through the differ-
ent steps to perform his own risk assessment and can
access to two real case-studies (courtesy of Port of Gi-
jón and Port of Dublin) as examples of the platform
usage is provided in Chapter 4.
2. Risk Management in Maritime Logistics
Risk management is a crucial issue for port operators. A
collision or an explosion of equipment or a vessel in a
port area does not only affect workers in that area but
might also have influences to other parties such as near-
by-residents, industries located in the port territory, etc.

1. Introduction A vital expectation of people living and working in the

Starting from expectations of port users and the state-of-
the-art risk assessment in maritime logistics, to be de-
tailed in Chapter 2, a new risk management framework
has been developed in the EFFORTS project (Work
Package - WP 3.2).
The ultimate goal of the risk management framework is
the provision of an easily accessible platform named
RAPORT (Risk Assessment for PORT) containing all
relevant information regarding risk assessment as well
port vicinity is that the port operators have a good plan-
ning and implementation to cope with such severe situa-
tions proactively and efficiently. Since all stakeholders
of ports are aware of this issue and the nature of port
operation is not a risk-free business, risk management is
therefore a sensible matter for any port operator. To
conduct a good risk management, risk assessment as its
pre-requisite must be well prepared and accomplished.
To begin with, it is very important to define the key
terms “risk management” and “risk assessment” for the

1
common understanding to this context. In this paper, we
define:
Risk assessment as overall process of risk analysis and
risk evaluation [ISO/IEC Guide 73:2002]
Risk management as coordinated activities to direct and
control an organization with regard to risk [ISO/IEC
Guide 73:2002]
Some of the ports in the world are advanced in the re-
search and assessment of risks such as in New Zealand
and Australia. A wide and rich literature exists in terms
of methodologies and approaches on how risks and
hazards can be assessed, managed, mitigated and con-
trolled. In maritime transport, Formal Safety Assess-
ment (FSA) - a widely accepted methodology for risk
assessment and recommended by IMO - is playing a
great role and becomes a main guideline for risk as-
sessment of port and ship operation nowadays. There is
a wide range of different techniques of how each FSA
step could be accomplished.
The result of investigation regarding the state-of-the-art
risk assessment in maritime logistics shows that, there
are needs to simplify the usability of methodology in
risk assessment for port operators according to FSA as
followings (Zuesongdham et al. 2009, p.4):
 when dealing with safety and security issues in
their operation, they need a systematic approach
and tools to specify tasks for risk consulting com-
panies to understand and tackle sensible hazards in
their ports;
 they should be able to provide the complete data for
risk experts engaged as consultants for detailed in-
vestigation and evaluation;
 they should be aware of the residual risks and how
to include them inside the contingency plan;
 they should be able to communicate the risk and
how it can be managed towards residents, port
community (third parties) and their port staffs.
3. RAPORT - The Concept of EFFORTS for
Risk Assessment in Port
Due to complexity of the topic “risk assessment” intro-
duced in Chapter 2, it is often that non-risk experts are
overstrained with numerous approaches which are not
comprehensive or difficult to apply. This repeatedly
results into misunderstanding and confusion when con-
ducting risk assessment. Such situation is also valid for
port operation.
At big ports, it is usual to have experts working in a
specific department, called “HSE (Health, Safety, Envi-
ronment) department”, dealing with risk issues. In small
ports, this is nearly unaffordable. Therefore, key prob-
lem for operational staff in ports is twofold: 1) to deter-
mine the risks associated to a specific operation within a
specific environment (risk assessment) and 2) to associ-
ate these to proven risk management procedures. The
innovation brought in this context by RAPORT makes it
possible also for small port operators to deal with risk
2
management over a framework realized through:
 Port risk taxonomy;
 Toolbox to assess port-related risks;
 Process-oriented reference architecture.
This set of innovation components is contained in a
comprehensively organized “EFFORTS Risk Assess-
ment Framework” which aims at European standards in
order to support operational parties in ports as well as
regulatory bodies and community parties to agree upon
accepted residual risks for port operations.
The International Maritime Organization (IMO) rec-
ommends Formal Safety Assessment (FSA) to deter-
mine risks of navigational measurements. IMO does not
cover port operations however it seems reasonable to
apply the same method for ports particularly because it
is more transparent than other methods and hence easier
to explain to port operators.
A development of a platform in the “EFFORTS Risk
Management Framework” so-called “RAPORT – Risk
Assessment in PORT” – is based on this methodology.
RAPORT is an information platform. It provides a
guideline / framework of how ports can deal with risk
assessment in a simply understandable way. The plat-
form composes of different sets of toolboxes and main
application to support risk assessment activities in port.
It also includes a description how to use specific infor-
mation for FSA process in an effective way.
In sum, RAPORT enables the users (port operators);
 to identify hazardous operations;
 to do a first risk assessment themselves;
 to apply best practices having been successfully
been applied by other ports;
 to draft a proper risk assessment specification in
case of third party contracts (consultants).
In order to realize the objective defined above, a con-
ceptual model for RAPORT is needed (see Figure 1).
Port
PortProcesses
Processes
Quick and EFFORTS
RAPORT easy WP 3.2
access
Core Task
Risk Assessments Methodologies Tools
Information
Scenarios
Hazards &
Materials Casualties
Regulatory
Case Studies Best Practices
Framework
Figure 1 – RAPORT Conceptual Model (Froese
2008)
The nine down boxes in Figure 1 represent the possible
repositories containing in the RAPORT platform. Start-
ing from the port processes, associated information
according to risk assessment is provided.

From the conceptual models, two further models are

defined for the development of the RAPORT platform:
1) Definition Model; 2) Structure Model.

Definition Model
In order to design a comprehensive approach for port
risk information platform, a definition model has to be
created and described. The general layout of the
RAPORT model includes two main parts (see Figure 2).
The first layer of information composes of two data-
bases (boxes). The “General Information” box contains
generic information such as glossary, overview of the Figure 3 - FSA Process (IMO)
framework FSA, examples of contingency plans or
expert risk studies, etc. Beside that, a Repository” box)
From the Definition Model, RAPORT Toolboxes are
includes, in a good and quick construction, all the in-
then composed of three different layers so-called Struc-
struments to be selected and developed by port opera-
ture Model as illustrated in Figure 4 and described in the
tors for their risk assessment activities.
following paragraphs.
Information in both boxes is structured in several
toolboxes able to support the development of the risk
assessment process.

General Information Repository

Introduction Methodologies
FSA Description Tools
Glossary Best Practices
others others

Applications
FSA Projects
Scenario Creation
Risk Matrix

Figure 4 - RAPORT Structure Model (Zuesongdham

Figure 2 - RAPORT Definition Model
(Zuesongdham et al. 2009)
The second layer is composed of applications which
exploit information of the first layer. The applications
include wizards of different functions such as conduct-
ing FSA project, creating scenario description, creating
risk matrix.
To ensure flexibility, RAPORT allows additional tool
boxes to be further included. Moreover, each toolbox is
linked but can also acts as independent database, ensur-
ing modularity.
Structure Model
Since FSA is selected as a main focal methodology of
risk assessment in RAPORT, the Structure Model is
designed as such that the platform contains necessary
information to perform each FSA step successfully.
As recommended by IMO, FSA is used as a basis for
the application of RAPORT and these processes are
shown in Figure 3.
et al. 2009)
Layer 0: Port Process Model
This layer comprises of process models on port opera-
tion. In EFFORTS, fives key process domains (areas)
are defined:
 Domain “Marine” associates mainly to navigation-
al issues and all processes of the port operation
which have relations to the ship operations when
calling at the port;
 Domain “Infrastructure” includes all activities in
regards to the land and water infrastructure of the
port such as fairway management, road / rail man-
agement, etc;
 Domain “Logistics” links the processes in relation
to the operation taking place in the port area among
ship, terminal and cargo / passengers;
 Domain “Interfaces” correlates the activities which
are not directly linked to the port operation but that
could be affected or influenced by the processes ex-
ecuted in the port area;
 Domain “Public Bodies” encompasses all process-
es which are normally linked directly to the public

3
 entities and can have influences on the port opera-
tion as well as other stakeholders in the port area
such as customs, police, security, fire brigade, etc.
Also guidelines and regulations issued by these en-
tities are also categorized under this domain.
Mapping the processes and possibly incurred hazards
can deliver some benefits for port operator as follows:
 Process owners in ports have on-hand information
about the associated hazards and risks to their pro-
cesses. Therefore, it is easier to help create contin-
gency plan for specific operation area since the
possible hazards are known.
 This approach is generic and therefore applicable
for any kind of ports irrespective to its operational
types or ownership models.
 It enables systematic mapping between the process,
its associated hazards and process responsible per-
sons. As a result, it is simpler to identify the author-
ity that is responsible to the defined hazards. This
will shorten the decision making process when
dealing with hazards in port operation.
Layer 1: Information Model
At this layer, different components which can be de-
rived from the toolboxes are deployed in FSA:
 Hazards Identification List (Casualties and Acci-
dent Types)
 Scenarios Description (Scenarios)
 Probabilities (to be qualitatively grouped as fre-
quent, likely, possible, unlikely, rare)
 Consequences (to be qualitatively grouped as cata-
strophic, major, moderate, minor, insignificant)
 Risks & Residual Risk (to be derived from Risk
Assessment Procedure)
 Risk Management Methodologies (Methodologies
and Tools)
Layer 2: Consolidated input for user interfaces
From layer 1, different sets of information are exploited
to help create input for the RAPORT users (port opera-
tors). A combination of this set of data enables port
experts to evaluate and create requirements for risk
experts. As a result, they can exactly give advice or
deliver the result as the aims set by the port experts for
their risk assessment or risk management projects of his
port.
The possible results include not only requirement defi-
nition but also the input in contingency plans which are
need to be created for specified hazards or operation of
the port.
Based on the Conceptual Model, Definition Model and
Structure Model, the next section will describe the
RAPORT as finished platform based on case studies
showing the capability of the RAPORT to support the
risk assessment activity for port operators.
4
4. Examples of RAPORT application in port
areas
This chapter presents step-by step the application of the
RAPORT to port areas through two examples, as well as
the possible integration of the platform with a Geo-
graphical Information System (GIS) for the visualiza-
tion of the risk levels in both port and neighbourhood
areas.
As already explained, the RAPORT platform is an easy-
to-use instrument to support the non-risk-expert user in
performing risk assessment following FSA step-by-step.
This will allow port operators to integrate the risk as-
sessment and the mitigation measures inside their own
Safety Management Systems (SMS).
Examples were performed in two European medium
sized ports (the port of Gjión and the port of Dublin),
with the aim of testing platform to create a specific
project (with its scenarios and related hazards) in coop-
eration with personnel directly involved in the risk man-
agement of port activities.
The port of Gijón is the Spanish leader in moving bulk
cargoes, mainly coal, iron and cement, and is the port
leader in rail traffic with a vast rail infrastructure at all
the quays and terminals. The development of rail traffic
reduces significantly the environmental impact of the
port.
The case study has been done in collaboration with
security manager and a member of the harbor police, in
charge of the security control centre.
Among the different terminals in the port, the coal and
iron ones have been chosen for the case-study.
The port of Dublin has discharging facilities liquid bulk
(oil, bitumen, chemicals, liquid petroleum gases and
molasses) together with dry bulk (concentrate, peat,
coal, grain, animal feedstuffs, fertilizer, ecocem cement
fines, etc.).
The two projects/case studies are available to all users
as demos in the RAPORT platform. The user can access
to two case studies by clicking in the appropriate link in
the welcome page (in the bottom of the login box).
The RAPORT platform has been conceived guiding the
user in the development of a risk management project
according to the 5 steps of the IMO FSA process:
 “Step 1: Hazard/Threat Identification” in order to
provide the following outputs:
o a list of scenarios and their associated hazards;
o a complete description of causes and effects.
 “Step 2: Risk Assessment” in order to provide the
following outputs:
o risk quantification (for people, environment,
stakeholder, property);
 “Step 3: Risk Control Options (RCOs)” in order to
provide the following outputs:
o definition of the countermeasures (RCOs) to
reduce the risk to the requested admissible val-
ue,
 o re-evaluation of the risk according to the pro- 2. Theft of a new car from Texaco Yard during the
posed RCOs. night.
 “Step 4: Cost/Benefits Analysis” (CBA) in order to
provide the following outputs:
o GCORR1 and NCORR2 values which evaluate
the cost effectiveness of the applied RCOs;
 “Step 5: Advice on decision”: it presents the possi-
bility to obtain and save the created risk manage-
ment project by downloading a final report both in
word and in PDF format.
Figure 5 introduces an overview of the different FSA
steps to be covered using the RAPORT platform.

Figure 6 – Port of Gijón – Scenario 1 –Rail Sabotage

Incident – Scenario Definition
The hazards/threats can be added to the scenario in three
different ways:
 by domain;

Figure 5 - RAPORT platform and FSA steps (Noce  by hazard category: about 40 hazard categories are
et al. 2009) available in the RAPORT database;

4.1 Hazard/Threat Identification – Step 1
In Step 1 “Hazard Identification” the user has to define
the scenario(s) to be analyzed according to the 4W
(What occurs, Who is involved, When it occurs and
Where it occurs). The weather condition can be also
considered, if relevant, in terms of wind force, visibility,
together with sky conditions.
For each of the created scenarios, the user has to identi-
fy the associated hazards/threats. Each hazard is defined
in terms of hazard category, cause category, detailed
description, domain and sub-domain.
In the development of the FSA process to the port of
Gjión, the following two scenarios have been identified:
1. A Rail sabotage incident caused by an arsonist
device, placed in the grade crossing at the terminal
exit. The immediate consequence has been a delay
in the movement of the merchandise to the convey-
or belt;
2. Stop unloading with gantry crane due to a fire in
the unloading gantry crane n.2 of the terminal. The
immediate consequence has been a break in the
electric board of the main grasp elevation engine.
On the other end, the scenarios identified during the
development of the case study in the port of Dublin are:
1. Incident in the water caused by the explosion in the
quay crane 412. The immediate consequence is the
driver and two port workers seriously injured;
1
Gross Cost of Risk Reduction
2
Net Cost of Risk Reduction
 by creating a new hazard: the user can add a hazard
by defining the hazard category, the cause category
and the detailed description. The added hazard has
to be linked to one of the existing domain and relat-
ed sub-domain. The new hazard will be available
only to the user and will not be included in the gen-
eral RAPORT database.
For every hazard, a cause category and a detailed de-
scription have been selected, as presented in Table 1.
Table 1 – Port of Gijón – Scenario 2 – Stop unloading –
Step 1
4.2 Risk Assessment – Step 2
Step 2 “Risk Assessment” is a detailed investigation and
quantification of the consequences and frequencies of
each hazard identified in the previous step. Different
types of risk (i.e. risks to people, the environment and
property) should be addressed as appropriate to the
problem under advisement.
In this step the user will quantify the consequences and
frequencies of all the hazards selected before, by click-
ing in the estimated coloured cell of the risk matrix for

5
four types of casualties: People, Environment, Harbour
stakeholders and Property.
Once the user has defined the risk index, the platform
shows the selected values in terms of number; and two
alphanumeric characters (example: 7;C4;F3) that indi-
cates respectively the risk index, the consequence level
and frequency level selected by using the risk matrix.
In this step, the user should also define the lower risk
level for further analysis (RCO’s identification). The
acceptable risk level is normally set to 6, but the user
can decide to fix a lower one. All the potential hazards
which have a risk level higher than 6 (or higher than the
different risk level decided by the user) needs to be
reduced by activating one or more mandatory Risk Con-
trol Options (RCOs) and the related Cost Benefit Analy-
sis (CBA).
In the case of the port of Gijón, there is only one hazard
with risk level higher than 6 (7) and is the one identified
as “Sinking”. This means that the FSA process contin-
ues with Step 3 by analysing only the selected hazard
for which it is needed to activate some RCO to reduce
the risk level.
4.3 Risk Control Options (RCOs) - Step 3
In this step the user can select the most suitable RCOs
listed in the RAPORT platform that has been derived
from best practices successfully applied in other ports
and from innovative solutions.
The user can also create a new Risk Control Option by
defining a name, a description and link it to one of the
existing hazard category and the related domain. By
selecting or creating a RCO, the user should define the
expected risk level after the application of the RCO by
clicking on the risk matrix icon in the column “Impact
of consequence and frequency”.
Table 2 presents the RCO selected for the hazard and
the value of risk index (5) after the application of the
RCO.
Table 2 – Port of Dublin – Scenario 1 – Incident in the
water – Step 3
Two risk control options have been identified and ex-
plained in the “description” column. In the other col-
umns it is shown how the risk frequency and conse-
quence, and then the total risk, would be reduced by
activating the selected RCOs.
4.4 Cost/benefit assessment – Step 4
Step 4 “Cost/benefit assessment” consists in the evalua-
tion of the effectiveness of the implementation of each
6
RCOs identified and defined in the previous step by
comparing costs and benefits. By performing the eval-
uation of different RCOs selected to reduce the initial
risk level, the user can compare the cost effectiveness of
each RCO and rank the RCOs from a cost-benefit per-
spective in order to facilitate the decision making rec-
ommendations in Step 5.
The user can calculate the cost benefit of the selected
RCO by clicking on “Calculate cost benefit” link. To
perform the calculation of the cost benefit, the user
should enter in the “CBA calculation” form, the follow-
ing data:
 Initial implementation costs;
 Expected maintenance cost per year;
 Life Span: it represents the expected lifetime of the
chosen RCO;
 Depreciation rate;
 Expected benefit:
CBA is done through the calculation of the following
two indexes assessing the impact of the chosen RCOs in
terms of risk reduction:
 The Gross Cost of Risk Reduction (GCORR) is a
synonym of the index GCAF (gross cost of averting
a fatality) defined in the IMO FSA guidelines and it
is calculated according to the formula provided in
RAPORT Step 3.
 The Net Cost of Risk Reduction (NCORR) is a
synonym of the index NCAF (Net Cost of Averting
a Fatality) defined in the IMO FSA guidelines and
it is calculated according to the formula provided in
RAPORT Step 3. Negative values for NCORR
means that the benefits are higher than the costs and
therefore the RCO should be implemented. The ob-
tained value should be regarded as a simply indica-
tion as a given RCO can impact on different haz-
ards. Therefore the obtained value should be re-
garded as conservative.
The platform, based on the figures introduced, calcu-
lates the impact of chosen RCO in both safety and eco-
nomically (Figure 7).
Figure 7 – Cost benefit analysis calculation menu of the
sinking hazard and increase training RCO
The result of the CBA shows how the implementation
of the “Other” RCO should would give a benefit to the techniques were made available: color ramp and stack
port (the NCORR index is negative) and the risk index bar graphics. In the stack bar, the blue part represents
could diminish from 7 to 5. the “amount” of frequency and the rose part represents
In the implementation of the RCO “Increase training of the consequence “amount”.
terminal personnel to ensure that cargo is loaded accord-
ing to the load plan” even if there would be a reduction
of the risk level (from 7 to 5), the benefit would not be
justified by the costs to be met.
By performing the cost benefit analysis, the comparison
of benefits and costs associated with the implementation
of each RCO identified and defined in Step 3 are ob-
tained. For example, the reduction from 7 to 4 of the
hazard “Explosion” can be obtained by activating two
different RCOs: both RCOs have a negative NCORR
value that means that the benefits are higher than the
costs.
4.3 Use of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) for
Risk Monitoring and Risk Management
Risk experts can be flooded with volumes of data from
Figure 9 – Exemplification of the visualization of the
different sources concerning operations in the terminal
two used techniques
and their surroundings making it difficult to have an
accurate insight of the risk levels in a given moment. Different equipments, ships or areas will have different
Also, crisis management involves responding adequate- risk levels accordingly to the hazards present. Risk
ly to a certain event that impacts the operational status monitoring can be performed for the all terminal or can
or the infrastructures. Therefore, adequate knowledge of be concentrated in the hazardous areas (higher levels of
the hazards that can be involved in these events and its risk). This can be easily done by simply select the part
geographical extend is fundamental for adequate mitiga- of the terminal to be closely monitored.
tion.
Overall visualization of the terminal operations by stack
The appropriate linkage from the results produced in the bar, allows the user to have an adequate insight of fre-
RAPORT platform allows one adequate input for the quency and consequence levels of the hazards present in
GIS model particularly from the hazard identification a given moment in the terminal of the port.
(STEP 1) and risk assessment (STEP 2). The infor-
mation related to the identified hazards and their respec-
tive quantification can be “exported” from the platform
to the GIS model for a given context or scenario.

Hazard id Risk Level

Figure 10 – Exemplification of the visualization of

the two used techniques

5. Benefits of RAPORT

The RAPORT approach delivers number of benefits to

the users and can be summarized as follows:
 Users of the RAPORT tool, could be any personnel
Figure 8 – Linkage between the RAPORT platform working in the port, that has a relation with any of
and the developed GIS system the port processes identified (i.e., port authorities,
terminal operators, etc).
 Moreover, these users must not be risk experts to
The developed GIS system allows the indirect integra-
perform risk assessment activity since RAPORT
tion of the RAPORT results for visualization of differ-
provides guidance by the web-based supporting
ent scenarios. For risk assessment visualization, two

7
 tool at every step. By using RAPORT, the user can
perform their risk assessment more efficiently and
in easier way;
 Being process-oriented approach, RAPORT can be
used for discussion risk assessment at multilateral
level between ports because they use the same tax-
onomy;
 RAPORT provides available information regarding
risk management in toolboxes. This gives orienta-
tion to the users not having knowledge in this area
before and saves time-intensive information search.
 RAPORT allows to perform case studies creating
different scenarios which take in account the proper
characteristics of each port or a specific area of port
operation according with the process model defined
in EFFORTS project.
 Due to its generic approach RAPORT is applicable
to any kinds of ports apart from its operational
types or ownership model.
 The Cost Benefit Assessment helps the user in the
selection of the most cost-effectiveness RCO’s
among the existing or the ones which can be creat-
ed
 The visualization of risk mapping on GIS provides
more effective approach in managing risk in ports
as a complex area with high impact to community.
The graphics shown on GIS helps accelerate the
decision making processes and enhance the discus-
sion during emergency planning and monitoring.
6. Conclusions
The present paper describes how the Web-based plat-
form “RAPORT” (Risk Assessment for PORT) has
been conceived and developed, being one of the tangi-
ble results of the EFFORTS, a project financed by the
European Commission under the VI Framework Pro-
gramme.
A description on how the user can go through the differ-
ent steps to perform risk assessment accordingly to the
FSA guidelines had been given. Two real case-studies
(courtesy of Port of Gijón and Port of Dublin) have been
View publication stats
reported for sake of example of the platform usage.
The access to the web-based information platform is
free and the link is http://www.efforts-raport.com.
7. Acknowledgements
The work presented was performed within the project
EFFORTS - Effective Operations in pORTS, funded
partially by the European Commission, through the
contract Nº. FP6-031486. The authors would like to
thank to Prof. Jens Froese (ISSUS/TUHH), Dr. Valerio
Recagno and Dr. Marina Fracchia (D’Appolonia), Prof.
Carlos Guedes Soares and Mr. Bessa Pacheco (IST),
Mr Javier Carrasco Fernandez (ISDEFE), for their kind
collaboration in the achievement of the objectives and
for their contribution within the project. Particular
thanks should be given to the ports of Dublin and Gijón
for their expertise, availability and experience during
all the development of the work.
8. References
DNV (2008). Risk Management, Call date: 20th July
2008.http://www.dnv.com/industry/it_tel/services_soluti
ons/risk_management/.
ISO/IEC 73:2002. (2000). “Risk Management – Vocab-
ulary – Guideline for use in standards”.
IMO 2007, “Consolidated text guidelines for Formal
Safety Assessment (FSA) for use in the IMO rule-
making process”, MSC 83/INF.2, Maritime Safety
Committee.
Maritime Safety Authority (MSA) of New Zealand
(2004). Guideline for Port and Harbour Risk Assess-
ment and Safety Management Systems in New Zeland.
Zuesongdham, P. et al. (2009). “Risk Assessment (Re-
port and procedural model of Risk Management
Framework developed in EFFORTS for risk assess-
ment)”, EFFORTS project Deliverable 3.2.2.
Noce E. et al. (2009) (2009), “RAPORT Platform &
User Guide”, EFFORTS project Deliverable 3.2.4.