GEMİ RİSK FAKTÖRÜ TEMELLİ DENETİM MODELİ: PARİS MOU DENETİMLERİ UYUM ANALİZİ

Yıl 2020, , 1 - 24, 21.08.2020

Seyid Mahmud Esad Demirci Kadir Çiçek

https://doi.org/10.18613/deudfd.775098

Cited By: 4

Öz

Denizlerde meydana gelen büyük kazalar sonucunda geri dönüşü mümkün olmayan can / mal kaybı ve çevre kirliliği oluşmaktadır. Gemi kaynaklı kazaların en aza indirilmesi için denetim gerekliliği ortaya çıkmıştır. Denetime konu olan gemiler arasından standart altında olanların tespit edilmesi amacıyla liman devletleri arasında oluşturulan mutabakat zaptları ile denetim rejimleri oluşturulmuştur. Limanlara uğrak yapan tüm gemilerin verimli bir şekilde denetlenebilmesi, denetim rejimine göre değerlendirilen gemi risk profili doğrultusunda belirlenen denetim periyoduna uyulması ile mümkün olmaktadır. Bu çalışmada; gemi denetimlerinin verimliliğin artırılması amacıyla, Paris Mutabakat Zaptı denetim rejimi kapsamında ele alınan gemi risk faktörleri ile denetimlerde tespit edilen eksiklik risk alanları arasındaki ilişki uyum analizi ile incelenmiştir. Analiz sonucunda; denetimlerin gemi yaşı ve gemi tipi risk faktörleri doğrultusunda belirli risk alanlarına yoğunlaşarak yapılabileceği görselleştirilerek denetim modeli geliştirilmiştir. Sunulan denetim modeli sayesinde risk odaklı bir yaklaşımla gemi denetimlerinde verimin arttırılması amaçlanmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

gemi denetimi, gemi risk faktörü, eksiklik risk alanları, uyum analizi

INSPECTION MODEL BASED ON SHIP RISK FACTOR: CORRESPONDENCE ANALYSİS OF PARIS MOU INSPECTIONS

Öz

As a result of major accidents at sea, irreversible loss of life / property and environmental pollution occur. Inspection requirement has emerged to minimize ship-related accidents. Memorandum of Understanding between the port states and inspection regimes have been established in order to identify substandard ships that is subject to inspection. Efficient inspection of all vessels calling at the ports is possible by complying with the inspection period determined in line with the ship's risk profile evaluated according to the inspection regime. In this study; In order to increase the efficiency of the ship inspections, the relationship between the ship risk factors addressed under the Paris Memorandum of Understanding inspection regime and the deficiency risk areas identified in the inspections was analysed through correspondence analysis. As a result of the analysis; the inspection model has been developed by visualizing that inspections can be made by focusing on certain deficiency risk areas in line with ship age and ship type risk factors. Thanks to the inspection model presented, it is aimed to increase efficiency in ship inspections with a risk-oriented approach.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Ship Inspection, Ship Risk Factors, Deficiency Risk Areas, Correspondence Analysis

Kaynakça

• Alpar, R. (2017) Uygulamalı Çok Değişkenli İstatistiksel Yöntemler. Ankara: Detay Yayıncılık, 5.Baskı, 347-375.
• Cariou, P., Mejia, Jr MQ. and Wolff, F-C. (2007). An econometric analysis of deficiencies noted in port state control inspections. Maritime Policy Management, 34 (3), 243–58.
• Cariou, P., Mejia, Jr MQ. and Wolff, F-C. (2008a). On the effectiveness of port state control inspections. Transportation Research, 44 (3), 491–503.
• Cariou P, Mejia Jr MQ, Wolff F-C. (2008b). Port state control inspection and vessel detention, Port State Control. Maritime Safety, Security and Piracy, London: Informa LLP, 153–68.
• Cariou, P., Mejia, Jr MQ. and Wolff, F-C. (2009). Evidence on target factors used for port state control inspections. Maritime Policy Management, 33 (5), 847–59.
• Cariou, P. and Wolff, F-C. (2010). Do port state control inspections influence flag and class hopping phenomena in shipping? Transport Economics and Policy, 45 (2), 155–77.
• Cariou, P. and Wolff, F-C. (2012). Port state control deficiencies. Maritime Economics, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 656–673.
• Cariou, P. and Wolff, F-C. (2015). Identifying substandard vessels through port state control inspections: a new methodology for concentrated inspection campaigns. Maritime Policy, 60 (5), 27-39.
• Clausen, S.E. (1998). Applied Correspondence Analysis: An Introduction, Sage University, 07-121. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), (2014). Ship inspection decision support system (SIDSS). Port State Control Report. https://www.amsa.gov.au/file/1538/download?token=vTUV6Eg6, Erişim Tarihi: 08.06.2019
• Garson, G.D. (2008). Correspondence Analysis. NC: Statistical Associates Publishers. ISBN: B00B0P0WB6
• Higgs, N.T. (1990). Practical and innovative uses of correspondence analysis. The Statistician, 40, 183-194.
• Hoffman, D.L. and Franke, G.R. (1986). Correspondence analysis: graphical representation of categorical data in marketing research. Journal of Marketing Research, 23, 213–217.
• Jin D, Kite-Powell H. and Talley W.K. (2008). US ship accident research, in Talley WK (Ed.), Maritime Safety, Security and Piracy. 55-71, London: Informa LLP.
• Johnson, R.A. and Wichern, D.W. (2007). Applied Multivariate Statistical Analysis, New Jersey: Sixth ed. Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, 716–726.
• Karadeniz MoU (2019). Concentrated Inspection Campaign (CIC), http://www.bsmou.org/category/docs/cic/ Erişim Tarihi: 03.10.2019
• Knapp, S.(2007). The econometrics of maritime safety - recommendation to enhance safety at sea, Doktora Tezi, Erasmus Üniversitesi, Rotterdam.
• Knapp, S. and Franses, P-H. (2007). A global view of port state control: econometric analysis of the differences across port state control regimes. Maritime Policy Management, 34 (5), 453–84.
• Knapp S. and Franses, P-H. (2008). Econometric analysis to differentiate effects of various ship safety inspections. Maritime Policy, 32 (4), 653-662.
• Knapp, S. and Velden, M. (2009). Visualization of differences in treatment of safety inspections across port state control regimes: a case for increased harmonization efforts. Transport Reviews, 29 (4), 499-514.
• Li, K.X., Tapiero, C.S. and Yin J. (2009). Optimal inspection policy for port state control (PSC). In: Proceedings of the International Association of Maritime Economists Conference, Copenhagen.
• Lu, S., Mei, P., Wang, J. and Zhang, H. (2012). Fatality and influence factors in high-casualty fires: A correspondence analysis. Safety Science, 50 (4), 1019-1033, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2011.12.006.
• Onyemejor V.I. (2015). Relationship between maritime logistics performance and international trade competitiveness: A case study of Nigeria in Central West African cluster of countries. World Maritime University Dissertations. https://commons.wmu.se/all_dissertations/503/, Erişim Tarihi:10.04.2019.
• Paris MoU, (2018). Port State Control and Annexes, https://www.parismou.org/system/files/Paris%20MoU%2C%20including%2041st%20amendment.pdf, Erişim Tarihi:01.04.2019
• Paris MoU, (2019). Concentrated Inspection Campaign (CIC), https://www.parismou.org/publications-category/cic-results, Erişim Tarihi: 03.10.2019.
• Perepelkin, M., Knapp, S., Perepelkin, G. and de Pooter, M. (2010). An improved methodology to measure the flag performance for the shipping industry. Maritime Policy, 34 (3), 395-405.
• Piniella, F. and Rodriguez-Diaz, E. (2012). The new inspection regime of the Paris Mou on port state control: improvement of the system. Journal of Maritime Research, 9 (1), 9-16.
• THETIS veri tabanı (2019). European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) Ship Inspection Database, https://portal.emsa.europa.eu/web/thetis/inspections, Erişim Tarihi: 06.06.2019
• Tokyo MoU (2019). Concentrated Inspection Campaign (CIC), http://www.tokyo-mou.org/publications/CIC_results.php, Erişim Tarihi: 03.10.2019
• Yu, Y., Zhao, Y. and Chang, Y.C. (2018). challenges to the primary jurisdiction of flag states over ships, Ocean Development & International Law, 49 (1), 85-102.