Home / Risk assessment / Stage 2
The purpose of risk identification is to find, recognize and describe risks. We cannot prevent, or find optimal preparedness/consequence-reducing measures, for hazards/events that are not identified and accounted for. The hazard analysis is therefore an integral part of the early stage of the risk assessment process.
There are a several hazard identification techniques available, and each technique has its own strengths and weaknesses. The most used hazard identification techniques used for risk management planning and strategies within the maritime transportation sector is: Structured “What if” analysis (SWIFT) and Hazard Identification (HAZID). These techniques rely on a structured brainstorming session (qualitative), with or without the use of guidewords, and are conducted by personnel with relevant expertise and knowledge about the topic.
Sources of information that may be used for the hazard identification process could be; lessons learned from accidents accident statistics, different data sources, articles, reports from other projects and workshop participants own expertise/knowledge, etc.
A comprehensive descriptions of different hazard identification techniques can be found in the link list to the right.
Consideration of Arctic Risk Influencing Factors (ARIFs) is essential in the risk identification process. See more about how ARIFs can be incorporated in the risk identification in Stage 3.
Hazard log (or risk register) with documentation of the risk identification findings. The hazard log should preferably be structured per type of operation and/or type of accident and include:
Consideration of Arctic Risk Influencing Factors (ARIFs) is important in risk identification. ARIFs may create an elevated risk level in the Arctic compared to other regions. Potential threats may come from ice, low temperature, remoteness, high latitude and rapidly changing and severe weather conditions.
For each type of accident, ARIFs may increase the probability of occurrence, and/or make the consequences in the event of an accident more severe. To support the identification of hazards and how ARIFs may influence generic accident types, a Cause and Effect table has been produced (in link below).ARIF Cause and Effect table
The table systematically considers all ARIFs (i.e. causes) and how they may influence different types of ship accidents (i.e. effects). The blue boxes marks the ARIFs considered to have highest influence on the risk level.
These following sources of risk are defined in this Guideline as ARIFs:
The extent of how ARIFs are considered in the risk identification should be documented in the hazard log. The following columns/fields in the hazard log may be used to describe the influence of ARIFs:
Understanding not only the direct causes and effects of marine accidents in Arctic, but also the underlying/root causes is important in the hazard identification process, as well as in further risk treatment process (Stage 5).
The Causal Networks in the links below can be used to identify root causes of accidents in Arctic by maping causal relationships. Each node in the network represents a contributory cause and each line represents a causal link that connects two or more causes to each other. The structure of the network is based on analyses of accident reports and statistics from Norwegian waters up to 2016. The networks have later been updated with revised performance shaping factors and inclusion of the influences of Arctic Risk Influencing Factors (ARIFs).Causal network for ship accident in Arctic
The figures below show examples of the network applied on grounding and ice incidents. The thicker the line, the stronger and more frequent are the causal links. The analysis is based on qualitative assessment by personnel with experience in risk management and operational experience sailing in arctic waters.Causal network for groundingCausal network for contact with ice
The potential harsh environmental conditions in arctic (low temperatures, fog and ice) in combination with limited SAR capacities means the consequences of accidents may be more severe. The network in the link below illustrates the dominating causes and contribution to the elevated risk of arctic in the event of an abandon ship scenario/emergency situation onboard.Causal network for consequence in Arctic
Arctic Risk Influencing Factors
Ice may affect hull structure, stability characteristics, machinery systems, navigation, the outdoor working environment, maintenance and emergency, preparedness tasks and malfunction of safety equipment and systems.
Topside icing, with potential reduction of stability and equipment functionality.
Low temperature may affect the working environment and human performance, maintenance and emergency preparedness tasks, material properties and equipment efficiency, survival time and eperformance of safaety equipment and systems.
Extended periods of darkness or daylight
Extended periods of darkness or daylight as it may affect navigation and human performance.
High latitude, as it affects navigation systems, communication systems and the quality of ice imagery information.
Remoteness and possible lack of accurate and complete hydrographic data and information, reduced availability of navigational aids and seamarks with increased potential for groundings compounded by remoteness, limited , readily deployable SAR facilities, delays in emergency response and limited, communications capability, with the potential to affect incident response.
Lack of crew experience
Potential lack of ship crew experience in polar operations, with potential for human error
Lack of emergency equipment
Potential lack of suitable emergency response equipment, with the potential for limiting the effectiveness of mitigation measures.
Severe weather conditions
Rapidly changing and severe weather conditions, with the potential for escalation of incidents.
The environment with respect to sensitivity to harmful substances and other environmental impacts and its need for longer restoration.