15 Measurement of the Gap between the Current Capabilities of the Port and the Requirements of Activating the International Ship and Port Facility Security (ISPS) Code

corresponding Author: Aelentably@kau.edu.sa


After the repeated repercussions resulting from the breach of the security system of sea ports and the resulting loss of confidence in the most important component of the maritime transport system, namely ports and negative results that may penetrate between the components of the system and thus lead to the weakness of the system and thus the negative impact on the movement of international trade.

The IMO has accelerated the implementation of several international conventions and codes for the safety of ports and ships such as ISPS and PFSO.

It was necessary to work towards measuring the effectiveness of the port to measure the performance in terms of security and the extent of integration between the resources and possibilities of the port and facilities and between those international conventions and the application through maritime ports, which is aim at the current paper, which can answer the following questions:

– The extent to which the port applies to the international safety code
– Can the current capabilities of the port be able to meet the fluctuations of these codes?

– Is it possible to measure the gap between the current capabilities of the port and what is require being implement in accordance with those conventions.

Keywords: International Ship and Port Facility Security (ISPS) Code, Port facilities, PFSO, Effectiveness of security measures and procedures, Threats, gap




  1.   Brooks M. R and Pelot R., Port Security: A Risk Based Prespective, Maritime Safety, Security and Piracy.,Informa Law, Mortimer House, London (2008).,
  2.   Cambon J., Guarinori F. & Groenweg J. Towards A New Tool for Measuring Safety Management Systems Performance, Centre for Safety Research, University of Leidan,Netherlands (2008),,
  3.   CCPS. (1993), Guidelines for Auditing Process Safety Management Systems. American Institute of Chemical Engineers, Wiley Interscience, New York, New York
  4.   Certo S. C., (2000) Modern Management, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, USA,
  5.   Clifton A., (2000) Accident Investigation Using EEFTA, Proceedings of the 18th International System Safety conference 2000, The Boeing Company, Seattle, Washington,
  6.   FATF Secretariat., (2008) Money Laundering & Terrorist Financing Risk Assessment Strategies, FATF Secretariat, OECD, 2 rue André Pascal 75775 Paris Cedex 16, France,
  7.   Gordon R., Flin R and Mearns K., (2005) Designing and evaluating a human factors investigation tool (HFIT) for accident analysis, Industrial Psychology Research Centre,

    University of Aberdeen, Scotland.

  8.   Hale A. and Baram M., (1998) Safety Management, the Challenge of Change, Elsevier

    Science Ltd, UK,

  9.   Hopkin P., (2002) Holistic Risk Management in Practice, Witherby & Co. Ltd, London,
  10.   Hughes P & Ferrett E, (2003) Safety Measurement, Introduction to Health and Safety

    at Work, Elsevier Limited, London,

  11.   Hayward, B.J., Lowe, A.R., & Branford, K., (2008) Creating Safer Systems: Proactive

    Integrated Risk Assessment Technique, Valencia, Spain,

  12.   International Labour Organization, (2003) Code of Practice on Security in Ports. IMO-

    ILO Tripartite Meeting of Experts on Security, Safety and Health in Ports. Geneva,

  13. International Maritime Organization, (2003) ISPS Code. International Ship & Port Facility Security Code and SOLAS Amendments 2002, IMO, 2003 London. 14)International Maritime Organization, (2004) Appendix 2, Interim Guidance on Voluntary Self- Assessment by SOLAS Contracting Governments and By Port Facilities., MSC/Circ. 1131., IMO, London,
  14. Akram Elentably /American Journal of Oil and Chemical Technologies 7 (2019) 15-45
  15. Isoraite M, (2005) Analysis of Transport Performance Measurement System,
  16. International Maritime Organization. ISPS Code (2003) Edition, 4 Albert Embankment, London
  17. International Maritime Organization. (2004), Interim Guidance on Voluntary Self- Assessment by SOLAS Contracting Governments and by Port Facility – MSC/Circ. 1131.
  1. 18)  International Maritime Organization. (2004), SOLAS Consolidated Edition 2004. The Bath Press, United Kingdom;
  2. 19)  International Labour Organization, Code of Practice on Security in Ports. IMO-ILO
  3. International Maritime Organization. (2004), Interim Guidance on Voluntary Self- Assessment by SOLAS Contracting Governments and by Port Facility – MSC/Circ. 1131, IMO, London;
  4. International Maritime Organization (2003), ISPS Code 2003 Edition, 4 Albert

Embankment, Arkle Print Ltd., Northampton, United Kingdom;

  1.   Jones S, Maritime Security, A (2006) Practical Guide, The Nautical Institute, London,
  2.   Kuo C., (2007) Safety management and its Application, the Nautical Institute, London;
  3.   Lehtinen E and Wahlstrom B. (2002), Safety Performance Measurement in Process

    Industries, Technical Research Centre of Finland,

  4.   McNaught F., (2005) Effectiveness of the International Ship and Port Facility Security

    (ISPS) Code in addressing the Maritime Security Threat; Australia,

  5.   Manule F. A., (2003) On the Practice of Safety, Vol. 55, John, Wiley & Son Inc, USA,
  6.   Parker J. C., (1999) Managing Risk in Shipping, the Nautical Institute, London,
  7.   Reason J., (1988), a principled basis for accident prevention,
  8. )Sklet S., (2002) Methods for accident investigation, Norwegian University of Technology,
  9. Sullivan J. P. (2002), Unconventional Weapons Response Handbook, First edition, Jane’s, Jane’s Information Group, Virginia, USA;
  10. Sutarji K, (2009) Efficiency Measurement of Malaysia’s Maritime Enforcement Agency, Penerbitan Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi,
  1.   Steen J. V., (1996) Safety Performance Measurement, European process safety Centre, Institution of Chemical Engineer, UK,
  2.   Stranks J., A (2001) Manager’s guide to Health & Safety at Work, Kogen Page Limited, London,
  3.   Turnbull K. F., (2008) US and International Approaches to Performance Measurement for Transportation: A Conference, Transport research Board, USA,