Sulphur 2020 – cutting sulphur oxide emissions

August 21, 2020 IMO

The main type of “bunker” oil for ships is heavy fuel oil, derived as a residue from crude oil distillation. Crude oil contains sulphur which, following combustion in the engine, ends up in ship emissions. Sulphur oxides (SOx) are known to be harmful to human health, causing respiratory symptoms and lung disease. In the atmosphere, SOx can lead to acid rain, which can harm crops, forests and aquatic species, and contributes to the acidification of the oceans.

Limiting SOx emissions from ships will improve air quality and protects the environment.

IMO regulations to reduce sulphur oxides (SOx) emissions from ships first came into force in 2005, under Annex VI of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (known as the MARPOL Convention). Since then, the limits on sulphur oxides have been progressively tightened.

From 1 January 2020, the limit for sulphur in fuel oil used on board ships operating outside designated emission control areas is reduced to 0.50% m/m (mass by mass). This will significantly reduce the amount of sulphur oxides emanating from ships and should have major health and environmental benefits for the world, particularly for populations living close to ports and coasts.

Below you will find answers to some of the frequently asked questions about the sulphur limit.

Watch the video: IMO 2020 – cleaner shipping for cleaner air (1.27 minutes)

IMO 2020 – five key changes

 

Limiting SOx emissions from ships will have a very positive impact on human health: how does that work?

Simply put, limiting sulphur oxides emissions from ships reduces air pollution and results in a cleaner environment. Reducing SOx also reduces particulate matter, tiny harmful particles which form when fuel is burnt.

A study on the human health impacts of SOx emissions from ships, submitted to IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) in 2016 by Finland, estimated that by not reducing the SOx limit for ships from 2020, the air pollution from ships would contribute to more than 570,000 additional premature deaths worldwide between 2020-2025.

​SOx graphic.JPG ​sox 2.JPG

So a reduction in the limit for sulphur in fuel oil used on board ships will have tangible health benefits, particularly for populations living close to ports and major shipping routes.

IMO 2020 – A Breath of Fresh Air – download the infographic (PDF) by clicking on the image.

Why are ships already less harmful than other forms of transport?

​Ships do emit pollutants and other harmful emissions. But they also transport large quantities of vital goods across the world’s oceans – and seaborne trade continues to increase. In 2016, ships carried more than 10 billion tons of trade for the first time, according to UNCTAD.

So ships have always been the most sustainable way to transport commodities and goods. And ships increasingly becoming even more energy efficient. IMO regulations on energy efficiency support the demand for ever greener and cleaner shipping. A ship which is more energy efficient burns less fuel so emits less air pollution.

It has sometimes been quoted that just a few ships (all using fuel oil with maximum permitted sulphur content) emit as much harmful air pollutants as all the cars in the world (if the cars were all using the cleanest fuel available).

Not only is this the very worst case scenario, but this does not take into account the amount of cargo that is being carried by those ships and the relative efficiency. It is important to consider the amount of cargo carried and the emissions per tonne of cargo carried, per kilometre travelled. Studies have shown that ships are by far the most energy-efficient form of transportation, compared with other modes such as aviation, road trucks and even railways.

It is also relevant to remember that shipping responds to the demands of world trade. As world trade increases, more ship capacity will be needed.

Do small ships have to comply with the sulphur limit from 2020?

​Yes, the MARPOL regulations apply to all ships. Only larger ships of 400 gross tonnage and above engaged in voyages to ports or offshore terminals under the jurisdiction of other Parties have to have an International Air Pollution Prevention Certificate, issued by the ship’s flag State. But all sizes of ships will need to use fuel oil that meets the 0.50% limit from 1 January 2020.

Some smaller ships may already be using fuel oil that meets the limit, such as a marine distillate suitable for their engines. (Small ships operating in the already-designated emission control areas will be using fuel oil that meets the 0.10% limit in those emission control areas.)

How can ships carry so much cargo so efficiently?

Ships are the largest machines on the planet and the world’s largest diesel engines can be found on cargo ships. These engines can be as tall as a four-storey house, and as wide as three London buses. The largest marine diesel engines have more than 100,000 horsepower (in comparison, a mid-sized car may have up to 300 horsepower). But the largest container ships can carry more than 20,000 containers and the biggest bulk carriers can carry more than 300,000 tons of commodities, like iron ore.
So powerful engines are needed to propel a ship through the sea. And it is important to consider how much energy is used to carry each ton of cargo per kilometre.  When you look at the relative energy efficiency of different modes of transport, ships are by far the most energy efficient.
Ships can reduce air pollutants by being even more energy efficient, so they burn less fuel and therefore their emissions are lower.

Does the sulphur limit apply only to ships on international voyages?

​The sulphur oxides regulation (MARPOL Annex VI, regulation 14) applies to all ships, whether they are on international voyages, between two or more countries;  or domestic voyages, solely within the waters of a Party to the MARPOL Annex.

What was the regulation on SOx in ships emissions and by how much has it improved?

​We have seen a substantial cut: to 0.50% m/m (mass by mass) from 3.50% m/m.

For ships operating outside designated emission control areas the previous limit for sulphur content of ships’ fuel oil was 3.50% m/m.

The limit is now 0.50% m/m, since1 January 2020.

There is an even stricter limit of 0.10% m/m in effect in emission control areas (ECAS) which have been established by IMO. This 0.10% m/m limit applies in the four established ECAS: the Baltic Sea area; the North Sea area; the North American area (covering designated coastal areas off the United States and Canada); and the United States Caribbean Sea area (around Puerto Rico and the United States Virgin Islands).

(Countries bordering the Mediterranean Sea are currently considering the possibility of applying to designate the Mediterranean Sea or parts thereof as an ECA. Read more here.)

Fuel oil providers supply fuel oil which meets the 0.10% m/m limit (such as marine distillate and ultra low sulphur fuel oil blends) to ships which require this fuel to trade in the ECAs.

What must ships do to meet the new IMO regulations?

The IMO MARPOL regulations limit the sulphur content in fuel oil. So ships need to use fuel oil which is inherently low enough in sulphur, in order to meet IMO requirements.

Refineries may blend fuel oil with a high (non-compliant) sulphur content with fuel oil with a sulphur content lower than the required sulphur content to achieve a compliant fuel oil. Additives may be added to enhance other properties, such as lubricity.

Some ships limit the air pollutants by installing exhaust gas cleaning systems, also known as “scrubbers”. This is accepted by flag States as an alternative means to meet the sulphur limit requirement. These scrubbers are designed to remove sulphur oxides from the ship’s engine and boiler exhaust gases. So a ship fitted with a scrubber can use heavy fuel oil, since the sulphur oxides emissions will be reduced to a level equivalent to the required fuel oil sulphur limit.

Ships can have engines which can use different fuels, which may contain low or zero sulphur. For example, liquefied natural gas, or biofuels.

Are all types of scrubbers allowed under IMO rules?

​Yes, so long as they achieve the same level of emissions reduction.

Regulation 4 of MARPOL Annex VI allows for Administrations (flag States) to approve “equivalents” – any  “fitting, material, appliance or apparatus to be fitted in a ship or other procedures, alternative fuel oils, or compliance methods used as an alternative to that required”  – that enables the same standards of emission control to be met.

For reduction of sulphur oxide emissions, some flag States have accepted and approved scrubbers – otherwise known as “Exhaust Gas Cleaning Systems”, as meeting the requirements for sulphur oxide reduction.

There is an important requirement in the same regulation on Equivalents, which says that in paragraph 4 “The Administration of a Party that allows the use of an equivalent …. shall endeavour not to impair or damage its environment, human health, property, or resources, or those of other States”.

IMO has adopted strict criteria for discharge of washwater from EGCS. Any residues, where generated by the EGC unit usually in a closed-loop configuration, should be delivered ashore to adequate reception facilities. Such residues should not be discharged to the sea or incinerated on board.

Open-loop scrubbers add water to the exhaust gas which turns sulphur oxides (SOx) to sulphates/sulphuric acid. Open-loop scrubbers return washwater to the sea. The washwater must meet strict criteria, so that discharge washwater should have a pH of no less than 6.5. There are also strict limits on discharge of PAHs (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons) and nitrates.

The guidelines, with the washwater criteria, (last revised and adopted in 2015), have been under review in the IMO Sub-Committee on Pollution Prevention and Response (PPR). The Sub-Committee finalized its work on revising the 2015 Guidelines in February 2020 and they will be submitted to MEPC 75 for adoption.

The Marine Environment Protection committee (MEPC) at its session in May 2019 asked the PPR Sub-Committee to look into “Evaluation and harmonization of rules and guidance on the discharge of liquid effluents from EGCS into waters, including conditions and areas”.

To assist the discussions, a report from a task team established by the Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection (GESAMP) was submitted. This report contains the conclusions of the task team in relation to the available evidence on the environmental effects of discharge water from EGCS, as well as recommendations on the data, tools and approaches that could be used as basis for conducting a risk assessment of the possible effects of discharges.

Following discussion in a working group, the PPR Sub-Committee (February 2020) agreed to recommend to the MEPC that its future work should look at evaluation and harmonization of rules and guidance on the discharge of discharge water from EGCS into the aquatic environment, including conditions and areas.

The scope of the work should include:

  • risk assessment (development of risk assessment guidelines for the evaluation of possible harmful effects of the discharge water from EGCS, taking into account existing methods and mathematical models);
  • impact assessment (to consider developing impact assessment guidelines);
  • delivery of EGCS residues (developing guidance on delivery of EGCS residues to port reception facilities, regarding volumes and composition of residues);
  • regulatory matters (including assessing state of technology for EGCS discharge water treatment and control, identifying possible regulatory measures, developing a database of local/regional restrictions/conditions on the discharge water from EGCS;
  • database of substances (establishing a database of substances identified in EGCS discharge water, covering physico-chemical data, ecotoxicological data and toxicological data, leading to relevant endpoints for risk assessment purposes).

The MEPC was invited to approve the planned scope of work and to consider involving GESAMP for scientific advice.

Why have some ports already banned discharge of washwater?

​Some IMO Member States have taken a precautionary approach towards washwater discharge and have taken measures to limit or restrict discharge of washwater in their local ports and coastlines.

States have the right under UNCLOS to adopt their own laws and measures to reduce and control pollution  of the marine environment from ships in their ports, internal waters and territorial seas.

Where can I find out which ships have EGCS or are using other equivalents?

​The IMO GISIS module on MARPOL annex VI includes a list of notifications received from IMO Member States in relation to Regulation 4.2 Equivalent compliance method. You can view the database here.

Consistent compliance with the 0.50% limit is vital. What is IMO doing about that?

​Monitoring, compliance and enforcement of the new limit falls to Governments and national authorities of Member States that are Parties to MARPOL Annex VI. Flag States (the State of registry of a ship) and port States have rights and responsibilities to enforce compliance. IMO has adopted 2019 Guidelines for port State control under MARPOL Annex VI Chapter 3 (download here).

IMO has worked with Member States as well as industry (including the shipping industry and the bunker supply and refining industry) to identify and mitigate transitional issues so that ships may meet the new requirement.

For example, developing guidance, developing standardised formats for reporting fuel oil non availability if a ship cannot obtain compliant fuel oil and considering verification and control issues.

The MEPC has issued guidance on ship implementation planning, part of a set of guidelines being developed by IMO for consistent implementation of the MARPOL regulation coming into effect from 1 January 2020.

Guidance on best practice for fuel oil suppliers has also been issued. The Guidance is intended to assist fuel oil purchasers and users in assuring the quality of fuel oil delivered to and used on board ships, with respect to both compliance with the MARPOL requirements and the safe and efficient operation of the ship. The guidance pertains to aspects of the fuel oil purchase up to the loading of the purchased fuel oil on board.

A full list of guidance and guidelines can be found on the infographic.

In October 2018, IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) adopted a MARPOL amendment to prohibit the carriage of non-compliant fuel oil for combustion purposes for propulsion or operation on board a ship – unless the ship has an exhaust gas cleaning system (“scrubber”) fitted.

How have ship operators and owners planned ahead for the 0.50% sulphur 2020 limit?

​To assist ship operators and owners to plan ahead for the 0.50% sulphur 2020 limit, the MEPC approved various guidance and guidelines.

The 2019 Guidelines on consistent implementation of 0.50% sulphur limit under MARPOL Annex VI adopted by resolution MEPC.320(74) are available here.

These comprehensive guidelines include a template for a “Fuel Oil Non-Availability Report (FONAR)” set out in Appendix 1 and a “Technical review of identified possible potential safety implications associated with the use of 2020 compliant fuels” set out in appendix 2.

Guidance on ship implementation planning (issued November 2018) can be downloaded here.

The ship implementation planning guidance includes sections on: risk assessment and mitigation plan (impact of new fuels); fuel oil system modifications and tank cleaning (if needed); fuel oil capacity and segregation capability; procurement of compliant fuel; fuel oil changeover plan (conventional residual fuel oils to 0.50% sulphur compliant fuel oil); and documentation and reporting.

See also outcome of MEPC 74 here.  A joint industry group has also developed its own guidance, which IMO has shared with its Member States and international organizations in a circular letter. You can view the Joint Industry Guidance on the Supply and Use of 0.50% Sulphur Marine Fuel here.

What is the “carriage ban” and how does it work?

​The carriage ban refers to the MARPOL amendment adopted in 2018 to prohibit the carriage of non-compliant fuel oil for combustion purposes for propulsion or operation on board a ship – unless the ship has an exhaust gas cleaning system (“scrubber”) fitted.

The amendment is intended as an additional measure to support consistent implementation and compliance and provide a means for effective enforcement by States, particularly port State control.

The specific provision requires that fuel oil used on board ships shall not exceed 0.50% sulphur limit. The amended provision to prohibit the carriage of non-compliant fuel oil reads as follows: “The sulphur content of fuel oil used or carried for use on board a ship shall not exceed 0.50% m/m.”

So, carriage of fuel oil for use on board ships has been prohibited since 1 March 2020  – if the sulphur content exceeds 0.50%.

Regulation 2.9 of MARPOL Annex VI provides the definition for ‘fuel oil’ – “Fuel oil means any fuel delivered to and intended for combustion purposes for propulsion or operation on board a ship, including gas, distillate and residual fuels.”

The provision does not apply to fuel oil being carried as cargo.

This MARPOL amendment will enter into force on 1 March 2020. The full text of the MARPOL amendment can be downloaded here. 

Is a FONAR a waiver?

​No.

The 2019 Guidelines on consistent implementation of 0.50% sulphur limit under MARPOL Annex VI adopted by resolution MEPC.320(74) here clearly states (in APPENDIX 1):
“3.1 A fuel oil non-availability report is not an exemption. According to regulation 18.2 of MARPOL Annex VI, it is the responsibility of the Party of the destination port, through its competent authority, to scrutinize the information provided and take action, as appropriate.””3.2 In the case of insufficiently supported and/or repeated claims of non-availability, the Party may require additional documentation and substantiation of fuel oil non-availability claims. The ship/operator may also be subject to more extensive inspections or examinations while in port.”

“3.3 Ships/operators are expected to take into account logistical conditions and/or terminal/port policies when planning bunkering, including but not limited to having to change berth or anchor within a port or terminal in order to obtain compliant fuel.”

“3.4 Ships/operators are expected to prepare as far as reasonably practicable to be able to operate on compliant fuel oils. This could include, but is not limited to, fuel oils with different viscosity and different sulphur content not exceeding regulatory requirements (requiring different lube oils) as well as requiring heating and/or other treatment on board.”

Are new fuels being used to meet the 2020 limit?

Yes, new blends of fuel oil for ships have been developed. For example, a gas oil, with a very low sulphur content can be blended with heavy fuel oil to lower its sulphur content. ​

Ships can also choose to switch to a different fuel altogether. Or they may continue to purchase heavy fuel oil, but install ”scrubbers” to reduce the output of SOx in order to have an equivalent means to meet the requirement.

Of course, some ships were already using low sulphur fuel oil to meet the even more stringent limits of 0.10% m/m when trading in the established emission control areas. So those fuel oil blends suitable for ECAS,  also meet the 0.50% m/m limit in 2020.

A study commissioned by IMO into the “Assessment of fuel oil availability” concluded that the refinery sector has the capability to supply sufficient quantities of marine fuels with a sulphur content of 0.50% m/m or less and with a sulphur content of 0.10% m/m or less to meet demand for these products, while also meeting demand for non-marine fuels. The full study can be downloaded here.

Are low sulphur blend fuel oils safe? Can new low sulphur fuels cause problems for a ship’s engine?

​All fuel oil for combustion purposes on a ship must meet required fuel oil quality standards, as set out in IMO MARPOL Annex VI (regulation 18.3). For example, the fuel oil must not include any added substance or chemical waste that jeopardizes the safety of ships or adversely affects the performance of the machinery.

IMO has discussed how to identify any potential safety issues related to new blends of fuel oil as it is recognized that if these fuels are not managed appropriately, there could be compatibility and stability issues. Guidance on best practice for fuel oil suppliers has also been issued. The Guidance is intended to assist fuel oil purchasers and users in assuring the quality of fuel oil delivered to and used on board ships, with respect to both compliance with the MARPOL requirements and the safe and efficient operation of the ship. The guidance pertains to aspects of the fuel oil purchase up to the loading of the purchased fuel oil on board.

An International Standardization Organization (ISO) standard (ISO 8217) specifies the requirements for fuels for use in marine diesel engines and boilers.

ISO has issued a further standard: ISO/PAS 23263:2019 Petroleum products – Fuels (class F) – Considerations for fuel suppliers and users regarding marine fuel quality in view of the implementation of maximum 0.50 % sulphur in 2020. It addresses quality considerations that apply to marine fuels in view of the implementation of the sulphur 2020 limit and the range of marine fuels that will be placed on the market in response. It defines general requirements that apply to all 0.50% sulphur fuels and confirms the applicability of ISO 8217 for those fuels. It gives technical considerations which might apply to particular fuels for the following characteristics: kinematic viscosity; cold flow properties; stability; ignition characteristics; and catalyst fines. Additionally, it provides considerations on the compatibility between fuels and gives additional information on ISO 8217.

Source: imo.org

Two vessels caught in China for IMO 2020 violations

August 21, 2020 IMO

The Chinese authorities have caught two vessels for low sulphur fuel violations, the first reported cases of breaches of IMO 2020.

The Standard Club said that the first vessel was in Qingdao when it underwent a Port State Control (PSC) inspection by the Chinese Maritime Safety Administration (MSA) and was found to be using fuel with a sulphur content of 0.6777% mm.

The second vessel was in Xiamen and found by the MSA to be using non-compliant fuel having been at a berth for six days after changing to compliant fuel.

Related: IMO 2020: Low sulphur fuel prices surge, discount to MGO vanishes

However, it is likely that previous high sulphur fuel residue remained in the engine fuel system resulting in emissions over the China ECA limit. The ship was ordered to take effective measures to purify the fuel system.

The P&I insurer said it was unclear whether the Chinese authorities would fine the vessels involved. They can be fined no less than RMB10,000 ($1,445) up to a maximum of RMB100,000 under Chinese regulations.

The violations are the first reported since the 0.5% cap on sulphur for marine fuel came into force on 1 January, with the transition appearing to have been relatively smooth so far.

Read: IMO 2020 – A smooth transition?

IMO: Just In Time Arrival Guide published to support more efficient shipping

August 21, 2020 IMO

The Just In Time Arrival Guide has been developed by the Global Industry Alliance (GIA) to support low carbon shipping, based on research and discussion amongst its membership, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) said.

As explained, the guide documents the findings of a series of industry roundtables which brought together nearly 50 companies and organizations who are key stakeholders in the port call process.

Widely recognized as a means of increasing port efficiency and port call optimization, the successful implementation of JIT Arrivals can have a significant environmental impact through reduced greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from optimizing the ships’ speed to arrive just in time. The concept is based on the ship maintaining an optimal operating speed, to arrive at the pilot boarding place when the availability is assured of: 1. berth; 2. fairway; and 3. nautical services.

The JIT Arrivals concept is also said to contribute to reduced time at anchorage and therefore reduced congestion in the port area. It is estimated that ships spend up to 9 per cent of their time waiting at anchorage, which could be reduced through the implementation of JIT Arrivals.

The guide is said to provide “a holistic approach” to Just In Time Arrivals, considering contractual aspects to its implementation as well as operational. It is envisaged as a useful toolkit for many stakeholders including shipowners, ship operators, charterers, ship agents, shipbrokers, port authorities, terminals, nautical and vessel service providers. All these actors ultimately play a key role in implementing the necessary changes and facilitating the exchange of communication required to realize JIT Arrivals.

The Low Carbon GIA is a public–private partnership with the aim to identify and develop innovative solutions to address common barriers to the uptake and implementation of energy efficiency technologies and operational measures.

The Low Carbon GIA was originally established under the framework of the GEF-UNDP-IMO Global Maritime Energy Efficiency Partnerships Project (GloMEEP Project), and since the conclusion of the GloMEEP Project at the end of 2019, the Low Carbon GIA has been operating under the framework of the IMO-Norway GreenVoyage2050 Project.

Source: offshore-energy

Global Shipping Regulator Admits It Does Not Know Effect Of Wakashio Fuel In Mauritian Waters

August 21, 2020 IMO

Global shipping regulator, London-based UN Agency, the International Maritime Organization released a statement on the effect of the fuel that spilled into the waters of Mauritius from Japanese vessel, The Wakashio, in which they admit they do not know the effects of releasing this amount of fuel (VLSFO) into the biodiversity-rich coral lagoons of Mauritius.

On 19 August 2020, an IMO spokesperson said “because this fuel is so new, research has only just been initiated on its fate and behavior in the environment, particularly over a longer period. We know that some of the oil companies are financing research on this, and oil research centers e.g. CEDRE and SINTEF, have initiated work, but we don’t have any concrete information on this as yet, given the relative newness of these bunkers. In terms of the response related to the release of this fuel, it looks and behaves essentially the same as any other bunker fuel spill. It’s really the longer term fate and effects that are not yet known.” Bunkers are the fuel oil used by ships

Over 1 million gallons of a particular type of ship engine fuel (technical name Very Low Sulfur Fuel Oil or VLSFO) was being transported by the Wakashio, one of the biggest ships in the world when it ran into the coral reefs of Mauritius.

Source: forbes

Philippine Maritime Sector hosts IMO visit; IMO notes Philippines efficient implementation of the ISPS Code

August 21, 2020 IMO

PASAY CITY – Department of Transportation – Office for Transportation Security (DOTr – OTS), together with the Philippine Coast Guard (PCG) and Maritime Industry Authority (MARINA) hosted a week-long visit from delegates of the International Maritime Organization (IMO).

The visit, held from 24 to 28 February 2020, focused on the IMO Global Maritime Security Integrated Technical Cooperation Programme which consists of Security Needs Assessment, Development of National Maritime Security Strategy, Provision of Technical Experts, Maritime Table Top Exercises, and Training Courses.

In his Opening Remarks last 26 February 2020, OTS Administrator Undersecretary Raul L. Del Rosario vowed that extra efforts will be made to run abreast on terror tactics that have evolved through the years.

“We know for a fact that the maritime industry plays a crucial role in global trade and economy, and protecting such from lawless terror attacks is a challenging task that one cannot simply bear alone. That is why it is very critical that we are on the same page in implementing measures to secure our transport systems. Whatever will be accomplished in this undertaking, is accomplished collectively,” USec. Del Rosario expressed.

Atty. Charina Flor A. Cacho-Fernin, Officer-in-Charge of the OTS Maritime Transportation Security Division discussed the agency’s role in relation to the implementation of international standards and protocols espoused in the International Ship and Port Facility Security (ISPS) Code.

She likewise highlighted the policy-determining functions and oversight capability of the OTS, as well as the importance of having a strong inter-agency coordination in terms of maritime security domain, adhering to the provisions of Executive Order No. 197 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations.

During the discussion on the implementation of the ISPS Code, it was confirmed that its provisions were carried out effectively through the conduct of audits, assessments, inspections, training of maritime security personnel through accreditation of training schools, centers or institutions, and certification of security personnel to evaluate their knowledge and competencies.

Such validation of security effectiveness was bolstered after IMO’s visit at the Asian Terminals Inc. (ATI), an ISPS-compliant port facility located in Manila South Harbor.

The discussions also touched on national policies, rules and regulations governing the certification of personnel involved in the implementation of security measures, and accreditation of training institutions, centers, or schools which cater to the security training needs of transport operators and stakeholders.

To confirm the effectiveness of this core function, the IMO visited Magsaysay Learning Resources Inc., one of the OTS-accredited institutions, which adopts and implements the prescribed maritime security curriculum and Program of Instruction (POI).

IMO positively noted that the Philippines is well-situated on the international maritime policies and protocols, and that it fully implements the provisions of the ISPS Code, even promulgating a national transportation security program to cover non-SOLAS ships and port facilities.

For IMO representative, Alyekka Stella Aber, the Philippines has always been a good example in the efficient implementation of the ISPS Code, not only to its neighboring ASEAN countries, but to the rest of the IMO member states.

The OTS, along with other agencies under the DOTr, assured that Philippines, being a maritime and archipelagic nation, remains committed to international maritime standards, and proactively promotes a strong security culture.

The IMO representatives to the Philippines include Mr. Mourad Ghorbel, Technical Officer – Maritime Safety Division, Ms. Alyekka Stella Aber, and Atty. Josephine Uranza, IMO Regional Presence for East Asia.

Also present were representatives from PPA, PHIVIDEC Industrial Authority, Regional Ports Management Authority – Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao, Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority, and Cebu Port Authority.

###

Source: https://ots.gov.ph/

Maritime Cyber Risk Management

August 19, 2020 MARITIME CYBER SECURITY

This circular provides information on the requirement to incorporate maritime cyber risk management in the safety management systems (SMS) of companies operating Singapore-registered ships.

Cyber risk management refers to the process of identifying, analysing, assessing, and communicating a cyber-related risk and accepting, avoiding, transferring, or mitigating it to an acceptable level, considering costs and benefits of actions taken to stakeholders.

Maritime cyber risk refers to a measure of the extent to which a technology asset is threatened by a potential circumstance or event, which may result in shipping related operational, safety or security failures as a consequence of information or systems being corrupted, lost or compromised. The goal of maritime cyber risk management is to support safe and secure shipping, which is operationally resilient to cyber risks.

As affirmed in Resolution MSC.428(98)1, an approved SMS should take into account cyber risk management in accordance with the objectives and functional requirements of the ISM Code2, MPA will require cyber risks to be appropriately addressed in the company’s SMS no later than the first annual verification of the ISM company’s Document of Compliance after 1 January 2021.

In line with the guidance presented in MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3, to consider cyber risks as being appropriately addressed in SMS, the ISM company is required to demonstrate that they have appropriately incorporated the five functional elements to address maritime cyber risks, namely:
a. Identify: Define personnel roles and responsibilities for cyber risk management and identify the systems, assets, data and capabilities that, when disrupted, pose risks to ship operations;
b. Protect: Implement risk control processes and measures, and contingency planning to protect against a cyber-event and ensure continuity of shipping operations;
c. Detect: Develop and implement activities necessary to detect a cyberevent in a timely manner;
d. Respond: Develop and implement activities and plans to provide resilience and to restore systems necessary for shipping operations or services impaired due to a cyber-event;
and
e. Recover: Identify measures to back-up and restore cyber systems necessary for shipping operations impacted by a cyber-event.

ISM companies of Singapore-registered ships are reminded to review the identified risks to its ships, personnel and the environment and to establish appropriate safeguards to ensure that maritime cyber risks are appropriately addressed in the SMS, and that the five functional elements stated in para 5 have been incorporated into their risk management framework.

MPA has co-funded several maritime cyber security courses under Maritime Cluster Fund and Training@MaritimeSingapore. MPA is also aware that Recognised Organisations (ROs) have developed maritime cyber security training courses and relevant consultancy services to assist ISM Companies in developing and preparing their cyber risk management strategy and procedures. Companies may visit www.mpa.gov.sg or approach the ROs for more information on such training and services…

(For information about operations in Singapore, contact GAC Singapore at singapore@gac.com)

Source:  Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore Shipping Circular No.15 of 2020 dated 13 August 2020

5G TESTBED FOR MARINE INNOVATION FUNDED IN PLYMOUTH SMART SOUND

August 19, 2020 MARITIME CYBER SECURITY

A new network of high-speed mobile data connectivity off the coast of Plymouth will put the SW at the very forefront of marine innovation.

Plymouth’s Marine Business Technology Centre (MBTC) has been awarded £1.8 million of grant funding for the network from the Heart of the South West Local Enterprise Partnership’s (HotSW LEP) Growth Deal Digital Extension 2020 programme.

The funding will be used to build a cutting edge communication system as part of the MBTC’s Smart Sound Plymouth testing and proving ground, known as Smart Sound Connect. This will be the UK’s first 5G testbed for marine innovation, providing high speed communications on the water and connecting the existing network of sensors, which includes scientific data buoy networks and autonomous vessels.

The MBTC is a partnership between Plymouth City Council, Plymouth Marine Laboratory, the University of Plymouth, the University of Exeter and the Marine Biological Association. Based in Plymouth’s Oceansgate marine Enterprise Zone, it was set up to offer support to businesses in the region working within the marine and maritime sector, facilitating innovation in the industry.

The network will build on the centre’s existing offer, providing high speed connectivity across Plymouth Sound and 20 miles of surrounding coastal waters, covering the entire area of Smart Sound Plymouth. This provides a state-of-the-art platform with military-grade secure connectivity, where businesses and organisations can run trials of new autonomous assets and other facets of innovative marine technology.

Use of Smart Sound Connect will be free to eligible businesses, putting Plymouth at the very forefront of marine and maritime innovation and giving local marine industry partners the ability to develop and deliver advanced marine technologies. It offers a wealth of possibilities, enabling the development of new technology for smart ports and shipping, clean propulsion, green ports and environmental management.

Minister for Regional Growth and Local Government Simon Clarke MP said: “I am pleased to confirm the Government’s £1.8 million investment from the Local Growth Fund into this innovative project.

“The marine science and maritime industries are vital for Plymouth and so it’s fitting that the Marine Business Technology Centre will use this funding to develop this cutting edge technology, creating new jobs and bringing wider benefits to the region.”

Karl Tucker, Chair of the Heart of the South West Local Enterprise Partnership said: “The latest of our innovative Growth Deal projects to launch is Smart Sound Plymouth. With our £1.8m investment, the Marine Business Technology Centre can create a UK first at the country’s only Marine Enterprise Zone, firmly establishing the Heart of the South West as a leading marine business location on the global stage.

“Digital Connectivity is integral to our Route Map to Recovery as we move towards a clean, green and blue economy.”

The aim of Smart Sound Plymouth and the MBTC is to deliver a leading national facility for the development and proving of advanced marine technologies. There has been significant investment over the last year, including the addition of one of the most sophisticated scientific buoy platforms in the world and the L3 Harris C-Worker 4 unmanned surface vessel which can be used for advanced trials. The new network connects these assets, while also offering capacity for third party platforms to use it.

Council Leader Tudor Evans OBE said: “As Britain’s Ocean City, Plymouth has established itself as a globally recognised centre of excellence for marine innovation and this new development cements our reputation. To put it simply, the network offers businesses a unique space to develop impressive new technologies in a huge variety of sectors – the possibilities are almost endless.

“The marine and maritime industry is incredibly important to our city, especially as we recover from this period of unprecedented economic shock and implement our recovery plan, Resurgam. This technology will enable the creation of up to 100 high-value jobs, which is really brilliant news and will play an important role in building a better future for Plymouth.”

Rob Watson, MBTC Director said: “Securing the funding for this network is a very significant step for the Marine Business Technology Centre and our partners. This will be the first 5G testbed focussed purely on smart marine technologies and, with the support of our research partners, we are now able to offer an enhanced end-to-end innovation service that rivals the best in the world.”

Dr James Fishwick, Head of Smart Sound Plymouth, Plymouth Marine Laboratory, said: “Plymouth has a strong heritage in marine science and technology and is home to a critical mass of both academic and industry leading organisations. This coupled with the natural marine environment, which is ideally suited to facilitate a diverse set of trials, provides us with a unique offer to the UK and international marine and maritime sectors.

“It has taken considerable effort to get to this stage and it is very rewarding to see the aspirations of Smart Sound come to fruition for the benefit of UK industry, academia and government.”

For more information about Smart Sound Plymouth, please visit www.smartsoundplymouth.co.uk and for the Marine Business Technology Centre, see www.marinebusinesstechnologycentre.co.uk.

Source: maritimeuksw

Hot Port News from GAC

August 19, 2020 MARITIME CYBER SECURITY

This circular provides information on the requirement to incorporate maritime cyber risk management in the safety management systems (SMS) of companies operating Singapore-registered ships.

Cyber risk management refers to the process of identifying, analysing, assessing, and communicating a cyber-related risk and accepting, avoiding, transferring, or mitigating it to an acceptable level, considering costs and benefits of actions taken to stakeholders.

Maritime cyber risk refers to a measure of the extent to which a technology asset is threatened by a potential circumstance or event, which may result in shipping related operational, safety or security failures as a consequence of information or systems being corrupted, lost or compromised. The goal of maritime cyber risk management is to support safe and secure shipping, which is operationally resilient to cyber risks.

As affirmed in Resolution MSC.428(98)1, an approved SMS should take into account cyber risk management in accordance with the objectives and functional requirements of the ISM Code2, MPA will require cyber risks to be appropriately addressed in the company’s SMS no later than the first annual verification of the ISM company’s Document of Compliance after 1 January 2021.

In line with the guidance presented in MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3, to consider cyber risks as being appropriately addressed in SMS, the ISM company is required to demonstrate that they have appropriately incorporated the five functional elements to address maritime cyber risks, namely:
a. Identify: Define personnel roles and responsibilities for cyber risk management and identify the systems, assets, data and capabilities that, when disrupted, pose risks to ship operations;
b. Protect: Implement risk control processes and measures, and contingency planning to protect against a cyber-event and ensure continuity of shipping operations;
c. Detect: Develop and implement activities necessary to detect a cyberevent in a timely manner;
d. Respond: Develop and implement activities and plans to provide resilience and to restore systems necessary for shipping operations or services impaired due to a cyber-event;
and
e. Recover: Identify measures to back-up and restore cyber systems necessary for shipping operations impacted by a cyber-event.

ISM companies of Singapore-registered ships are reminded to review the identified risks to its ships, personnel and the environment and to establish appropriate safeguards to ensure that maritime cyber risks are appropriately addressed in the SMS, and that the five functional elements stated in para 5 have been incorporated into their risk management framework.

MPA has co-funded several maritime cyber security courses under Maritime Cluster Fund and Training@MaritimeSingapore. MPA is also aware that Recognised Organisations (ROs) have developed maritime cyber security training courses and relevant consultancy services to assist ISM Companies in developing and preparing their cyber risk management strategy and procedures. Companies may visit www.mpa.gov.sg or approach the ROs for more information on such training and services…

(For information about operations in Singapore, contact GAC Singapore at singapore@gac.com)

Source: Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore Shipping Circular No.15 of 2020 dated 13 August 2020

Changes to annual subscriptions and vessel levies
Friday, August 14, 2020, South Africa

At the South African Association of Ship Operators and Agents (SAASOA) Microsoft Team Annual General Meeting on 5 August, the following changes to the SAASOA Annual Subscriptions and Vessel Levies were proposed, seconded and passed by Members present:

ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTIONS
R 1 200 per Member exclusive of VAT (No change).
This was proposed by the Board of Directors and accepted by all Members present.

VESSEL LEVIES
Increase from R 300 to R 450 as below per call exclusive of VAT effective 1 September 2020.
– Current Levy R 300.00
– General Levy Increase R 50.00
– Legal Fees Contingency (see below) R 100.00
– TOTAL R 450.00

This Legal Fees Contingency portion will be revisited in August 2021, taking into account the Funds Balances that SAASOA manages to accumulate within the next twelve months, versus the Legal Expenses that SAASOA is expecting also within the next twelve months.

This was proposed by the Board of Directors and accepted by all Members present.

The rationale behind these increases was explained by the Board of Directors and Chief Financial Officer as follows:
1. In line with the slowing economy and the Worldwide COVID 19 Pandemic, the number of billable vessels is well below the budgeted number and is not showing any signs of improving at this stage of 2020.
2. SAASOA does not have access to outside loan funding in the form of bank overdrafts or other such funding.
3. SAASOA operating expenses have been trimmed to the lowest possible level and the Board of Directors have regular input to expenses incurred and reported in the monthly financial reports.
4. In the light of points 1 to 3 above, the Board of Directors consider it prudent to have available cash resources to cover approximately six (6) months operating expenses.
5. In order for SAASOA to continue effectively and efficiently, the Association needs to show an operating surplus each year into the future. With expenses having been cut to as low as possible, the only way to attain this goal is to increase revenue with call numbers dropping, this can only be attained by increasing the revenue base.
6. With the various Shipping Bills / Proposals / Amendments that are currently in the pipeline, SAASOA is going to incur Legal Costs in dealing with these matters. As SAASOA cannot keep asking Members for “Special Levies”, it was decided to increase the General Vessel Call Levy, which impacts all Members through their Monthly Vessel Calls. As this Call Levy is usually passed on to the Principal concerned, there is no impact on the individual SAASOA Member.

(For information about operations in South Africa, contact GAC South Africa at shipping.capetown@gac.com)

Source: South African Association of Ship Operators and Agents (SAASOA) letter dated 12 August 2020

Marine site investigation in Tung Chung Wan
Friday, August 14, 2020, Hong Kong

For approximately 4 months, marine site investigation works involving drilling of boreholes will be carried out in the following locations (WGS 84 Datum):
(A) 22 deg. 17.123’N / 113 deg. 56.093’E
(B) 22 deg. 17.120’N / 113 deg. 56.091’E
(C) 22 deg. 17.113’N / 113 deg. 56.081’E
(D) 22 deg. 17.089’N / 113 deg. 56.073’E
(E) 22 deg. 17.078’N / 113 deg. 56.061’E
(F) 22 deg. 17.071’N / 113 deg. 56.053’E
(G) 22 deg. 17.064’N / 113 deg. 56.045’E
(H) 22 deg. 17.051’N / 113 deg. 56.031’E

The works will be carried out by one jack-up platform. Two tugboats and one work boat will provide assistance.

A working area of approximately 30 metres around the platform will be established. Yellow flashing lights will be installed at the four corners of the jack-up platform to indicate its position.

The hours of work will be from 0700 to 1900 hours. No works will be carried out on Sundays and public holidays. Vessels employed for the works will stay in the works location outside the hours of work.

Vessels engaged in the operations will display signals as prescribed in international and local regulations.

Vessels navigating in the vicinity should proceed with caution.

(For information about operations in Hong Kong, contact GAC Hong Kong at shipping.hongkong@gac.com)

Source: Government of the Hong Kong SAR Marine Department Notice No.114 of 2020

Dredging off West Coast of Lamma Island
Friday, August 14, 2020, Hong Kong

For approximately six months, dredging operations will be carried out within the area bounded by straight lines joining the following co-ordinates (WGS 84 Datum) from (A) to (G):
(A) 22 deg. 13.234’N / 114 deg. 06.042’E
(B) 22 deg. 11.000’N / 114 deg. 06.423’E
(C) 22 deg. 10.961’N / 114 deg. 06.277’E
(D) 22 deg. 12.214’N / 114 deg. 06.063’E
(E) 22 deg. 12.728’N / 114 deg. 05.723’E
(F) 22 deg. 13.075’N / 114 deg. 05.710’E
(G) 22 deg. 13.199’N / 114 deg. 05.806’E

The works will be carried out by a flotilla of vessels including two grab dredgers, two tugboats and two split hopper barges. The number of vessels engaged in the works will change from time to time to suit operational requirements.

A working area of approximately 50 metres around each dredger will be established. Yellow marker buoys fitted with yellow flashing lights will be laid to mark the positions of the anchors extending from each dredger.

Silt curtains fitted with yellow flashing lights will be established within the works area. The silt curtain is a large piece of netting used to contain mud and sediments.

The works will be carried out round-the-clock.

Vessels engaged in the operations will display signals as prescribed in international and local regulations.

Vessels navigating in the vicinity should proceed with caution.

(For information about operations in Hong Kong, contact GAC Hong Kong at shipping.hongkong@gac.com)

Source: Government of the Hong Kong SAR Marine Department Notice No.115 of 2020

Act now to protect fleets and businesses

August 19, 2020 MARITIME CYBER SECURITY

Ship operators and owners need to prepare for IMO’s changes to the International Ship Management (ISM) Code that sees cyber risk management become part of vessel safety and security plans.

Owners need to act before these recommendations come into force on 1 January 2020, for in four months’ time, port state control such as the US Coast Guard could begin detaining ships for non-compliance. But shipping companies are already being hacked and suffering cyber attacks.

This includes the now notorious attack on Maersk Line’s IT networks in 2017, which caused more than US$300M in losses for the Danish container shipping group. Other more recent attacks include successful cyber breaches on networks operated by Toll Group, Mediterranean Shipping Company, Anglo-Eastern and OSM Maritime Group.

Which is why operators are being urged to invest in cyber security and training for seafarers and shore staff.

These were some of the key conclusions from Riviera Maritime Media’s Cyber security: readying for the ISM Code’s 1 Jan 2021 requirements webinar. This was held on 5 August in association with premier partner ClassNK and sponsor F-Secure as part of Riviera’s Maritime Cyber Security Webinar Week.

During that webinar, ClassNK cyber security team deputy manager Makiko Tani outlined the reasons for shipowners to implement cyber risk management and bolster security.

“Ships today are increasingly leveraging cyber space and operational technology (OT) is more connected with IT and communications,” said Ms Tani. “All this is in pursuit of innovation for fuel efficiency and voyage optimisation, but these bring new vulnerabilities.”

She therefore expects shipowners, operators and managers to ensure cyber risk management is completed ready for ISM Code 2021 and risk assessments are completed within companies and on board ships.

Ms Tani said cyber security “should not just be about compliance” but could open “new opportunities for business and new innovations”.

She said owners with existing fleets should understand the OT on ships and the required cyber risk controls. “Know how your ships are designed and protected,” Ms Tani said. “Be aware of the onboard OT and IT, and where these meet.”

“Can a cyber attack get into the OT?” she asked, adding this could occur through transferring malware, if crew plug their mobile devices into the ship’s ECDIS to charge.

“Compliance to the ISM Code 2021 can start here, by training people and empowering decision makers,” said Ms Tani. She suggested using multi-layered approach for controlling onboard cyber security, which includes updating firewalls, implementing software upgrades and updating antivirus protection. It is also about preventing seafarers from opening email attachments or using unconfirmed links.

There is plenty of guidance for shipping companies. ClassNK has published Guidelines for Designing Cyber Security Onboard Ships, with a second edition published in July 2020. It is applicable to deploying cyber security on newbuildings and is the responsibility of shipbuilders and OT/IT system integrators. This comes with ClassNK’s cyber security notation and is aligned with International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 62443 standard and ClassNK’s recommendation 166 on cyber resilience.

In April 2019, ClassNK published its first edition of Guidelines Cyber Security Management Systems Onboard Ships for shipowners and operators responsible for establishing cyber security management systems. It is aligned with International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) standards ISO 27001 and ISO 27002.

Another applicable document is ClassNK’s Guidelines Ships for Software Security, published in May 2019 for those responsible for establishing cyber security management systems.

Moran Cyber managing director Captain Alex Soukhanov agreed there were more vulnerabilities on modern ships with integrated IT with OT. “Digitalisation is the direction of the industry, so we have to develop continuous and holistic strategies to protect these investments, life, and the environment,” he said. This includes vessel control systems, navigation bridges, engineroom controls and ship automation.

Capt Soukhanov provided a case study within his presentation. This assessed a ship’s OT systems for any cyber security issues. “Our customer required assistance in performing asset discovery of marine OT systems followed by network segmentation from untrusted systems across the fleet,” he said. “We established trust with captains and chief engineers to perform assessments and passive network asset discovery.”

Network segmentation was implemented, and crew were trained on cyber risks and safely operating systems. The results were reduced vulnerable surfaces to cyber threats, increased asset visibility, separating critical OT equipment from untrusted or semi-trusted assets and business protection.

Security by design

Cyber security should be incorporated into ships as they are designed and built, instead of being retrofitted on to ships either for the ISM Code 2021 or as OT is upgraded.

“As digitalisation accelerates, we need to build in cyber security from the start,” said Capt Soukhanov. “Otherwise we are just catching up. Cyber security should be there before the keel is laid.” He said carrying out comprehensive cyber security risk assessments during design will improve safety, resiliency, and reliability through security by design.

Involve vendors during the early stages and extend this collaboration through the lifecycle of investment. Ship operators and vendors “should collaborate and work together to protect onboard systems” said Capt Soukhanov.

Assurance and insurance

Implementing cyber security and risk mitigation is as an opportunity for shipping companies to gain a better understanding of onboard OT and IT, said Beazley senior risk manager Kelly Malynn.

Conducting risk assessments will give owners a better understanding of the cyber threats and vulnerabilities on ships. “Risk assessment quality is important. Owners need to invest in this,” she said. To mitigate risk, segregating networks into subnetworks “makes it harder for an adversary to gain access to essential systems and equipment,” she continued.

“Eliminate the use of generic log-in credentials for multiple personnel. Create network profiles for each employee and require them to enter a password and/or insert an ID card to log on to onboard equipment,” Ms Malynn recommended.

“Limit access and privileges to only those levels necessary to allow each user to do their job. Administrator accounts should be used sparingly and only when necessary. All employees in shipping companies should be wary of external media, stop transferring data via USB drives.

“It is critical external media is scanned for malware on a standalone system before being plugged into any shipboard network. Never run executable media from an untrusted source,” warned Ms Malynn. Basic cyber hygiene can stop incidents before they impact operations. “Install and routinely update basic antivirus software, and do not forget to patch. This is the core of cyber hygiene.”

Ship operators also need to prepare for potential losses and recovery as a successful cyber attack is inevitable. “It is time to reach out to those people with experience – there is insurance cover out there,” she said.

Source: rivieramm

U.S. turns screws on maritime industry to cut off Venezuela’s oil

August 19, 2020 MARITIME CYBER SECURITY

U.S. sanctions have driven Venezuela’s oil exports to their lowest levels in nearly 80 years, starving President Nicolas Maduro’s socialist government of its main source of revenue and leaving authorities short of cash for essential imports such as food and medicine.

The sanctions are part of U.S. efforts to weaken Maduro’s grip on power after Washington and other Western democracies accused him of rigging a 2018 re-election vote. Despite the country’s economic collapse, Maduro has held on and frustrated the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump.

Maduro’s government says the United States is trying to seize Venezuela’s oil and calls the U.S. measures illegal persecution that heap suffering on the Venezuelan people.

Washington has honed in on the maritime industry in recent months in efforts to better enforce sanctions on the oil trade and isolate Caracas, Washington’s special envoy on Venezuela Elliott Abrams told Reuters.

“What you will see is most shipowners and insurance and captains are simply going to turn away from Venezuela,” Abrams told Reuters in an interview.

“It’s just not worth the hassle or the risk for them.”

The United States is pressuring shipping companies, insurers, certifiers and flag states that register vessels, he said.

Ship classification societies, which certify safety and environmental standards for vessels, are feeling the heat for the first time.

The United States is pressuring classifiers to establish whether vessels have violated sanctions regulations and to withdraw certification if so as a way to tighten sanctions further, a U.S. official told Reuters, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Without certification, a vessel and its cargo become uninsured. Ship owners would also be in breach of commercial contracts which require certificates to be maintained. In addition, port authorities can refuse entry or detain a ship.

London-headquartered Lloyd’s Register (LR), one of the world’s leading ship classifiers, said it had withdrawn services from eight tankers that were involved in trade with Venezuela.

Source: Reuters

Newer Posts

Older Posts

News

Quick Menu

Company DETAILS

SHIP IP LTD
VAT:BG 202572176
Rakovski STR.145
Sofia,
Bulgaria
Phone ( +359) 24929284
E-mail: sales(at)shipip.com

ISO 9001:2015 CERTIFIED