IMO Archives - Page 2 of 18 - SHIP IP LTD


No other classification society in the world has the depth and breadth of experience of ABS across all major sectors of marine industry.

Since its inception in 1862, ABS has been a global leader in marine safety. With nearly 4,000 technical professionals positioned around the world, the ABS team has the experience, knowledge and professional judgment to assist members and clients in developing their marine projects.

Today ABS is on the cutting edge of technologies related to technical evaluation services, vessel performance, LNG as marine fuel and the latest design techniques. Our professionals are also up to date on the latest in regulatory requirements and best practices of the marine industry.

No matter the type of vessel or the location of construction, ABS professionals stand ready to help with the complete life cycle of your project.


Source: ww2.eagle


Compliance Planner provides you with a tailored list of requirements that your fleet needs to meet to achieve compliance. Data gleaned from the tool equips you with a single point of information to familiarize yourself with future legislation and identify the number of vessels affected by each requirement – enabling you to take timely action.

Covering all relevant upcoming compliance for regulations impacting your fleet, Compliance Planner reduces the effort spent mining large amounts of paperwork, saving you time and money.

Beyond, the application reduces the risk of missing key regulatory deadlines resulting in non-compliance and helps you to navigate to relevant content and tools to support your compliance needs.

Everything to help you and to keep your decision-making ahead of the regulatory curve.


Source: dnv


The Department of Partnerships and Projects (DPP) serves as the gateway for developing partnership opportunities with a wide range of external partners, including IMO Member States, UN agencies, financial institutions, NGOs, IGOs and the private sector.

The Department began operating on 1 March 2020 to increase the existing portfolio of donor-supported long-term projects supporting the technical cooperation objectives of IMO. The establishment of DPP reflects the strong and continuing commitment of IMO to helping its Member States achieve the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, with its 17 Sustainable Development Goals, and implement the Organization’s regulatory framework.

IMO has a long and successful track record of matching the requirements of developing and less-developed countries with resources made available by a range of governmental, institutional and corporate donors. Building on this, DPP also promotes a culture of collaboration and innovation, creating broader engagement and partnerships with maritime and ocean-related stakeholders.


Source: imo


The safety management system (SMS) is an organized system planned and implemented by the shipping companies to ensure the safety of the ship and marine environment.

SMS is an important aspect of the International safety management (ISM) code and it details all the important policies, practices, and procedures that are to be followed in order to ensure the safe functioning of ships at the sea. All commercial vessels are required to establish safe ship management procedures. SMS forms one of the important parts of the ISM code.

The safety management system (SMS) therefore ensures that each and every ship comply with the mandatory safety rules and regulations, and follow the codes, guidelines,  and standards recommended by the IMO, classification societies, and concerned maritime organizations.


Source: marineinsight


The Electronic Chart Display and Information System (ECDIS) is a development in the navigational chart system used in naval vessels and ships. With the use of the electronic chart system, it has become easier for a ship’s navigating crew to pinpoint locations and attain directions.

ECDIS complies with IMO Regulation V/19 & V/27 of SOLAS convention as amended, by displaying selected information from a System Electronic Navigational Chart (SENC). ECDIS equipment complying with SOLAS requirements can be used as an alternative to paper charts.

Besides enhancing navigational safety, ECDIS greatly eases the navigator’s workload with its automatic capabilities such as route planning, route monitoring, automatic ETA computation and ENC updating. In addition, ECDIS provides many other sophisticated navigation and safety features, including continuous data recording for later analysis.


Source: marineinsight


Helle Hammer, Chair of the International Union of Marine Insurance (IUMI) Policy Forum, has argued that the shipping industry ‘urgently needs’ International Maritime Organization (IMO) regulation and Class rules on the implementation and use of new marine fuel types such as hydrogen and ammonia.

In a statement issued by the IUMI today (3 September), Hammer said: ‘We applaud IMO’s ambition and calls for a decarbonised shipping industry. As marine insurers, it is our job to help shipowners transition to low or zero carbon fuels safely and with all associated risks fully understood and managed.

‘As these new fuel types are largely un-tested, the insurance industry has no history or loss records to help it assess the potential risks involved. We need to learn about these new fuels and educate our clients accordingly.

‘As importantly, we need IMO regulation and Class rules on the implementation and use of these new fuels. This will ensure the safety of the crew and enable marine underwriters to assess and offer necessary financial protection for this new risk profile. Mindful of the time it takes for new regulation to come into force, we urge IMO and other regulators to begin work now.’

Hammer continued: ‘Environmentally friendly fuels carry their own risks, ammonia is both toxic and corrosive, and hydrogen has a wide flammability range and ignites easily. Whilst we welcome the proposed safety guidelines as a useful starting point, they are non-mandatory and so can only be an interim measure. We urgently need mandatory requirements to be developed and implemented to facilitate the transition to greener fuels.’

The IUMI noted that two recent submissions to IMO have proposed the development of safety guidelines for new fuel types and European Union (EU) Member States and the European Commission (EC) propose to include this in the work plan for the next phase of the development of the International Code of Safety for Ships using Gases of other low-flashpoint Fuels (IGF Code).

Both the International Chamber of Shipping (ICS) and INTERCARGO have proposed to develop guidelines for safety of newly built vessels using ammonia as fuel. IUMI believes that guidance is also needed for the education and training of crew onboard, and to address safe and environmentally sound operations.


Source: bunkerspot


At the 32nd session of the Assembly of the IMO, Sweden seeks election to the Council of the IMO under the provisions of Article 17 (b) of the IMO Convention.

As a country located in the very northern part of the hemisphere with a long coastline, few land borders and a large archipelago, Sweden holds a long tradition as a maritime nation. Sweden is dependent on seaborne trade, 90 percent of the import and export being transported by sea. Shipping and ports are therefore of vital importance for the entire Swedish society.

The Swedish commitment to the IMO is long-standing and Sweden became a member of the Organization in 1959. As a firm believer in the objectives and the work of the IMO, Sweden has constructively and dedicatedly participated in the work of the Organization for over six decades.

If elected member to the IMO Council, Sweden will particularly focus on the following:

  • To promote the objectives of the World Maritime University which enables international maritime rulemaking and implementation.
    Read more about World Maritime University and global commitment.
  • To ensure continuous good governance and that the IMO is a transparent, efficient and inclusive Organization.
    Read more about Good Governance.
  • To prepare shipping to be fit for the future, e.g. by adapting to increased digitalization, climate change and external factors, and by promoting gender equality. Read more about Shipping fit for the future.
  • To continue to support the work of the IMO at all levels of the organization.
    Read more about Sweden and the IMO.


Source: transportstyrelsen

Owners and operators of ships calling on the United States know well that criminal prosecutions are now a regular occurrence in the maritime industry. Most relate to environmental violations and post-incident conduct like false statements and obstruction of justice. Recently, however, prosecutors also have used the Seaman’s Manslaughter Statute as an enforcement tool.

The statute allows for federal charges against vessel officers and corporate executives of the vessel owner or charterer if a death results from negligence aboard a vessel. Several high-profile casualties have clearly placed the statute back on the government’s radar and it is now an enforcement risk for passenger and cargo vessels alike.

The Statute

The Seaman’s Manslaughter Statute criminalizes negligence and inattention to duties by a captain, engineer, pilot, or other person employed on a vessel. Violations can result in up to 10 years’ imprisonment, a fine, or both. The statute stems from 19th century laws aimed at preventing deaths from fires on steamboats, which were designed to punish ship’s officers for negligent conduct. A similar focus exists today. Under the statute, vessel officers and shoreside employees may be liable for manslaughter if their negligent conduct causes a fatality. This is a “simple negligence” standard, meaning that the government need not prove the conduct was willful, knowing, or reckless.

However, a heightened, “gross negligence” standard applies for cases against executives of corporate vessel owners or charterers. There, the government must prove that the individual corporate executive: (1) had “control and management of the operation, equipment, or navigation” of the vessel; and (2) “knowingly or willfully caused or allowed” the negligent conduct that resulted in a death.

Prosecutions through the 2000s

Few Seaman’s Manslaughter cases were brought before the 2000s. The most notable was the General Slocum disaster in 1904, where over 1,000 people died in a vessel fire in New York. The captain, corporate executives, and the vessel inspector were indicted when the investigation revealed serious violations of safety standards and false records covering up the deficiencies. This incident lead to major regulatory change and reform of the predecessor agency to the U.S. Coast Guard.

In the early 2000s, several major casualties revived the statute, including the Staten Island Ferry incident in 2003, where a ferry veered off course and allided with a concrete maintenance pier, killing 11 people and injuring 73 others. The resulting investigation found that: the pilot was taking painkillers; the pilot’s doctor knew about his condition and falsified medical records that were a prerequisite to the pilot’s license; the director of ferry operations knew the ferry was operating in violation of a rule mandating two pilots in the wheelhouse; and the port captain lied to investigators about compliance with the rule. The pilot and director of ferry operations were convicted of manslaughter and the captain and doctor were convicted of making false statements and obstructing justice.

Recent Prosecutions

Recent Seaman’s Manslaughter cases exemplify the statute’s breadth and show that a casualty with fatalities will almost certainly result in a criminal investigation, along with a parallel investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board and civil lawsuits.

In the last few years, the government brought charges in two high-profile and tragic passenger vessel casualties: the Stretch Duck 7 duck boat disaster in the Ozarks in 2018, and the P/V Conception dive boat fire in California in 2019.

In the Stretch Duck incident, 17 people died when the vessel sank in a storm on Table Rock Lake in Missouri. The captain was charged with 17 counts of Seaman’s Manslaughter and the indictment alleged that he failed to properly assess weather conditions, failed to act when the bilge alarm sounded, failed to instruct passengers to wear life jackets, and failed to prepare to abandon ship. Superseding indictments charged three corporate managers with the same 17 counts and added 13 counts against all defendants for grossly negligent operation of a vessel.  The trial court dismissed the case in late 2020, finding that the lake on which the casualty occurred was not within the general admiralty jurisdiction or the “special maritime jurisdiction” of the United States, a jurisdictional prerequisite for a prosecution  under the Seaman’s Manslaughter Statute. The government appealed this decision to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in December 2020, so the final outcome remains undetermined.

Comparably, in the P/V Conception case, 34 people died when the dive boat caught fire and sank in California. The captain was indicted on 34 counts of Seaman’s Manslaughter in December 2020. The indictment alleged that he failed to have a night watch and conduct sufficient fire drills and crew training. The captain was released on $250,000 bail, but his case remains pending. Thus far, the owning company has not been charged, but it sold off the remainder of the fleet amidst multiple wrongful death lawsuits.

Beyond these passenger vessel cases, the government has brought Seaman’s Manslaughter charges for casualties on other types of commercial vessels, such as fishing charters, parasailing operations, tugs/barges, and cargo ships. Two cases serve as interesting examples: U.S. v. Kaluza, which relates to the Deepwater Horizon incident involving an explosion, fire, and oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010, and U.S. v. Egan Marine Corp., which involved a large explosion on a slurry barge in Chicago in 2005. Although the charges in these cases ultimately were dismissed, the dismissals were based on legal technicalities and the threat of prosecution following such incidents remains very real.

In Kaluza, Deepwater Horizon well site leaders were indicted because their failure to conduct proper pressure testing led to the explosion that killed 11 people. The defendants appealed and the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Seaman’s Manslaughter Statute did not apply because they were not involved in the marine operation of the vessel. Yet, similar conduct by a chief engineer or comparable shipboard officer would have resulted in criminal charges.

Egan Marine involved a slurry barge explosion that occurred because the master told a deckhand to warm a cargo pump with a propane torch even though open flames were prohibited. The master and the company were convicted of one count of Seaman’s Manslaughter for the deckhand’s death. They appealed and in 2016 the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the convictions because a prior civil suit relating to the same incident had determined that there was not proof that the deckhand was using a propane torch at the time of the explosion.


The government’s increasing willingness to invoke the Seaman’s Manslaughter Statute following maritime casualties should serve as a wakeup call for companies to avoid becoming a part of this trend. Today, a marine casualty resulting in a fatality will almost certainly prompt an investigation under the Seaman’s Manslaughter Statute, in addition to any separate investigation by regulatory authorities and private civil lawsuits. This risk underscores the importance of implementing an effective, practical, and verifiable compliance program focused not only on the minimum regulatory requirements, but also the reduction of unnecessary risk.

Jeanne Grasso the co-chair of Blank Rome’s Maritime and International Trade Practice Group and a member of the firm’s Maritime Emergency Response Team (“MERT”). She focuses her practice on maritime, international, and environmental law for clients worldwide. Jeanne counsels owners and operators of vessels, charterers, cargo owners, and facilities, including manufacturing facilities, both marine-side and inland. 

Kierstan Carlson helps corporate and individual clients navigate a wide range of white collar and complex civil litigation matters. She has substantial experience as the lead associate coordinating responses to subpoenas and civil investigative demands, and conducting parallel internal investigations. Kierstan has significant experience defending clients in maritime environmental criminal cases involving MARPOL and the Clean Water Act, as well as in civil and administrative enforcement actions involving the False Claims Act and other regulatory violations.


Source: maritime-executive


LONDON: Disruption to shipping from the long-anticipated switch to more environmentally friendly marine fuels has finally arrived, exacerbated by logistical problems as much as any shortage of the cleaner fuel.

New International Maritime Organization (IMO) rules, referred to as IMO 2020, aim to stop ships from using fuels containing more than 0.5 percent sulfur unless they are equipped with exhaust-cleaning systems known as scrubbers.

From the start of January ships must load very low sulfur fuel oil (VLSFO) or more expensive marine diesel unless they have scrubbers for the old high-sulfur fuel oil (HSFO).

The new regulations have been on the radar since 2016, with no prospect of any extension to the 2020 deadline, prompting concern from oil producers, storage operators and shippers and multiple warnings over the potential for a chaotic switch.

With only a minority of ships in the global fleet having installed scrubbers, the oil industry had feared refiners would not be able to make enough diesel and VLSFO. But delays appear to be more down to a lack of refueling barges than the fuel itself, with sources saying that major ports are running 10 days behind schedule across fuel types.


Source: arabnews


Container shipping giant MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company doubled down on its position to avoid sending its vessels through the Northern Sea Route and urged others to follow suit, citing environmental concerns.

“As a responsible company, this was an obvious decision for us,” said MSC CEO, Soren Toft. “MSC will not seek to cut through the melting ice of the Arctic to find a new route for commercial shipping, and I consider this a position the whole shipping industry must adopt.”

Running from Murmansk near Russia’s border with Norway to the Bering Strait near Alaska, the Northern Sea Route is significantly shorter than going via the Suez Canal and cuts sea transport times from Asia to Europe.

Shipping activity in the Arctic has picked up as the region has warmed at least twice as quickly as the rest of the world over the last three decades. In particular, the trade is driven by commodities producers—mainly in Russia, China and Canada—sending iron ore, oil, liquefied natural gas (LNG) and other fuels through Arctic waters.

MSC first announced its commitment to avoid the Northern Sea Route, including the Northeast and Northwest Passages, in 2019 in an effort to limit black carbon and other environmental impacts in the environmentally sensitive Arctic. Its competitors Hapag-Lloyd and CMA CGM are among other shipping companies that have made similar pledges.

“Some of our peers have already made the same commitment to put the preservation of the Arctic environment ahead of profits. The Northern Sea Route is neither a quick fix for the current market challenges, nor a viable long-term strategy,” Toft said.

An expansion of Arctic shipping could increase the emissions of so-called black carbon—physical particles of unburned carbon which can settle on land or ice, as well as compromising air quality and accelerating the shrinkage of Arctic sea ice. MSC said it believes risks such as navigation incidents, fuel spills, air quality and altering the ecological balance/biodiversity of the marine habitat beneath the surface of the sea also outweigh any commercial opportunities to make a short cut between North America or Europe and eastern Russia or Asia.

“Attempting to open new navigation routes which skim the polar ice cap sounds like the ignorant ambition of an 18th century explorer, when today we know that this would pose further risks to humans and many other species in that region, as well as worsen the impact of shipping upon climate change,” said Bud Darr, Executive Vice President Maritime Policy & Government Affairs at MSC Group.

“MSC supports the decarbonization targets of the UN International Maritime Organization, including complete decarbonisation of shipping, and sees no overall merit in using this potential trade route. The risks and impacts outweigh the benefits of the shorter transits. There are no shortcuts toward genuine decarbonization of shipping and this is a shortcut that should definitely be avoided.”


Source: marinelink