IMO Archives - Page 24 of 25 - SHIP IP LTD

On 24 January, the IMO issued updated guidelines on fatigue.  This is just another in a long series of band aids that attempt to cover over the problem without providing a solution.  

Fatigue is a long-standing weakness in the maritime industry.  It is recognized as a major or contributing causal factor in the majority of maritime casualties.  As is well-known, fatigue is caused by a lack of sleep and relaxation.  These, in turn, are the result of too few people being tasked with too much work.  Guidance on how to recognize and manage fatigue is meaningless.

The root cause of fatigue among the personnel on merchant vessels is that those vessels are insufficiently crewed.  The minimum manning levels recommended by the IMO and mandated by flag administrations are inadequate and have been so for years.  No one ship operator can afford to crew its vessels above the minimum level because that would put those vessels at an economic disadvantage against its competitors.  All vessels operating in similar trades must increase their crew levels simultaneously.

Attempts at fatigue management
The IMO and the flag administrations have taken a helpful step in addressing the fatigue problem by establishing maximum work hours and minimum rest hours.

In 1997, the IMO adopted major amendments to the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification, and Watch keeping for Seafarers (STCW Convention), along with the accompanying STCW Code.  Among other things, the Convention stated that each Administration shall, for the purpose of preventing fatigue, establish and enforce rest periods for watch keeping personnel.  The Code was more explicit, stating that watch keepers shall be provided a minimum of 10 hours of rest in any 24-hour period and not less than 70 hours of rest in each seven-day period.  The 2010 Manila Amendments to the STCW Convention and Code, which came into effect on 1 January 2012, expanded the rest requirement to a minimum of 77 hours in any 7-day period.  Administrations are further enjoined to require that records of daily hours of rest of seafarers be maintained in a standardized format to allow for monitoring and verification of compliance by the Administration and during port state control examinations.

The US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has long-recognized the dangers presented by fatigue in the transportation sector.  It stated in a recent report: Because “powering through” fatigue is simply not an acceptable option, fatigue management systems need to allow individuals to acknowledge fatigue without jeopardizing their employment.  Likewise, the UK Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) considers seafarer fatigue to be a potentially serious issue which is detrimental to safety at sea and the health of seafarers.

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) found the following:

Everyone has experienced fatigue at some point, but in the transport industry, where there’s often high pressure to deliver, fatigue can have very real, very dangerous implications.  Fatigue can have a range of adverse influences on human performance, such as slowed reaction time, decreased work efficiency, reduced motivational drive, and increased variability in work performance.  Fatigue can lead to lapses or errors associated with attention, problem-solving, memory, vigilance and decision-making.  Most people generally underestimate their level of fatigue.  Studies have found that people experiencing fatigue are not able to evaluate accurately their own fatigue level or their ability to perform. Instead, they tend to overestimate their abilities.

The time is overdue for flag administrations and port state control regimes to vigorously enforce those record keeping requirements.  There are suspicions that, on many ships, the watch keeping hours are under reported and the hours of rest are over reported.  Only detailed and careful review of those records can reveal the truth.

Crewing Levels
Only when the crewing level of ships is increased to an appropriate level will crew fatigue become manageable.

The IMO should immediately undertake a thoughtful analysis of vessel crewing requirements.  Technological advancements may have reduced the level of physical labor on ships, but it has had minimal impact on work hours.  For example, ECDIS, when operating properly, may have made it easier to identify where a vessel is located.  The watch officer is still expected, nay, required to verify this visually and by radar.  Instruments may tell the engineer that a motor has failed, but repairs must still be done manually.

Vessel owners and operators for years have pushed, successfully, for reductions in minimum crewing levels.  The time has come for flag administrations, port states, and the IMO to push back. Covering over the fatigue problem with yet more management guidance is not a solution.

 

SOURCE MARINE LINK Bryant, Dennis


The International Maritime Organization (IMO) is to address maritime corruption by including the issue in its work programme for the Facilitation Committee.

The decision to include an anti-corruption agenda came at the latest meeting of the IMO’s Facilitation Committee (FAL) in response to a submission from Liberia, Marshall Islands, Norway, United Kingdom, United States and Vanuatu.

The International Chamber of Shipping (ICS) co-sponsored the submission along with a number of other non-governmental organisations (NGOs).

“Corruption erodes trust in government and undermines the social contract. Corruption impedes investment, with consequent effects on growth and jobs. This is a global issue but we all need to work to eradicate corrupt practices,” Guy Platten, Secretary General of the International Chamber of Shipping, said.

According to the Maritime Anti-Corruption Networks anonymous reporting mechanism, which was set up in 2011, there have been over 28,000 incidents already reported.

“We are all aware that corruption in the maritime sector exists in many areas and as we have heard from the document introduction, corrupt practices, particularly with respect to the ship/shore interface, can lead to interruptions to normal operations, can incur higher operational costs for the shipowner and can have an impact on seafarers’ well-being,” Chris Oliver, Nautical Director at the International Chamber of Shipping, said.

 

In addition to the potential consequences for ship owners and seafarers, it should not be underestimated the impact it can have on trade, investment, social and economic development of ports, local communities and even Member States themselves,” Oliver concluded.

 

SOURCE WORLDMARITIME NEWS


FAL Convention

A mandatory requirement for national governments to introduce electronic information exchange between ships and ports comes into effect from 8 April 2019. The aim is to make cross-border trade simpler and the logistics chain more efficient, for the more than 10 billion tons of goods which are traded by sea annually across the globe.

The requirement, mandatory under IMO’s Convention on Facilitation of International Maritime Traffic (FAL Convention), is part of a package of amendments under the revised Annex to the FAL Convention, adopted in 2016.

“The new FAL Convention requirement for all Public Authorities to establish systems for the electronic exchange of information related to maritime transport marks a significant move in the maritime industry and ports towards a digital maritime world, reducing the administrative burden and increasing the efficiency of maritime trade and transport,” said IMO Secretary-General Kitack Lim.

The Facilitation Convention encourages use of a “single window” for data, to enable all the information required by public authorities in connection with the arrival, stay and departure of ships, persons and cargo, to be submitted via a single portal, without duplication.

The requirement for electronic data exchange comes into effect as IMO’s Facilitation Committee meets for its 43rd session (8-12 April). Alongside other agenda items, the Committee will continue its ongoing work on harmonization and standardization of electronic messages. Phase one of the review of the IMO Compendium on Facilitation and Electronic business, including the data elements of the FAL Convention is expected to be completed and the revised Guidelines for setting up a single window system in maritime transport are set to be approved.

The Committee will also receive an update on a successful IMO maritime single window project, implemented in Antigua and Barbuda, with Norway’s support. The source code developed for the system established in Antigua and Barbuda will be made available to other interested Member States. A presentation on the system will be made during the Facilitation Committee.

 

The FAL Convention

The main objective of the IMO’s Convention on Facilitation of International Maritime Traffic (FAL Convention), adopted in 1965, is to achieve the most efficient maritime transport as possible, looking for smooth transit in ports of ships, cargo and passengers.

The FAL Convention, which has 121 Contracting Governments, contains standards and recommended practices and rules for simplifying formalities, documentary requirements and procedures on ships’ arrival, stay and departure.

Under the FAL Committee, IMO has developed standardised FAL documentation for authorities and Governments to use, and the FAL Convention urges all stakeholders to make use of them.

 

The IMO Standardized Forms (FAL 1-7)
The Facilitation Convention (Standard 2.1) lists the documents which public authorities can demand of a ship and recommends the maximum information and number of copies which should be required. IMO has developed Standardized Forms for seven of these documents.

They are the:

  • IMO General Declaration
  • Cargo Declaration
  • Ship’s Stores Declaration
  • Crew’s Effects Declaration
  • Crew List· Passenger List
  • Dangerous Goods

Five other documents are required, on security, on wastes from ships, on advance electronic cargo information for customs risk assessment purposes, and two additional ones under the Universal Postal Convention and the International Health Regulations.

Under the requirement for electronic data exchange, all national authorities should now have provision for electronic exchange of this information.

 

SOURCE IMO


IMO Urges Users Of GPS-SPS To Check Their Systems Ahead Of GPS Roll-Over

 

Maritime users of the Global Positioning System Standard Positioning Service (GPS-SPS) are urged to check their systems ahead of the week counter roll over on 6 April 2019. Some outdated GPS receiver systems may cease to function properly – with potentially serious impacts on navigation.

 

The roll over occurs because the GPS system transmits time to GPS receivers using a format of time and weeks as a 10-bit value, which started from 6 January 1980, and can only count 1023 weeks. The previous roll over was on 21 August 1999, when systems reset and began counting towards week 1023 again. When the GPS system reaches week 1024, the system will revert back to week zero.

 

Some GPS receivers are known to be unable to make the transition from week 1023 to 1024. If the GPS receiver is outdated or has not been properly updated, the receiver will revert on 6 April 2019 to reading the week zero as August 1999. The internal clocks of these GPS receivers will experience a lack of absolute reference and may give the wrong time and position or may lock up permanently. Some of these GPS receivers are repairable with upgrades and others will become unusable.

Maritime users are advised to check the status of their receiver with their GPS manufacturer. IMO has issued a safety of navigation circular SN.1/Circ.182/Add.1 warning maritime users to take action for the roll over.

The GPS-SPS has been recognized by IMO as a component of the world-wide radionavigation system since 1996.

 

SOURCE READ FULL ARTICLE


USCG

USCG The Coast Guard District 8 Outer Continental Shelf Officer in Charge, Marine Inspections recently released two Marine Safety Information Bulletins regarding marine casualty reporting and the requirements for installed data plates on lifesaving appliances.

• MSIB 19-01 updates marine casualty reporting guidance and procedures for OCS units operating within the Gulf of Mexico. Compliance with MSIB 19-01 will ensure timely initial notifications to the appropriate Coast Guard unit.
• MSIB 19-02 reiterates that data plates are required for lifesaving appliances, as outlined in MSIB 17-02. To allow the offshore industry time to verify compliance, deficiencies will not be written until July 1, 2019.

source read full article click here


Autonomous Ships – Rolls-Royce has completed a research project it says demonstrates that the operation of autonomous vessels can meet, if not exceed, current collision avoidance (COLREG) rules.

The MAchine eXecutable Collision regulations for Marine Autonomous Systems (MAXCMAS) project included partners Lloyd’s Register, Warsash Maritime Academy (WMA), Queen’s University Belfast and Atlas Elektronik (AEUK).

The team found that use of newly developed algorithms allowed existing COLREGs to remain relevant in a crewless environment, finding that artificial intelligence-based navigation systems were able to enact the rules to avoid collision effectively, even when approaching manned vessels were interpreting the rules differently.

A key aspect of the research was the use of WMA’s networked bridge simulators. The simulators were used to analyze reactions from the crew when faced with a range of real-world situations and subsequently hone the MAXCMAS algorithms.

Rolls-Royce Future Technologies Group’s Eshan Rajabally, who led the project, said: “Through MAXCMAS, we have demonstrated autonomous collision avoidance that is indistinguishable from good seafarer behavior, and we’ve confirmed this by having WMA instructors assess MAXCMAS exactly as they would assess the human.”

During the development project, Rolls-Royce and its partners adapted a commercial-specification bridge simulator as a testbed for autonomous navigation. This was also used to validate autonomous seafarer-like collision avoidance in likely real-world scenarios. Various simulator-based scenarios were designed, with the algorithms installed in one of WMA’s conventional bridge simulators. This also included Atlas Elektronik’s ARCIMS mission manager Autonomy Engine, Queen’s University Belfast’s Collision Avoidance algorithms and a Rolls-Royce interface.

During sea trials aboard AEUK’s ARCIMS unmanned surface vessel, collision avoidance was successfully demonstrated in a real environment under true platform motion, sensor performance and environmental conditions.

“The trials showed that an unmanned vessel is capable of making a collision avoidance judgment call even when the give-way vessel isn’t taking appropriate action,” said Ralph Dodds, Innovation & Autonomous Systems Programme Manager at AEUK. “What MAXCMAS does is make the collision avoidance regulations applicable to the unmanned ship.”

The MAXCMAS technology and system has been thoroughly tested both at sea and under a multitude of scenarios using desktop and bridge simulators, says Rolls-Royce, proving that autonomous navigation can meet existing COLREG requirements.

 

SOURCE READ FULL ARTICLE


The International Maritime Organization answers the questions of Government Europa on how the next generation of autonomous vessels can be regulated to ensure safety for all involved.

With a myriad of emergent new technologies on the horizon of the maritime industry, such as autonomous vessels, it is vital that regulations are established to ensure the safety, security and efficiency of a new generation of ships. In May, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) – responsible for regulating international shipping – initiated its work into analysing the safety, security and environmental aspects of Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships (MASS). Under this, IMO will look towards how such vessels can be addressed under the instruments of the organisation. The International Maritime Organization answers the questions of Government Europa on how the next generation of vessels can be regulated to ensure safety for all involved.

How could autonomous vessels transform Europe’s maritime activities? What kind of issues could it eradicate?

This is not really a question we can answer, as there are many variables in Europe’s maritime activities which are outside IMO’s sphere. IMO, as the global regulatory body, sets the regulations for safe, secure and efficient shipping and for prevention of pollution by ships.

It is important to remember that when we talk about integrating new technologies in shipping, we need to balance the benefits derived from new and advancing technologies against:

  • Safety and security concerns;
  • The impact on the environment;
  • International trade facilitation;
  • The potential costs to the industry; and
  • Their impact on personnel, both on board and ashore.

At 2017’s meeting of the Maritime Safety Committee (MSC), a plan to conduct a series of scoping exercises on MASS was scheduled. As the first stage of that scoping exercise was conducted in May, what safety implications have been identified as a result?

The scoping exercise at the moment is aimed at looking at the current regulations in relation to maritime autonomous surface ships. What we are looking at now is how the rules already adopted could be applied to a ship in various modes of autonomy. So, we are looking at each regulation and seeing whether it would apply to a ship in an autonomous mode, whether it would not apply at all, or do we need to have a new rule specifically for autonomous ships?

SOURCE READ FULL ARTICLE


SHIP SCRUBBERS

Following a lengthy process, the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) member states finally agreed in April to require international shipping to decarbonize and at least halve its greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

The agreement includes strengthening design requirements for each ship type, a relative reduction of 40 percent in CO2 emissions by 2030, and at least 50 percent reduction by 2050, and subsequently a path toward a complete phase-out.

Although the members agreed on the goals, concerns were raised over the lack of any clear plan of action to deliver the emissions reductions.

Kirsi Tikka, Executive Vice President, Senior Maritime Advisor, at the American Bureau of Shipping (ABS), in an interview with World Maritime News said that collaboration by all stakeholders as well as sufficient investment in technology development are needed.

“To meet the targets established in the initial IMO strategy for GHG reduction will require considerable development time and financial investment that may not deliver returns in the short term.”

Since the experiences of early adopters of technology in complying with environmental regulations have not always been positive, the industry “is unlikely to adopt new GHG reduction technologies until there is a full proof of functionality and ideally a cost/benefit analysis.”
Kirsi Tikka, Executive Vice President, Senior Maritime Advisor, ABS
Kirsi Tikka, Executive Vice President, Senior Maritime Advisor, ABS

Tikka continued that financing the R&D needed to deliver on the schedule established by the IMO strategy “will be a challenge for the industry – something of which the IMO is well aware.”

WMN: Would you agree that the compromise on the 50 percent reduction was the best the IMO could do for the moment?

Tikka: Given the apparently high degree of disagreement on strategy between member states going into the meeting it was a very positive result for the IMO, the industry and potentially, the environment. By agreeing to establish a global target for CO2 emissions reductions, the IMO has produced a result in line with the Paris Accords and has sent a clear message that eliminates the need for regional target setting.

Shipowners will start to collect emissions data according to the IMO Data Collection System in January 2019 and this data will provide the foundation for IMO discussions on the final shape of the GHG strategy from 2023, Tikka continued.

Despite the headlines concerning 50% reductions of 2008 levels by 2050, the targets for the greenhouse gas reduction “are not finalized and IMO will use the output from the IMO DCS and the fourth IMO Greenhouse Gas Study (in 2020) to further refine the targets.”

In the meantime, shipowners are probably more focussed on the implications of 2020 in terms of fuel strategy and operational profile, Tikka said.

“The IMO GHG agreement raises a lot of questions, to which there are for the moment, few answers: what kind of technology will be available? What fuel strategy – conventional or alternative – should they choose and what propulsion system will offer the best option?”

SHIP SCRUBBERS

WMN: What is your take on the available solutions on the market? What is the way forward: alternative fuels, scrubbers or maybe innovative ship designs?

Tikka: I agree that there is a need for significant system and service development to transfer some of today’s promising technology into solutions that can be implemented and applied. These include fuel cell and battery technology, wind and solar power assistance and new fuels such as Gas-To-Liquids, methanol from biomass and other biofuels, but few are ready to go on the kind of scale needed to meet the GHG targets.

Vessel designs have already been optimized for economic efficiency in recent years and a step change in efficiency would require a radically different approach to design and/or use of materials. Since it is not feasible to replace the world fleet by 2030, we will need other fuel and operational measures such as optimizing speed for on-time arrival at port, to supplement any advances in design.

Speaking on the impact of CO2 reduction decision on ship speeds, Tikka informed that vessel speed has “a significant impact on required power and therefore on fuel consumption and CO2 emissions.”

As a result, ships in sectors that typically operate at higher speed “are likely to work at lower operational speeds in future. And maybe more importantly these speeds will need to be optimized for the most efficient utilization of the vessel in the logistics chain rather than the traditional approach of specifying the speed in the charter party.”

Tikka said that addressing the CO2 requirements “will certainly take a holistic approach across the industry.”

The leveraging of more real-time and accurate vessel performance data will form an integral aspect of achieving these improved efficiencies. Digital technology and improved connectivity will offer tools not only for reporting and improving vessel performance but also for optimizing the wider logistics chain, Tikka concluded.

SOURCE LINK READ FULL ARTICLE


Autonomous Ships – Maritime Safety Committee (MSC) meets for its 99th session 16-25 May, with an IMO Forum on 15 May.

Adoption of amendments

The MSC is expected to adopt, inter-alia, amendments to the following instruments:

SOLAS

  • Amendments to SOLAS regulations II-1/1 and II-1/8-1, concerning the computerized stability support for the master in case of flooding for existing passenger ships. Also set for approval are related Guidelines on operational information for masters in case of flooding for passenger ships constructed before 1 January 2014.
  • Amendments to SOLAS chapter IV, replacing all references to “Inmarsat” with references to a “recognized mobile satellite service” and consequential amendments to the 1994 and 2000 HSC Codes and the 2008 SPS Code.

International Maritime Dangerous Goods (IMDG) Code

  • Amendments to update the Code in line with the latest recommendations from the United Nations Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods, which sets the basic requirements for all transport modes. The amendments include new provisions regarding IMO type 9 tank, a set of new abbreviations for segregation groups and special provisions for carriage of lithium batteries and of vehicles powered by flammable liquid or gas

Autonomous Ships

Polar Code – second phase
The International Code for Ships Operating in Polar Waters (Polar Code) entered into force in 2017 under both the SOLAS and MARPOL treaties. The MSC is expected to consider how the Polar Code provisions might be applied in the future to non-SOLAS vessels, including cargo ships of less than 500 gross tonnage, fishing vessels and pleasure yachts, with a view to instructing the Ship Design and Construction (SDC) Sub-Committee.

Piracy and armed robbery against ships
The MSC will receive an update on reported incidents of piracy and armed robbery against ships. IMO received reports of 203 incidents of piracy and armed robbery against ships worldwide in 2017, the lowest for over 20 years, confirming the current downward year on year trend, with a reduction of about 8% at the global level. In the Gulf of Guinea, the number of incidents reported to the Organization decreased last year to 48 incidents, against 62 in 2016. However, in the first four months of 2018, the number of incidents significantly increased in the region, with 36 incidents reported, against 17 in the same period in 2017. Piracy and armed robbery remain active threats and Governments and the shipping industry need to maintain their guard.

 


MARITIME CYBER RISK !

The insurance losses and liabilities arising from cyber risks is an increasing area of focus for both shipowners and their insurers, argues Mr. Adrian Durkin, Director (Claims) and Mr. Colin Gillespie, Deputy

Potentially owners may be exposed to gaps in cover arising from cyber incidents – an unsatisfactory situation in today’s connected world. For example, an owner’s hull and machinery insurance may contain a cyber risk exclusion which mirrors, or is derived from, institute clause 380.

There are also cyber exclusions in war risk policies that relate to computer viruses. The war risks clause is derived from market clause 3039. Many other market insurance policies specifically exclude losses or liabilities arising as a result of cyber risks.

Why is Cyber Excluded?

Cyber risks present a range of issues for insurers. Cyber risks are relatively new – claims data relating to these risks is quite limited. Another difficulty is that cyber security is not yet well established in the maritime industry. The sheer complexity of the information technology, operational technology and internet available across the industry also presents a challenge, as does the potential for cyber problems to spread quickly across the globe. As a result the likelihood, extent and costs associated with claims involving cyber risks are difficult to calculate and potentially significant, hence the reluctance to offer cover.

It is in an owner’s interests to scrutinise their various policies in order to identify potential gaps in their insurance cover. It is possible to close the gaps by working with insurers and brokers. This may require owners to demonstrate that they have robust cyber risk management practices in place both ashore and afloat. An additional premium may be payable. The market is responding to these risks – albeit slowly.

P&I Cover for Cyber Risks

The International Group of P&I Clubs’ poolable cover does not exclude claims arising from cyber risks.

This means that club members benefit from the same level of P&I cover should a claim arise due to a cyber risk, as they would from such a claim arising from a traditional risk. As always cover is subject to the club rules.

While there are currently no internationally agreed regulations in force as to what constitutes a prudent level of cyber risk management or protection, this does not mean that owners, charterers, managers or operators of ships can ignore the need to take proper steps to protect themselves in the belief that their club cover will always respond.

If a claim with a cyber element arises, an owner may need to demonstrate that they took all obvious steps to prevent foreseeable loss or liability. As more and more potential cyber risks are being identified, clubs will expect to see the operation of sensible and properly managed cyber risk policies and systems both ashore and on vessels.

MARITIME CYBER RISK

Don’t delay – act now

Barely a month goes by without news of a major cyber-attack affecting a large or high profile commercial or government entity. Cybercrime is a rapidly growing global threat in all industries and the maritime supply chain is vulnerable as the problems experienced by Maersk in 2017 have demonstrated. In that incident problems ashore had a knock on effect on vessels, highlighting the fact that as marine transport operations become more connected, the more chance there is of problems impacting across the system both ashore and afloat.

The authorities and large charterers are concerned about the risk to operations ashore and afloat and are taking steps to drive change in the industry. Actively managing cyber risks is now both a commercial and compliance priority.

Cyber Risks & ISM Code

The IMO’s Maritime Safety Committee (MSC) has confirmed that cyber risks should be managed under the ISM Code.

Resolution MSC.428(98) affirms that an approved safety management system should take into account cyber risk management and encourages administrations to ensure that cyber risks are appropriately addressed in safety management systems no later than the first annual verification of the company’s Document of Compliance after 1 January 2021.

TMSA 3

Cyber risk management has been included in TMSA 3 under elements 7 and 13. KPI 7.3.3 includes cyber security as an assigned responsibility for software management in the best practice guidelines. Under element 13 cyber security is specifically identified as a security threat to be managed. It seems clear that the oil industry has recognised the need for action from tanker owners and is encouraging action through commercial pressure via TMSA 3. For tanker operators the time to act is already here.

Rightship Inspections

Cyber risk management now forms part of Rightship inspections and a company’s cyber security maturity may be one aspect dry bulk charterers will take into account.

A Daunting Task?

The prospect of dealing with cyber security will be daunting for many shipping companies. It’s new, involves things that may not be fully understood, and most of us are not likely to have received any formal training in such risks.

What is a definite plus is that shipping companies will be very familiar with the risk management framework suggested by the IMO Guidelines on Cyber Risk Management and industry Guidelines on Cyber Security Onboard Ships. We can also use the experience gained in other sectors of industry that have already put cyber security systems in place.

2021 is not far away, but the potential for cyber risks to result in losses or liabilities is clearly already upon us.

Cyber risks can affect almost every part of a shipping company. There will be lots to do to identify risks and vulnerabilities and to take steps to prepare for, and respond to, cyber threats. It’s time for us all to act.

By Adrian Durkin, Director (Claims) & Colin Gillespie, Deputy Director (Loss Prevention), North P&I Club


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