Ship Execution Plan (SEP)

India aims to reduce ships’ use of single-use plastic by 90% during stays in Indian ports in the next 12 months.

On 16 October 2019, the Indian Directorate General of Shipping (DGS) issued Order No.05 of 2019 prohibiting the use of single-use plastic items onboard ships. The order prohibits the carriage of any such items onboard Indian flagged ships while foreign flagged ships are only prohibited from using any such item while at places or ports in India.

While the initial plan was to implement the order in full by 1 January 2020, DGS later decided to postpone its implementation, to allow the shipping industry time to put in place the logistical arrangements needed to comply with the new requirements.

The following changes and clarifications to the original order should be noted:

Definition of single-use plastics

The original order defines single-use plastics as “disposable plastics which are used only once before they are thrown away”. The Addendum further clarifies that the prohibition applies only to such items used onboard ships and which are completely made of plastics. DGS provides the following examples of items not covered by the prohibition:

tetra pak cartons with plastic caps as used for milk and juice;
dispensers for liquids such as shampoo, cleaning products, etc. when these are repeatedly re-used/re-filled onboard and not discarded after single use;
items made of biodegradable plastic with a stamp, mark or certificate from the manufacturer or something similar;
cargo related items and packaging;
essential equipment such as personal protective equipment, medical equipment, lifesaving appliances and fire-fighting equipment; and
for the time being, crew and passenger personnel effects.

Please refer to the original order for a generic list of single-use plastic items covered by the prohibition.

New phase-out schedule – Ship Execution Plan (SEP)

All ships are eventually required to reduce their single-use plastic use by 90% during stays in Indian ports. This will be achieved by a stepwise implementation of the prohibition and will be based on ship type and each ship’s actual inventory of single-use plastic items. To summarise:

All ships when at Indian ports or places must be able to present an inventory list identifying all single-use plastic items onboard that are covered by the prohibition. The deadline for establishing the inventory list is 31 January 2020 for cargo ships and 31 March 2020 for passenger ships.
An inventory list should identify the different types of single-use plastic items onboard but need not specify the actual number of each item onboard. As an example, the DGS explains that all plastic bags irrespective of size will be considered as one single-use plastic item.
For cargo ships, 50% of the items in the inventory list will be prohibited from 1 April 2020, 75% from 1 July 2020 and 90% from 1 October 2020.
Passenger ships are given two extra months to comply with each step of the phase-out schedule.
Ship operators are free to decide which items in the inventory list to place in each ‘phase-out category’ and can therefore prioritize based on each ship’s operational requirements and crews’ needs.

The DGS states that the inventory list, once prepared, should not be changed unless there is a need to correct the list.

In accordance with the above order a “Ship Execution Plan” should be available onboard in order to provide guidance on crew for Single use plastics, and to list such items to inventories.

The following types of inventories should be created regarding Single Use Plastics:

Initial Inventory (Single Use plastics onboard on 31st January 2020)
10 % Inventory (these items will be used onboard at the end of implementation date)
Inventory A – 50% of items of initial inventory which will not be used after 1st April 2020
Inventory B – 75% of items of initial inventory which will not be used after 1st July 2020
Inventory C – 90% of items of initial inventory which will not be used after 1st October 2020.

A Single Use Plastic Log is to be completed by the ship when entering or departing Indian waters, ports or places with an attached list of Single Use Plastics onboard.

Ship Execution Plan (SEP)

Please order TODAY our Ship Execution Plan in WORD Format with ONLY EURO 120 !

GET IN CONTACT WITH US TODAY TO ORDER YOUR COPY !!! OUR AGENT WILL BE HAPPY TO ASSIST YOU

M: sales(a)shipip.com

EU Ship Recycling Regulation

Vessels over 500gt in EU waters will be required to carry a verified Inventory of Hazardous Materials on board…

Facilitating ratification of the IMO’s Hong Kong International Convention for the Safe and Environmentally Sound Recycling of Ships, the EU Ship Recycling Regulation (EU SRR) aims to regulate the ship-recycling industry to ensure that end-of-life vessels are dismantled safely, with minimum impact to human health and the environment.

The regulation requires that any ship of 500gt and above, of any flag calling at an EU port or anchorage, will require a Certificate of Compliance (if EU flagged) or Statement of Compliance (if non-EU flagged) supplemented by a verified Inventory of Hazardous Materials (IHM) by the 31 December 2020.

The Certificate of Compliance means, among other things, that the vessel shall only be sent to recycling facilities included in the European List of Ship Recycling Facilities at the end of its life. The IHM provides ship-specific information on the actual hazardous materials present on board in order to protect health and safety and to prevent environmental pollution at ship-recycling facilities.

Many flag states have delegated the authority for the verification of compliance to their respective classification societies. As such, Lloyd’s Register has been supporting stakeholders throughout the recycling supply chain to ensure all activities are environmentally sound, compliant and safe.

Lloyd’s has reported an enormous uptake in on-board IHM certification as a consequence of the regulation and states that the demand put on certified material samplers will grow significantly in the near future. However, Lloyd’s advises that those requiring certification should make sure there is no conflict of interest, which has become apparent with some offerings of IHM certification.

“Flag and port states might be wary of IHM certification or statements, particularly when the required sampling of materials and certification is done by the same company – it is recommended to keep these clearly separate,” explains Engel de Boer, yacht segment manager at Lloyd’s Register.

SOURCE READ FULL ARTICLE

Inventory of Hazardous Materials (IHM)

While much of the shipping world’s attention is focused on IMO’s sulphur cap entering into force on 1 January 2020, there is another important date for shipping coming up in the diary in 2020!

December 2020 will be a key month for the EU’s Ship Recycling Regulation (SRR). Adopted in 2013 and aimed at reducing negative environmental impacts associated with recycling ships flying the flags of EU member states, the regulation sets out requirements that ships and recycling facilities must fulfil.

A key element of this is the Inventory of Hazardous Materials (IHM), which since 31 December 2018 has been required for newly contracted vessels with a gross tonnage of 500 or more flying the flags of EU member states. From 31 December 2020, this requirement will be expanded to the existing EU fleet. But owners of non-EU flagged vessels also need to have an understanding of the SRR and IHM process as, from 31 December 2020, equivalent non-EU flagged vessels calling at EU ports or anchorages will also be required to carry and maintain an IHM.

The elements of the SRR relating to vessels coming to the end of their working life, applying to ships flying the flag of EU being sent for recycling, have been in force since 31 December 2016. Before delivery to a recycling facility, vessels should have parts 1, 2 and 3 of the IHM completed in order to receive an International Ready for Recycling Certificate from their class society.

The IHM covers fifteen substances and is aimed at controlling and documenting hazardous materials on board ships. It requires expert knowledge to compile and will be produced by a third-party inspection specialist and validated by class.

Inventory of Hazardous Materials (IHM)

SHIP IP LTD – in contact with the most reputable companies world wide can secure the most competitive rates for your good company, please get in contact with our team TODAY !

The new IMO global sulphur cap requirements enter force on 1^st January 2020 and a robust and consistent approach to compliance is expected by all Port State Control (PSC) regimes. PSC inspections will be carried out in accordance with the IMO PSC procedures, the 2019 guidelines for PSC under MARPOL Annex VI.

In order to establish whether a ship is in compliance, PSC inspectors will likely focus their attention on documents and procedures maintained on board. In certain jurisdictions PSC inspectors will carry portable sulphur testing kits and if the results of these tests are inconclusive or indicate potential non-compliance then additional sampling will take place for verification ashore.

It is important therefore that ships’ crews are aware and familiar with the new regulations, associated documentation and procedures and are able to confidently demonstrate this knowledge to a PSC inspector.

Bunker Delivery Notes (BDNs) and Fuel Sampling

Details of fuel delivered on board for combustion purposes should be recorded by means of a BDN. The BDN should be accompanied by a Representative Sample of the fuel delivered – the MARPOL Sample. Most ships will also take commercial samples in the normal way. The Representative Sample is to be sealed and signed by the supplier’s representative and the Master (or senior officer in charge of the bunker operation) on completion of bunker delivery and retained on board until the fuel has been substantially consumed, but in any case for a period of not less than twelve months from the time of delivery. BDNs and associated samples should be easily identifiable and filed properly on board. BDNs should be retained on board for at least three years after the fuel has been received on board.

There are two locations where fuel sampling might be required by PSC: (1) downstream of the fuel oil service tank and (2) the storage tanks, “in use” and “on-board” respectively. In accordance with ISO 4259-2: 2017, and allowing for a 95% confidence limit, the maximum amount of sulphur allowed in these samples is 0.11% m/m for ECA fuel and 0.53% m/m for global fuel.

In situations where the Commercial Samples (taken during bunkering) indicate a higher sulphur content than noted on the BDN then the flag administration and PSC at destination need to be notified in writing without delay. Note that the ship will have likely sailed by the time these test results are known. In the event of any further investigation by PSC, the Representative Sample (MARPOL sample) will be used by PSC for further verification procedures and the ship may be ordered to de-bunker the fuel at the next port.

SOURCE : MARINE INSIGHT

India has decided to act on reducing plastic litter pollution and has introduced a ban on the use of single-use plastics onboard calling vessels.

The ban will require some items to be locked away and introduces a new requirement for recording all single-use plastics onboard vessels. The ban applies to all Indian vessels and to foreign flag vessels calling at Indian ports.

The ban will take effect in two stages – the first effective immediately and the second stage on 1 January 2020.

The immediate ban applies to single-use plastic items used as:

Cutlery, plates and cups
Water and other drinks bottles up to 10 litres
Garbage and shopping bags
Dispensing containers for cleaning fluids which are less than 10 litres.

Taking effect from 1 January 2020, the following single-use plastics are prohibited:

Bags, trays, containers, food packaging film
Milk bottles, freezer bags, shampoo bottles, ice cream containers
Bottle for water and other drinks, dispensing containers for cleaning fluids, biscuit trays
Hot drink cups, insulated food packaging, protective packaging for fragile items
Microwave dishes, ice cream tubs, potato chip bags, bottle caps.

The North of England P&I club has advised that enforcement will be done by Port State Control and that affected plastic items must be stored prior entering Indian territorial waters. Vessels calling at Indian ports are required to make a log entry identifying the ‘Single Use Plastic Items’ on board the ship, along with the onboard location of where these items are stored, and the time and ship’s position of when this is done. No single use plastic items are to be discharged to a port reception facility at Indian ports.

PSC inspectors may verify compliance with this regulation as part of a PSC inspection. However, the Directorate General of Shipping (DGS) has stated that no detentions of foreign ships will be enforced. A handwritten deficiency in the printed PSC Form ‘B’ (to be rectified prior departure) may be issued.

22nd October 2019

1. The primary regulations impacting the inventory of hazardous materials are as follows:
a) The Hong Kong International Convention for the Safe and Environmentally Sound
Recycling of Ships, not yet in force, and
b) The European Regulation No. 1257/2013 on Ship Recycling (EU SRR), having already
entered into force in December 2016, regulates the safe and environmentally sound
recycling of EU flagged vessels but also expanding to cover non-EU flagged vessels of
their last voyage from EU waters.

2. The Hong Kong International Convention covers the design, construction, operation and
preparation of ships, to facilitate sustainable ship recycling without compromising safety and
operational efficiency. EU SRR closely follows the text of HKC and is designed to facilitate
early adoption of the Convention.

3. The Hong Kong International Convention for the Safe and Environmentally Sound
Recycling of Ships.

4. The Hong Kong Convention was adopted in May 2009. After the entry into force of the
Convention, the development and maintenance of an Inventory of Hazardous Materials (IHM),
which identifies the amount and location of hazardous materials onboard a ship, will be
required for all ships over 500 GT. Furthermore, ships shall only be recycled at ship recycling
facilities authorized in accordance with the Convention.

5. Essential to the implementation scheme of the Hong Kong Convention and the EU SRR is
the development and maintenance of a document referred to as the Inventory IHM, listing the
type and amount of hazardous materials and their location on board. An IHM must be thorough
and ship specific and updated throughout the life of a vessel to support an effective plan to
discard hazardous materials.

6. Upon entry into force of the Hong Kong Convention all vessels to which this circular applies
should be certified in accordance with the requirements of the Convention. This Administration
recommends the early preparation of the IHM in order to smoothly implement the requirements
of the Convention after its entry into force.
IHM should be completed taking into account the relevant IMO guidelines and it should be
verified by a Recognized Organization to this Administration.
1/2

7. The EU Regulation No 1257/2013 on Ship Recycling (EU SRR)

8. EU adopted Regulation (EU) No. 1257/2013 which brings into force an early implementation
of the requirements of the Hong Kong Convention for the development and maintaining IHM,
including requirements for foreign or non-EU flagged ships.
The EU SRR will affect the owners of non-EU-flagged vessels calling at EU ports or
anchorage earlier than the Hong Kong Convention.

9. This requires a foreign or non-EU-flagged vessels of 500 GT and more, including
submersibles, floating crafts, floating platforms, self-elevating platforms, Floating storage units
(FSUs), and Floating Production Storage and Offloading Units (FPSOs), including a vessel
stripped of equipment or being towed, calling at EU ports or anchorages, to have onboard
a verified IHM, that identifies at least the hazardous materials required by the EU
Regulation, and a Statement of Compliance at the earliest by 31 December 2020.

10. It is important to note that, currently, any non-EU flagged vessel having a last voyage that
either starts from an EU port, or transits through an EU port, is subject to EU Waste Shipment
Regulation (and not the EU SRR). Therefore owners are advised to contact relevant EU port
authorities well in advance of the last voyage their vessel for further information.

11. Ship owners/ Ship operators/Managers and masters are required to take note of the above.
It is strongly recommended that owners and operators of existing vessels with IHMs start
planning to comply with EU SRR well ahead of December 2020 in order to avoid delays.

Revision History: Rev 1; Paragraphs 2,3,4,6,7,8,9 and 10 have been revised.

ST. VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES CIRCULAR N° GEN 024 - Rev.1 (15.3 KiB, 1,215 hits)

BIMCO aims to publish cyber security clause in spring 2019

Overview

BIMCO is developing a clause dealing with cyber security risks and incidents that might affect the ability of one of the parties to perform their contractual obligations.

The clause is being drafted by a small team led by Inga Froysa of Klaveness, Oslo. Other companies involved include Navig8, the UK P&I Club and HFW, and the project is due to be completed in May 2019.

Planning and protecting is key

The BIMCO cyber security clause requires the parties to have plans and procedures in place to protect its computer systems and data, and to be able to respond quickly and efficiently to a cyber incident.

Mitigating the effect of a cyber security breach is of paramount importance and the clause requires the affected party to notify the other party quickly, so that they can take any necessary counter-measures. The clause is also designed for use in a broad range of contracts. This way, the clause can cover arrangements with third-party service providers, such as brokers and agents.

The liability of the parties to each other for claims is limited to an amount agreed during negotiations. A sum of USD 100,000 will apply if no other amount is inserted.

Two important functions

The clause will fulfill two important functions. The first is to raise awareness of cyber risks among owners, charterers and brokers. The second is to provide a mechanism for ensuring that the parties to the contract have procedures and systems in place, in order to help minimize the risk of an incident occurring in the first place and, if it does occur, to mitigate the effects of such an incident.

In the early stages of development, the drafting team discussed if the clause should also address payment fraud. It was concluded that the risk of this increasingly common fraud is probably best dealt with at a procedural level by companies tightening up their internal payment procedures to require verification of any changes to payment details.

BWMS type approval !

The Coast Guard Marine Safety Center received its 20th application for Ballast Water Management System type approval for the Aquarius UV Ballast Water Management System manufactured by Wärtsilä Water Systems Ltd.

MSC will review the application for compliance with U.S. Coast Guard regulations in 46 CFR 162.060. Once it has been determined that the application meets the requirements, the MSC will issue a type approval certificate.

BWMS type approval applications and approval certificates are posted on MSC’s website. The list will be updated frequently in order to provide industry and the general public the most current information regarding the status of each application.

SOURCE READ FULL ARTICLE

What are the challenges of autonomous ships navigation on board masterless vessels?

Autonomous ships, Challenges, whether legislative, sociological or technological, form part of our daily work routine. Contrary to previous decades, innovative models do not require years or even months to cross an ocean. Evolution tends to spread very fast, more so nowadays when millennials are rapidly engaging themselves in managerial roles largely concerned with quick and effective product placement.

The recent emergence of blockchain technologies, the steady infiltration of cryptocurrencies in our lives and the recently introduced GDPR rules have proved that shipping, like any other sector involved in the carriage of persons and goods, is also not immune to such novelties.

Unmanned technology is also gaining particular momentum within the shipping industry. The aim of such technology is clearly that of supporting the ship operator, cargo owner and ultimate consumer by reducing human-derived risks and operational costs connected with the carriage of goods by sea. However, when it comes to ships and navigation one must keep in mind that the lawmaker often ranks the protection of seafarers and of the sea environment at the top of its priorities, ahead of such strictly navigational or commercial aspects which also arise from the use of autonomous ships. It will be interesting to see how these two differing interests can and should coexist next to each other.

Use of driverless means of transport has become common across various sectors of public transportation. Many capital cities have adopted driverless metro systems for years now. The same is happening with respect to the private transportation by car, although the latter is still going through (an advanced) testing phase.

The difference between such means of transport lies mainly on the number of variables that these come across throughout their operation. As metros operate on a one-direction line, collisions can be easily reduced through a number of mechanical and electronic precautions. On the other hand, during their journey, cars come across other cars, buses, trucks, pedestrians, animals and different meteorological events, and so cannot make a linear journey.

What does autonomy mean with particular reference to ships? The International Maritime Organisation has identified four different types of vessel autonomy.

The first are ships with automated processes and decision support where seafarers operate and control systems and functions directly from the vessel and only some operations may be automated. The second are remotely controlled ships where seafarers are on board the vessel although the ship is controlled and operated from another location. The third are remotely controlled ships without seafarers on board where the vessel is controlled and operated from another location with no

seafarers on board. Finally, the fourth are fully autonomous ships where the operation is performed automatically by the vessel’s operating system.

Trials on autonomous ships have already commenced in Norway and Finland. Denmark has also taken steps to regulate this particular aspect of navigation; with the first autonomous ship to be used for subsea positioning, surveying and environmental monitoring currently registered under the British flag. The European Union has also invested in research projects such as the EU’s FP7 project (Maritime Unmanned Navigation through Intelligence in Networks).

The introduction of automation, as happened in other industries, would produce an immediate and tangible effect on the workforce on board ships and port operators engaged in the loading and offloading of cargo. On the other hand this would be beneficial for IT developers involved in the creation of software meant to govern navigation and protecting same from the risk of cyber-attacks. Automation might be welcomed by insurers, and a bit less by ship litigators, since with respect to the cargo loading and unloading procedures it will reduce the amount of mistakes deriving from human error.

However, one of the main obstacles faced by autonomous ships lies in the current legal framework within which their manned counterparts operate. In fact most – if not all – maritime conventions (and charter parties) assume that vessels operate with crew on board – this is the case, for example, of the Maritime Labour Convention or the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watch keeping for Seafarers – a requirement an autonomous ship would unlikely be able to satisfy.

Another challenging aspect concerning autonomous ships revolves around the implementation of the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLREGS) in particular when these will be navigating alongside manned ships. The COLREGS often contain provisions referring to the human element; referring for example to “the ordinary practice of seamen” test, that is, what a reasonably competent mariner should do in a given situation (similarly to the bonus paterfamilias test used in civil law).

Automation would require practitioners to start considering accidents which might arise, for example, when an operator makes a poor decision in reliance on wrong information provided by the vessels’ sensors due to a technical failure. Such instances are bound to raise further questions on the apportionment of liability between the operator, manufacturer or software developer and ship- owner.

Moreover, within a shipping ambit different types and degrees of liability already coexist next to each other: that of the ship-owner (or the bareboat charterer) for crew’s actions (i.e. COLREGS); or that of the registered owner (i.e. pollution at sea conventions) while other forms of liability make the ship liable in its own right (e.g. maritime liens).

Apportionment of liability between the ship-owner, software developer and manufacturer is an aspect not to be underestimated even in such a context. How would an autonomous ship be expected to intervene in case should it encounter, throughout her route, another ship in distress? Also, where would responsibility lie in the case of environmental damage? Will the ship-owner be held accountable or will responsibility for the ensuing damage lie on the software provider, for

example, for not having developed a sound algorithm or on the vessel’s sensors’ manufacturer for their technical failure?

Legal clarity around cyber liability and collision regulations is fundamental if autonomous ships want to sail free on our seas and oceans, especially before the maritime industry starts investing in infrastructure and skills needed to for unmanned ships to reach a commercial level.

The answers to these questions are far from clear, and much work needs to be done before international solutions are in place. The Comité Maritime International (CMI), of which the Malta Maritime Association is a proud and active member, has recently established a working group on maritime law for unmanned craft, aimed at analysing how international conventions and regulations can adapt themselves to autonomous ships.

Many in the industry, in view of a lack of clear regulations in this respect, have welcomed this news in a conservative manner. Truth is that you cannot stop innovation from happening. Not, at least, in today’s world where ideas travel at the speed of sound from one corner of the world to another and with such a multitude of players wishing to gain new shares in an often saturated market. The interests in such area are many, from that of ship builders wishing to consolidate or grow their market share, to that of the ship owner wishing to cut costs or that of IT developers wishing to expand their reach in this industry, to that of crew members wishing to safeguard their jobs.

The importance of such a new means of navigation, although still far from becoming an everyday reality, has generated such an interest that even the IMO’s Maritime Safety Committee kicked off the procedure leading to the regulation of Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships (MASS). This exercise aims at regulating aspects concerning safety, security and environment. IMO’s focus is international trade facilitation, analysis of potential costs of the industry and the impact on individuals operating both off and onshore. The IMO will first look into the application of current legislation onto MASS and ascertain whether each specific provision can be applied to it and the regulations that need to be amended or introduced.

A possible key to facilitating navigation of autonomous ships on our seas and oceans could lie in the adoption of a uniform and linear set of rules modelled on the current IMO framework. It is submitted that a mere temporary or piecemeal update of regulation is not sufficient. Rules should, as much as possible, contain self-updating provisions able to cater for current as well as future technological advances. Shipping, more than any other sector in view of its global breadth, requires common and uniform standards and this can clearly only be achieved through the intervention of the International Maritime Organisation.

autonomous ships!

Source: Times of Malta

The International Association of Classification Societies (IACS) has published nine of its 12 recommendations on cyber safety for ships.

IACS initially addressed the subject of software quality with the publication of UR E22 in 2006. Recognizing the huge increase in the use of onboard cyber-systems since that time, IACS has developed this new series of recommendations with a view to reflecting the resilience requirements of a ship with many more interdependencies. They address the need for:

• A more complete understanding of the interplay between ship’s systems
• Protection from events beyond software errors
• In the event that protection failed, the need for an appropriate response and ultimately recovery.
• In order that the appropriate response could be put in place, a means of detection is required.

Noting the challenge of bringing traditional technical assurance processes to bear against new and unfamiliar technologies, IACS has launched the recommendations in the expectation that they will rapidly evolve as a result of the experience gained from their practical implementation. So, as an interim solution, they will be subject to amalgamation and consolidation.

More than 90 percent of the world’s cargo carrying tonnage is covered by the classification design, construction and through-life compliance rules and standards set by the 12 member societies of IACS.

The 12 Recommendations are:

Recommended procedures for software maintenance of shipboard equipment and systems (published)

Shipboard equipment and associated integrated systems to which these procedures apply can include:
– Bridge systems;
– Cargo handling and management systems;
– Propulsion and machinery management and power control systems;
– Access control systems;
– Ballast water control system;
– Communication systems; and
– Safety system.

Recommendation concerning manual / local control capabilities for software dependent machinery systems (published)

IMO requires through SOLAS that local control of essential machinery shall be available in case of failure in the remote (and for unattended machinery spaces, also automatic) control systems. For traditional mechanical propulsion machinery, this design principle is well established. The same design requirement applies to computerized propulsion machinery, i.e. complex computer based systems with unclear boundaries and with functions maintained in the different components.

Contingency plan for onboard computer based systems (published)

Computer based systems are vulnerable to a variety of failures such as software malfunction, hardware failure and other cyber incidents. It is not possible for all failure risks to be eliminated so residual risks always remain. In addition, a limited understanding of the operation of complex computer based systems together with fewer opportunities for manual operation can lead to crews being ill-prepared to use their initiative to responding effectively during a failure.

IMO and Classification Society rules contain many context specific examples of requirements for independent or local control in order to provide the crew with the means to operate the vessel in emergencies or following equipment failures. These requirements have generally been introduced when automation or remote control is introduced to individual pieces of equipment or functions and address concerns regarding its possible failure of the new features. The introduction of technologies which integrate different vessel’s functions creates the opportunity for two or more systems to be impacted by a single failure simultaneously.

Where, due to high computer dependence, manual operation is no longer practical or where the number of systems simultaneously affected is too high for manual operation to be practical with existing crew levels then the value of local control as a form of reassurance is limited, however the crew will still need to be provided with practical options to try to manage threats to human safety, safety of the vessel and/or threat to the environment.

If the practical options are not considered during the design and installed during construction of the vessel then the vessel and its crew could be, due to the introduction of new technologies, exposed to risks which they cannot manage.

Practical options could include limiting the extent of potential damage so that manual control is still achievable or providing backup systems which could be used in a worst case systems failure. Whatever form of contingency is provided to address failures it is important that it is well documented, tested and that the crew is aware and trained.

Requirements related to preventive means, independent mitigation means, engineered backups, redundancy, reinstatement etc. are dealt with in the other relevant recommendations.

Network Architecture (published)

Ship control networks have evolved from simple stand-alone systems to integrated systems over the years and the demand for ship to shore remote connectivity for maintenance, remote monitoring is increasing.

Incorporation of Ethernet technology has resulted in a growing similarity between the once disconnected fieldbus and Internet technologies. This has given rise to new terms such as industrial control networking, which encompasses not only the functions and requirements of conventional fieldbus, but also the additional functions and requirements that Ethernet-based systems present.

The objective of the present recommendation is to develop broad guidelines on ship board network architecture. The recommendation broadly covers various aspects from design to installation phases which should be addressed by the Supplier, system integrator and yard.

Data Assurance (published)

Regulation strongly focuses on system hardware and software development, however, data related aspects are poorly covered comparatively. Data available on ships has become very complex and in a large volume, meaning a user is unlikely to spot an error and it would be unreasonable to expect them to do so. Cyber systems depend not only on hardware and software, but also on the data they generate, process, store and transmit. These systems are also becoming more data intensive and data centric, often used as decision support and advisory systems and for remote digital communication.

Data Assurance may be intended as the activity, or set of activities, aimed at enforcing the security of data generated, processed, transferred and stored in the operation of computer based systems on board ships. Security of data includes confidentiality, integrity and availability; the scope of application of Data Assurance covers data whose lifecycle is entirely within on board computer based system, as well as data exchanged with shore systems connected to the on board networks.

Physical Security of onboard computer based systems (to be published Q4, 2018)

Network Security of onboard computer based systems (published)

Network security of onboard computer-based systems consists in taking physical, organizational, procedural and technical measures to make the network infrastructure connecting Information Technology and/or Operational Technology systems resilient to unauthorized access, misuse, malfunction, modification, destruction or improper disclosure, thereby ensuring that such systems perform their intended functions within a secure environment.

Vessel System Design (to be published Q4, 2018)

Inventory List of computer based systems (published)

For effective assessment and control of the cyber systems on board, an inventory of all of the vessel’s equipment and computer based systems should be created during the vessel’s design and construction and updated during the life of the ship: tracking the software and hardware modifications inside ship computer based systems enables to check that new vulnerabilities and dependencies have not occurred or have been treated appropriately to mitigate the risk related to their possible exploitation.

Integration (published)

Integration refers to an organized combination of computer-based systems, which are interconnected in order to allow communication and cooperation between computer subsystems e.g. monitoring, control, Vessel management, etc.

Integration of otherwise independent systems increases the possibility that the systems responsible for safety functions can be subject to cyber events including external cyberattacks and failures caused by unintentionally introduced malware. Systems which are not directly responsible for safety, if not properly separated from essential systems or not properly secured and monitored in an integrated system, can introduce routes for intrusion or cause unintended damage of important systems. It is necessary to have a record and an understanding of the extent of integration of vessels’ systems and for them to be arranged with sufficient redundancy and segregation as part of an overall strategy aimed at preventing the complete loss of ship’s essential functions.

Remote Update / Access (published)

Information and communications technology (ICT) is revolutionizing shipping, bringing with it a new era – the ‘cyber-enabled’ ship. Many ICT systems on-board ships connect to remote services and systems on shore for monitoring of systems, diagnosis and remote maintenance, creating an extra level of complexity and risk. ICT systems have the potential to enhance safety, reliability and business performance, but there are numerous risks that need to be identified, understood and mitigated to make sure that technologies are safely integrated into ship design and operations.

Communication and Interfaces (to be published Q4, 2018)

Older Posts

Regulation Archives - SHIP IP LTD

Ship Execution Plan (SEP) IN WORD FORMAT

Industry prepares for EU Ship Recycling Regulation

What you need to know about the Inventory of Hazardous Materials (IHM)

New Guidance For IMO Global Sulphur Cap 2020 Compliance & All PSC Inspection Regimes

Bunker Delivery Notes (BDNs) and Fuel Sampling

India to ban single use plastic on all calling ships

ST. VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES CIRCULAR N° GEN 024 – Rev.1

BIMCO aims to publish cyber security clause in spring 2019

BIMCO aims to publish cyber security clause in spring 2019

Overview

Planning and protecting is key

Two important functions

Marine Safety Center receives 20th application for BWMS type approval

Regulating autonomous ships

What are the challenges of autonomous ships navigation on board masterless vessels?

Source: Times of Malta

IACS Publishes Cyber Safety Recommendations

News

Maritime industry majors collaborate over cyber resilience

What is ESG? The Impact of ESG on shipping companies (MARITIME ESG)

Sustainability in Shipping Industry, ESG Performance Reporting (MARITIME ESG)

Quick Menu

Company DETAILS

ISO 9001:2015 CERTIFIED