Regulation Archives - Page 2 of 3 - SHIP IP LTD


Marine incident reporting

AMSA – Marine Safety Awareness Bulletin  Issue 8 — September 2018

Incident reporting is essential to maritime safety. When you report a marine incident to AMSA, you help shape the way maritime safety is improved.

Benefits of marine incident reporting
The information obtained from marine incidents enable us to:
 identify issues, patterns and trends
 respond to concerns
 share information with the maritime industry
 learn and improve maritime safety

Case study one
Faulty emergency generator
During routine maintenance onboard a bulk carrier, it was discovered that the emergency generator wasn’t working and needed replacing.

Case study two
Knowledge of rescue helicopters
Following a number of incident reports submitted to AMSA from vessels operating in remote areas around Australia, it became clear that the limited range of rescue helicopters was not widely known among vessel operators.

The incident reporting process

Report a marine incident that has affected, or is likely to affect, the safety, operation or seaworthiness of the vessel1. The alerts let us know that a serious event has occured. The incident report provides us detailed information about the incident, in particular the measures put in place to prevent reoccurrence.





AMSA – Annual Regulatory Plan 2018–19

Our regulatory plan is produced annually and contains planned changes to our regulatory instruments.

Our regulatory plan provides details of planned changes to our regulatory instruments, such as marine orders and the National Standard for Commercial Vessels, to make it easier for business and the community to take part in the development of those instruments.

The regulatory plans contain information on:

  • legislative or other action planned for the current financial year that could lead to changes in business regulation.
  • a five-year outlook of future action, including for specific industry issues, international developments, priorities for standards and legislative expiry.
  • changes to business regulation that occurred during the previous financial year.

We publish an annual regulatory plan early in each financial year. While there may be some regulatory activities that we are unable to forecast, these activities will involve consultation with affected parties and will be recorded in future regulatory plans.

AMSA – Annual Regulatory Plan 2018–19

Marine order Description Consultation Proposed date
Marine Order 5 (Alcohol and Drugs) 2020 Proposed new Marine Order to prescribe the kinds of alcohol and drug tests for seafarers and pilots under the Navigation Act 2012, Chapter 2, Part 6. Q1 2020 1 July 2020
Marine Order 11 (Living and working conditions on vessels) 2015 Implement 2016 Maritime Labour Convention (MLC) amendments related to bullying and harassment. Q4 2018 8 January 2019
Marine Order 27 (Safety of Navigation and Radio Equipment) 2016 Full review and implement International Maritime Organization (IMO) Resolution MSC.450(99) replacing INMARSAT as the Global Maritime Distress and Safety System (GMDSS) service provider with the term ‘recognised mobile satellite service’. Also reference IMO Resolution MSC.434(98) in Schedule 2 (enters into force 1 January 2021). Q3 2019 1 January 2020
Marine Order 31 (Vessel surveys and certification) 2015 Full review to clarify and incorporate the existing survey and certification requirements for government vessels (currently in Marine Order 62). Proposed change will cover all vessels including special provision for vessels under 7.5 metres. Repeal Marine Order 62. Q1 2019 1 June 2019
Marine Order 44 (Safe Containers) 2002 Full review and reissue to modernise drafting style under the Navigation Act 2012. Replace schedule 24 of Marine Order 4. Q4 2018 1 April 2019
Marine Order 47 (Mobile offshore drilling units) 2012 Review and reissue the Order under the Navigation Act 2012 and modernise the drafting style. Amalgamate with Marine Order 60. Replace schedule 25 of Marine Order 4. Q1 2019 1 June 2019
Marine Order 52 (Yachts and Training Vessels) 2016 Review to determine whether the new Red Ensign Group Code (combining the Large Yacht Code 3 and the Passenger Yacht Code), which comes into effect on 1 January 2019, affects the Order. Q4 2018 1 January 2019
Marine Order 60 (Floating Offshore Facilities) 2001 Review and reissue the Order under the Navigation Act 2012 and modernise the drafting style. Amalgamate with Marine Order 47. Replace schedule 36 of Marine Order 4. Q1 2019 1 June 2019
Marine Order 62 (Government Vessels) 2003 Repeal this Order following the review of Marine Order 31. Q1 2019 1 June 2019
Marine Order 63 (Vessel Reporting Systems) 2015 Implement IMO Resolution MSC.450(99) replacing INMARSAT as GMDSS service provider with the term ‘recognised mobile satellite service’. Amendments to the Australian ship reporting system ‘REEFREP’ reporting area. Q3 2019 1 January 2020
Marine Order 97 (Marine pollution prevention – air pollution) 2013 Amendment to cover adoption of IMO Resolution MEPC.304a(73) banning use, and carriage for use, of fuel oil with sulphur content >0.5%m/m. Enact the exemption provisions in Regulation 13.5.4 and 13.5.5 of Annex VI of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL). Q3 2019 1 January 2020
Marine Order 503 (Certificates of survey – national law) 2018 Apply float-free EPIRB requirements to certain kinds of new, transitional and existing vessels required to be in survey. 31 October 2017 – 2 February 2018 1 January 2019
Marine Order 505 (Certificates of competency – national law) 2013 Review to simplify the qualifications framework. The NSCV Part D will be incorporated into Marine Order 505. Q4 2018 1 July 2019
HideRegulatory program of National Standard for Commercial Vessels (NSCV)
NSCV Description Consultation Proposed date
NSCV Part B – General requirements Amendment to definition of ‘smooth waters’ and ‘partially smooth waters’ to recognise waters designated as such by laws in force in a state or territory, to support the implementation of a new Ordinance under the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Act 1955 to designate the waters in the Cocos (Keeling) Islands lagoon as ‘partially smooth waters’ (Category D). 25 May – 1 June 2018 27 July 2018
NSCV Part C2 – Watertight and Weathertight Integrity A new standard to specify requirements for watertight and weather tight integrity (removing existing references to the Uniform Shipping Laws Code). Q1 2019 1 July 2019
NSCV Part C5B – Design and Construction—Engineering—Electrical Full review to incorporate AS/NZS 3004—Electrical Installations—Marinas and Recreational Boats. Q3 2018 1 November 2018
NSCV Part C7A – Safety Equipment Review of Scale D, E, F medical kit guidance notes in view of codeine becoming prescription-only medication. Deal with any outstanding issues from ‘transitional’ changes to require all vessels to comply with contemporary safety equipment standard. Q3 2018 1 January 2019
NSCV Part D – Crew Competencies Review to simplify the qualifications framework. NSCV Part D will be incorporated into Marine Order 505. Q4 2018 1 July 2019




The Maritime Safety Committee (MSC), at its 99th session, adopted the Amendments in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Procedures for amending and updating the International Aeronautical and Maritime Search and Rescue (IAMSAR) Manual. The Committee agreed that the amendments should become applicable on July 01, 2019.

SOLAS regulation V/21 requires all ships to carry an up-to-date copy of IAMSAR Manual Volume III. A new point 1.8 has been included in the Manual for the search and rescue operations (SAR) by maritime rescue services in time of armed conflict.

Recognizing the important role search and rescue operations play in implementing its provisions, GC II extends protection to small coastal rescue craft and fixed coastal rescue installations used by such craft, such as rescue coordination centres, repair boats, sickbays and hangars for their humanitarian mission, including for SAR operations concerning civilians.

Such craft and their associated fixed coastal rescue installations, when employed by a State that is party to a conflict (whether by its armed forces or by civilian governmental agencies) or by officially recognized lifeboat institutions (i.e. the institution must have been approved or authorized by a governmental authority or other public body to perform coastal rescue functions, which presupposes the existence of a legal or administrative framework in the State in which the lifeboat institution operates to provide for its prior approval or authorization in peacetime) “shall be respected and protected, that is, may not be attacked, captured or otherwise prevented from performing their humanitarian tasks, so far as operational requirements permit“.

International Aeronautical and Maritime Search and Rescue (IAMSAR) Manual



GDPR TMSA Cyber Security


Tanker owners should be prepared for new EU and IMO cyber security regulations as they must already comply with maritime security requirements under OCIMF’s TMSA 3, writes Martyn Wingrove

There are increasing amounts of cyber security-related regulations that shipping companies will have to comply with, but tanker owners are already ahead of the game. Ship operators will need to include cyber in ship safety and security management under the ISM Code from 1 January 2021.

Before that, they need to be aware of cyber and data security regulations, including the EU general data protection regulation (GDPR) and the EU directive on the security of networks and information systems (NIS).

Much of the requirements under these forthcoming or new regulations are already within Oil Companies International Marine Forum (OCIMF)’s third edition of the Tanker Management and Self Assessment (TMSA) best practice guidelines. This came into force on 1 January this year, with a new element on maritime security and additional requirements of key performance indicators and risk assessments.

Regulation changes were outlined at Riviera Maritime Media’s European Maritime Cyber Risk Management Summit, which was held in London on 15 June. The event was held in association with Norton Rose Fulbright, whose head of operations and cyber security Steven Hadwin explained that “data protection and cyber security needs to be taken seriously from a legal point of view.”

Data, such as information on cargo and charterers, could “become a considerable liability”. If data is lost “then GDPR could be in play” said Mr Hadwin. Regulators “could impose a fine of up to 4% of that organisation’s global annual turnover.”

PwC UK cyber security director Niko Kalfigkopoulos explained the legislation and reasoning behind the NIS Directive, which went into full effect in May this year.  “These regulations have teeth” he said because of the potential size of fines and damage to a company’s reputation from being a victim of a cyber attack. This is one of the reasons why boardroom executives should be aware and understand what is required for compliance.

Class support

During the summit, class societies provided cyber security guidance as they collectively attempted to define cyber secure ship notations. Lloyd’s Register cyber security product manager Elisa Cassi said shipping companies should have a third party monitor their IT network and the operational technology (OT) and employ staff to “stop people sharing data or compromising procedures”.

Tanker owners “need to identify any compromise before an attacker tries to penetrate”, Ms Cassi explained, noting that shipping companies need to “investigate the vulnerabilities through analytics and machine learning”, understand the behaviour of potential threats and use predictive analysis.

ABS advanced solutions business development manager Pantelis Skinitis said shipowners need to change passwords on operational technology, such as ECDIS and radar, as some remain unchanged since they were originally commissioned on the ship. He also advised owners to verify vendors and service engineers and that their USB sticks are clean of malware.

ABS has created cyber safety guidance for ship OT, particularly for ships coming into US ports and terminals. In its development, ABS identified the risks, vulnerabilities and threats to OT. “Managing connection points and human resource deals with the biggest threat to OT systems on board,” said Mr Skinitis.

DNV GL has developed new class notations covering cyber security of newbuildings. It has also produced an online video for instructing shipping companies to become more aware of cyber threats. During the summit, DNV GL maritime cyber security service manager Patrick Rossi said ship operators should set up multiple barriers to prevent hackers.

These should include firewalls, updated antivirus, patch management, threat intelligence, intrusion detection, emergency recovery and awareness testing. OT should be segregated from open networks, only official ENC-provider USBs and update disks should be used and cleaned of malware before being inserted into ECDIS and these systems should be segregated from the internet.

Cyber regulations and guidance for shipping

EU General Data Protection regulation (GDPR) came into effect from 25 May 2018

IMO – Resolution MSC.428(98) – from January 2021 cyber security will be included in the ISM Code

TMSA 3 – cyber security was added to tanker management and assessment in January 2018; EU directive on the security of networks and information systems (NIS Directive) from May 2018

EU privacy rule (PECR) of individuals traffic and location data

Rightship added cyber security to inspection checklist

BIMCO – guidelines based on International Association of Classification Societies




Autonomous Ship

Netherlands-based KOTUG has demonstrated what it says is the first sailing of a remotely controlled tugboat from a long-distance location.

For the demonstration, the tug RT Borkum, located in Rotterdam, was controlled from the floor of the International Tug, Salvage & OSV Convention, which was taking place over 700 miles away in Marseille, France.

A KOTUG captain took over control of steering and engine systems using a secured internet connection and live cameras.

KOTUG says it believes that remote-controlled ships are the first step to unmanned and fully autonomous shipping down the road. “Various simple operations in remote locations can already be done from remote controlled stations,” the company stated.

“The real-time sensor technology makes it possible to give the remote control captain the situational awareness that is needed for safe operation,” according to KOTUG. “Combined with the drone technology to connect the towline, unmanned shipping is commercially and technically getting closer.”

One of the hurdles to unmanned shipping, KOTUG says, is establishing rules and regulations specific to autonomous vessels and their operation.

“Unmanned shipping does not yet comply with current rules and regulations. Therefore, rules need to be amended before tugs can actually start doing their tasks fully autonomous,” KOTUG stated.

In May, the International Maritime Organization took what some described as important first steps towards regulating unmanned ships by agreeing to the definition of “Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships (MASS)” and establishing an initial framework for regulations.

KOTUG notes that the demonstration of the RT Borkum was part of a joint industry project put on by sponsors without the help of subsidies.






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?




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?”


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.




LR has today launched the ‘Sulphur 2020 – Options Evaluator’ to help the industry identify the best strategy for compliance with the global sulphur in fuel oil limit of 0.50% m/m, which comes into effect on 1 January 2020.

The ‘Options Evaluator’ aims to bring some much-needed clarity to what the potential cost and investment implications could be for the various compliance strategies, such as transition from fuel oil to MGO, use of scrubbers and HSFO or use of other compliant fuels such as LNG or Methanol.

There is no clear strategy to compliance. It is dependent on trading patterns, distance travelled, speed, size and type of vessels. The ‘Options Evaluator’ allows ship operators to compare different compliance strategies by reviewing emissions output and comparing the different CAPEX and OPEX implications of each option.

LR’s Douglas Raitt, Regional Consultancy Manager Asia, commented: “2020 is around the corner and to date it appears most operators will transition from fuel oil to gas oil operations to meet the global sulphur in fuel oil limit. Scrubber uptake or LNG and Methanol as a marine fuel are slowly evolving, perhaps as a function of a ‘wait and see’ approach by the shipping industry. We developed the options evaluator to give some guidance to operators who have not yet fully considered their options for 2020 compliance.”

Justin Murphy, CEO International Bunker Industry Association, said: “IBIA is fully involved at IMO on all matters marine fuel related and for years has been the voice of the industry pushing for practical regulations whichever options industry players choose. This options evaluator tool, one of a number being developed, is an aid that may complement owners’ and operators’ future efforts to develop a compliance strategy.”




MLC 2006


The Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 (MLC) entered into force on 20 August 2013. The convention establishes minimum working and living standards for all seafarers working on ships and aims to ensure seafarers’ rights to decent employment conditions at sea. The MLC has been ratified by 82 International Labour Organization (ILO) member states – together “responsible for regulating conditions for seafarers on more than 90% of the world’s gross tonnage of ships”.

In April 2014, the ILO agreed several amendments to the MLC (the 2014 amendments) which entered into force on 18 January 2017.

Pursuant to the 2014 amendments, all ships subject to MLC are required to display two certificates issued by an insurer or other financial security provider confirming that insurance or other financial security is in place for:

repatriation of crew, essential needs of the seafarer and up to four months’ outstanding wages and entitlements in the event of abandonment, and
shipowners’ liabilities for compensation in the event of death or long-term disability due to occupational injury, illness or hazard as set out in national law, employment agreement or collective agreement

Shipowners’ liabilities for compensation in the event of death or long-term disability is covered under Gard’s Rule 27. The abandonment risks, however, are not covered under Gard’s Rules. Pursuant to the MLC Extension Clause 2016 (incorporated into Gard’s Rules via Rule 27.4) the Member is obliged to reimburse the Club for any costs paid under the certificates which are not covered. A similar provision is found in the Rules of all the Clubs in the International Group of P&I Clubs (IG).

As the Boards of all the IG Clubs decided that the Clubs should provide the necessary certification, Gard has provided its Members with the required certificates for more than one year.

For further information about the MLC in general and the certification process, please see and

Handling an abandonment case

According to the MLC, the crew is considered as abandoned if the shipowner

fails to cover the cost of the seafarer’s repatriation, or
has left the seafarer without the necessary maintenance and support, or
has otherwise unilaterally severed its ties with the seafarer including failure to pay contractual wages for a period of at least two months.

It may be that a shipowner in financial difficulty will abandon crew and it is also likely that such a shipowner will neither alert the crew nor their club. That was the situation when a club correspondent relayed to Gard the Master’s message that over 30 crew members were running out of water, food and fuel and had not been paid for several months. At the time, the Gard Member was already in liquidation and no longer controlled the company’s funds.

Gard established contact with both the Member and the official liquidator with the aim of getting them to honor their obligations towards the crew. As the owner was already in liquidation and there were several other creditors involved, the process of releasing funds for the necessary supplies proved to be more difficult than anticipated. To avoid a blackout on the ship, Gard stepped in and arranged for the necessary supplies to be brought to the crew. Subsequently, Gard managed to convince the Company Court and liquidators to provide necessaries for the safety and well-being of the crew.

One of the challenges often faced by the clubs and the crew is getting the crew off the ship. Pursuant to the MLC, the financial security provider undertakes to pay for repatriation expenses, but is not obliged to maintain the safe manning of the vessel. This obligation remains with the manager, or owners, of the vessel. Even though Gard in this case was willing and able to repatriate the crew, the court and the port authorities did not allow the crew to leave as there were no one to replace them and the ship could not be left unmanned.

As the ship had more crew than the safe-manning requirements stipulated, Gard suggested that the crew exceeding the said requirements should be signed-off. Almost 1.5 months after Gard received the first notification, 18 crew members were finally signed off. The crew was met by Gard’s local correspondent and provided with food and housing until our correspondent had gone through and confirmed the validity of the crew’s claims for outstanding wages.

There were still crew members onboard and they were becoming increasingly frustrated. However, they could not abandon the vessel as they could in such case be held personally responsible for the consequences.

Almost two weeks later the remaining crew members were finally able to sign off. The vessel had been in blackout for almost 24 hours and the Master feared for the safety of the crew. At the last minute, the owners instructed the crew to sign off on humanitarian grounds and provided personnel to safeguard the vessel.

The remaining crew were met by Gard’s local correspondent and received their outstanding wages after verification of their claim.

Even though the crew has been signed-off and paid their outstanding wages, the case is far from over. As mentioned above, the Member is obliged to reimburse the Club for any costs paid under the certificates which are not covered under the clubs’ Rules. Furthermore, the crew has a maritime lien over the vessel for their unpaid wages. Local applicable law in compliance with the MLC assigns the rights of the crew to the Club after payment of wages and Gard is currently involved in a recovery process in the local courts.

Courts around the world have varying expertise in handling maritime matters and only time will tell how long it will take for the crew to get the balance of the wages due above what has been paid by Gard. Indeed, the advice to seafarers from the ITF is to not wait to make contact with the clubs as the limit of the club’s obligation is four months and that may be the entirety of what they may recover.

Lessons learned

In Gard’s experience, early engagement with authorities, Flag State as well as the Port State where the abandonment of the seafarers takes place, is crucial for a swift outcome. We are hopeful that Gard’s outreach program to governments has helped us in developing good relationships which may also assist in the prompt resolution of abandonment claims.

For the authors, the handling of MLC claims proved to be different from handling P&I crew claims because we worked directly with the abandoned seafarers who were suffering in inhumane conditions. We are pleased to see that the MLC certification and insurance requirement now supported by the clubs did ultimately provide the seafarers the assistance they needed to get off the ship and to recover four months of outstanding wages guaranteed under the MLC.




The Paris MOU on Port State Control is warning that it intends to enforce new international regulations limiting the amount of sulphur in fuel oil used on board ships from “day one”.

The warning comes in anticipation of the International Maritime Organization’s low sulphur fuel rule which is to take effect on January 1, 2020.

During the Paris MOU’s 51st Committee meeting held last week, Paris MoU agreed to an information campaign aimed at encouraging timely compliance the regulation. The campaign will include a “Letter of Warning” starting 1 January 2019.

Paris MOU Secretary General Richard Schiferli said he intends the warning to serve as a signal to the industry that port state control will take enforcement of the new sulphur limits seriously from “day one”, he said.

The Paris MOU, which covers Europe and the North Atlantic, is one of nine Port State Control regimes around the world responsible for carrying out inspections on vessels to monitor and enforce compliance with international regulations.

The IMO’s upcoming low sulphur fuel requirement will lower the sulphur content limit of marine fuels globally from 3.5% currently to just .5% beginning on January 1, 2020. The IMO has warned that it expects immediate compliance with the new regulations and any ships not meeting the low sulphur requirement could be deemed “unseaworthy”.

To comply with the rule, ships will need to either burn higher cost low sulphur bunker fuel, use an exhaust gas “scrubber” system, or be converted or built for alternative fuel such as liquified natural gas.


@AnyawbSales - 1 year


@AnyawbSales - 2 years

SQEXpress maritime electronic sms forms platform just released