Loading...

(+30) 2118501121

IMO Archives - SHIP IP LTD

156681-1200x795.jpg

IMO 2020

Rome – On 1 January 2020, the date of entry into force of the new Global Sulfur Cap regime, it is a milestone of fundamental importance for international shipping. Last October 2016, the IMO MEPC 70, in accordance with Annex VI of the MARPOL Convention, established the application of the limit of 0.50% m / m sulfur content in marine fuels starting from this term in non-SECA areas. This legislation, based on the study published by DNV GL, will involve more than 70,000 ships, entailing considerable costs for shipowners and a large investment for the continuous search for new technologies.

As is known, at the moment, to achieve the result required by the new legislation, ship owners have the possibility to choose different options based on various factors, including the age of the ship. They are:
1. use of fuel with low sulfur content or fuel blends which comply with the limit of 0.50% sulfur content;
2. use of marine gas oil (MGO) or distillates instead of fuel with high sulfur content (HSFO); 3. modification of ships in operation in order to allow the use of alternative and sulfur-free fuels such as Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG); and
4. installation of waste gas scrubbing systems (scrubbers) capable of operating with HSFO.

However, this last option risks having huge additional costs for the owners. While some ports such as those in China, Singapore, Belgium and the UAE have already banned the use of open loop scrubbers, the Singapore Port Authority (MPA) has also established that exhaust gas cleaning residues , including those of scrubbers, must be considered as toxic industrial waste which must therefore be managed by companies with specific licenses and transported in packaged form or in tanks on trucks or on boats with a specific license issued by the MPA. All this leads to a significant increase in costs for shipping companies.

With reference to the use of compliant purification devices, it should also be noted that, based on the MEPC 305 Resolution (73), from 1 March 2020, in the absence of the same, a ban on the transport of non-compliant fuel will be in force. purpose of combustion for propulsion or operation on board a ship, maintaining the possibility of transporting HSFO as a cargo. However, in the event of violation of this prohibition, the ship may be seized by the PSC without the need to determine the purpose of use of the fuel: a measure that leaves ample room for the action of the PSC and that has a strong preventive value. The amendment in question entails, inter alia, also a modification of the IAPP certificate such as to specify that, for a ship without a scrubber, the sulfur content of the fuel oil transported for use on board does not exceed 0.50% m / m, as documented by the delivery note of the bunker.

With regard to the use of distillates, it is instead appropriate to consider that a “safety issue” related to the distillation process is configured, which increases the risk of “catalytic fines” both on machinery and combustion plants. These particles can cause considerable damage resulting from the abrasion of the cylinders during the combustion process. It is therefore important to clean the tanks containing the fuel, the c.d. tank cleaning, or use alternative solutions such as the use of specific conversion procedures to be gradually discharged through the feeding system until obtaining the required sulfur content.

The complications arising from the change of fuel can be avoided through the preparation of guidelines and the training of crews, but above all thanks to the use by the shipping companies of a Ship Implementation Plan (SIP), specific for each ship. This plan, which is not mandatory, nor subject to the approval of the flag State or classification societies, should include, inter alia, risk assessment and a mitigation plan in relation to the fuel change, changes to the fuel system combustion and possible tank cleaning, information on capacity, segregation and supply of fuel oil, as well as the changeover plan decided for the vessel in question. According to Rule 18.2.3 of Annex VI of MARPOL, the PSC will be able to take into consideration the SIP during the inspection activities aimed at verifying the new limits of sulfur content imposed, without, however, being able to use the same as a basis for detecting ship deficiencies.

It is clear that, together with the above-mentioned technologies, there is also the need to have infrastructures able to support them and to plan an efficient bunkering strategy.

In this sense, the potential of Italian ports, in particular those of Augusta and Civitavecchia, in the supply of low sulfur fuel bunkering could significantly increase, thanks to their decisive position for traffic in the Mediterranean and to the investments that are being made to achieve this goal . Bunker Energy S.p.A. has already started a logistics plan to make the port of Augusta, already today the main Italian petrochemical port, adequately equipped with barges, storage facilities and a terminal capable of ensuring well before 1 January 2020 (possibly within the third semester) of the year) the regular availability and delivery of fuels in compliance with the new regime that will come from a refinery in Northern Italy. Pending the finalization of the new pumps that will avoid any risk of contamination deriving from HSFO, the applicable price structure is being defined. In the same way, the Company has launched a plan also in the Port of Civitavecchia where it expects even higher demand based on the large volume of ferry and cruise ship traffic.

The “consistent implementation” of Regulation 14 of Annex VI stands today as the main challenge for the Member States which, through the work of the subsequent MEPC and the PPR Sub Committee, must, inter alia, investigate the mechanisms for the enforcement of the new limits and verification of the conformity of naval units and fuel suppliers, with the consequent need to introduce specific procedures for checking the fuel in use in addition to those relating to the “Marpol sampling”.

The control measures of the PSC, in fact, will be based mainly on the control of the IAPP Certificate and Bunker Delivery Notes on board. However, in the presence of reasonable grounds, there will then be the possibility of conducting more detailed inspections including sampling.

In case of violation of the limit deriving from the use of non-compliant fuel or from not being able to prove the lack of availability of compliant fuel in the port of bunkering – in this sense we recall the presentation to the flag State of the Fuel Oil Non Availability Report (FONAR), pursuant to Rule 18 of Annex VI – Member States will have to put in place an adequate sanctioning system that will include fines, seizure of the ship and de-bunkering of the same, variable port-in-port measures.

Together with the above-explained IMO regime, it is necessary to remember, for completeness of information, that at European level the Directive 2016/802 is also in force, c.d. Sulfur Directive, a further instrument aimed at reducing sulfur dioxide emissions deriving from the combustion of heavy fuel oil, gas oil, marine gas oil and marine diesel oil used in the EU. It is added to the IMO regulation, establishing stricter limits in EU waters. In fact, a maximum limit of 0.50% m / m of sulfur content in marine fuels is foreseen for ships of any flag present in European waters from 1 January 2020. Furthermore, the limit of 0.1% is established for ships moored in EU ports, unless they remain at berth with the engines turned off and are connected to an electrical ground system or their stop does not exceed two hours.

Finally, we point out that Italy, through the Ministry of the Environment and the Protection of the Territory and the Sea, in agreement with the Ministry of Transport, has made itself the proponent of the Barcelona Convention (1978), of a agreement of a political nature aimed at acquiring the consent of all Mediterranean countries for the creation, possibly by 2024, of a Sulfur Emission Control Area (SECA) in the Mediterranean Sea, characterized by a sulfur emissions limit of 0.10% m / m, even at sea. Also thanks to the solid foundations of the SAFEMED project managed by the European Maritime Safety Agency and aimed at harmonizing maritime legislation in the Mare Nostrum, the MATTM, in particular through the efforts of the Marine Environmental Department of the Harbor Corps Corps, is carrying out important negotiations with the countries of the Middle East and North Africa in order to achieve this ambitious goal.

IMO 2020

SOURCE : THE MEDI TELEGRAPH


Cleaner-Marine-Shipping-1200x800.jpg

GUIDANCE ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF A SHIP IMPLEMENTATION  PLAN FOR THE
CONSISTENT IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 0.50% SULPHUR LIMIT
UNDER MARPOL ANNEX VI

To facilitate compliance, the IMO has developed guidelines that include an indicative template for a Ship Implementation Plan (SIP) specific to each individual ship, which shipping companies are recommended to use.

The plan is not mandatory and is not subject to endorsement by the flag state or a recognized organization (RO).

However, PSC may consider the preparatory actions described in the SIP when verifying compliance.

The plan addresses issues related to the use of compliant fuel oil and how to identify any safety risks associated with such fuels.

Items covered by the plan can include, as appropriate, but are not limited to:

  • Risk assessment and mitigation plan (impact of new fuels)
  • Fuel oil system modifications and tank cleaning (if needed)
  • Fuel oil capacity and segregation capability
  • Procurement of compliant fuel
  • Fuel oil changeover plan (conventional residual fuel oils to 0.50% sulphur compliant fuel oil)
  • Documentation and reporting

Issues relating to use of sulphur compliant fuel oil

-All fuel oil supplied to a ship shall comply with regulation 18.3 of MARPOL Annex VI and chapter II/2 of SOLAS.
-Meanwhile, operators could consider ordering fuel oil specified in accordance with the ISO 8217 marine fuel standard.

SHIP IP LTD CAN ASSIST YOU AND DEVELOP YOUR PLAN IN WORD FORMAT CLICK THE LINK TO LEARN MORE

EURO 399 SHIP IMPLEMENTATION PLAN


imo.jpg

LIST OF NATIONAL OPERATIONAL CONTACT POINTS

  • Flag State contact points for PSC matters, Casualty investigation services and Ships’ inspection services (including Secretariats of Memoranda of Understanding on Port State Control)
  • List of national operational contact points responsible for the receipt, transmission and processing of urgent reports on incidents involving harmful substances, including oil from ships to coastal states (see annex under Related Documents) – From January 2018 onwards, the official version of the updated list will be issued electronically and uploaded here on a quarterly basis (quarterly dates: 31 January, 30 April, 31 July and 31 October)
For ship inspection purposes, the only official version of the List of national operational contact points responsible for the receipt, transmission and processing of urgent reports on incidents involving harmful substances including oil from ships to coastal States annex is the updated version, which is issued electronically on a quarterly basis. The quarterly date for this official version is specified at the top of each page of the above list.
From January 2018 onwards, the quarterly dates for the official version of the updated list will be as follows:
31 January, 30 April, 31 July and 31 October. It will be available on the IMO website and can
be downloaded as stated in paragraph 5. In this connection, the next circular under this title
(MSC-MEPC.6/Circ.17) will be issued on 31 January 2019.

LIST OF NATIONAL OPERATIONAL CONTACT POINTS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE RECEIPT, TRANSMISSION AND PROCESSING OF URGENT REPORTS ON INCIDENTS INVOLVING HARMFUL SUBSTANCES, INCLUDING OIL FROM SHIPS TO COASTAL STATES

Updates from 1 May 2019 to 31 July 2019

ALBANIA
ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA
BELIZE
BERMUDA (UNITED KINGDOM)
BRAZIL
CAYMAN ISLANDS (UNITED KINGDOM)
CHILE
COLOMBIA
COOK ISLANDS
GIBRALTAR (UNITED KINGDOM)
QATAR
REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
ROMANIA
SAMOA
SAUDI ARABIA
SOLOMON ISLANDS
SPAIN
SURINAME
SWITZERLAND
TURKMENISTAN
UGANDA
UKRAINE
UNITED KINGDOM

 

Updates from 1 February 2019 to 30 April 2019

BAHAMAS
BELIZE
BERMUDA (UNITED KINGDOM)
CHILE
COLOMBIA
INDIA
ISLE OF MAN (UNITED KINGDOM)
ISRAEL
KENYA
KUWAIT
MAURITANIA
MEXICO
SAUDI ARABIA
SERBIA
TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO
TUVALU
UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
URUGUAY

 

Updates from 1 November 2018 to 31 January 2019

COOK ISLANDS
CUBA
FIJI
GEORGIA
GUATEMALA
GUYANA
ICELAND
JORDAN
KAZAKHSTAN
KUWAIT
LIBYA
MALTA
MONGOLIA
PHILIPPINES
QATAR
SOUTH AFRICA
SUDAN
UNITED KINGDOM
UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA
VANUATU
Note: This summary page will appear on the Internet whenever changes or amendments
are received by the Secretariat before the printed copy of the list is re-issued.

Updates from 1 August 2018 to 31 October 2018
ALGERIA
CAYMAN ISLANDS (UNITED KINGDOM)
FIJI
ITALY
MEXICO
QATAR
ROMANIA
SAINT KITTS AND NEVIS
SWEDEN
UNITED KINGDOM
VIET NAM

Updates from 30 April 2018 to 31 July 2018
CHILE
COLOMBIA
CUBA
CYPRUS
ECUADOR
GAMBIA
GUATEMALA
HONG KONG, CHINA
IRAN (ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF)
ISLE OF MAN (UNITED KINGDOM)
KENYA
LATVIA
MADAGASCAR
MARSHALL ISLANDS
PALAU
PHILIPPINES
QATAR
SUDAN
TOGO
UKRAINE
UNITED KINGDOM
UNITED STATES
VENEZUELA (BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF)
Note: This summary page will appear on the Internet whenever changes or amendments
are received by the Secretariat before the printed copy of the list is re-issued.

The following updates are based on information from countries that notified us of additions,changes or amendments to MSC MEPC.6/Circ.16:

Updates as at 30 April 2018
ALBANIA
BARBADOS
CANADA
ECUADOR
FIJI
GUATEMALA
IRAN (ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF)
ISRAEL
KAZAKHSTAN
MALDIVES
MEXICO
PAPUA NEW GUINEA
PERU
PHILIPPINES
SINGAPORE
SURINAME
TOGO
Updates as at 31 January 2018

BRAZIL

BULGARIA

GREECE

GUATEMALA

HONG KONG, CHINA

KAZAKHSTAN

MALAYSIA

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

PHILIPPINES


autonomous-.jpg

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


Mjg1Njc0Ng.jpeg

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


AdobeStock_69734198-1280x720-1200x675.jpeg

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-.jpg

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.

 


mindthegap-1200x511.png

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


HAZOPS-1030x666.jpg

Energy efficiency in shipping – why it matters!

Global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from shipping rely heavily on improvements in energy efficiency and increased uptake of low-carbon technologies.

Funded by the European Union and implemented by the International Maritime Organization, the Global MTCC Network (GMN) initiative unites technology centres – Maritime Technologies Cooperation Centres (MTCCs) – in targeted regions into a global network. Together, they are promoting technologies and operations to improve energy efficiency in the maritime sector and help navigate shipping into a low-carbon future.

Emissions from ships exhausts into the atmosphere can potentially be harmful to human health and cause acid rain and may also contribute to global warming.

To ensure that shipping is cleaner and greener, IMO is engaging in a two-pronged approach towards addressing GHG emissions from international shipping: through regulatory work, supported by capacity-building initiatives.

Firstly, IMO has adopted regulations to address the emission of air pollutants from ships and has adopted mandatory energy-efficiency measures to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases from international shipping, under Annex VI of IMO’s pollution prevention treaty (MARPOL).

And secondly, IMO is engaging in global capacity-building projects to support the implementation of those regulations and encourage innovation and technology transfer.

Source: IMOHQ


Cybersecurity.jpg

IMO GUIDELINES ON MARITIME CYBER RISK MANAGEMENT

 

IMO has given shipowners and managers until 2021 to incorporate cyber risk management into ship safety !

Owners risk having ships detained if they have not included cyber security in the ISM Code safety management on ships by 1 January 2021.

One of the discussions that took place at the IMO Maritime Safety Committee’s 98th session (MSC 98) in June was whether the IMO’s newly approved guidelines on maritime cyber risk management should be incorporated into the International Safety Management Code (ISM), the international standard for safe ship operations.

While such a directive was not formally adopted, what was adopted was a resolution affirming that approved safety management systems (SMS) should take cyber risk management into account in accordance with the requirements of the ISM.

The resolution encouraged flag administrations to ensure that cyber risks are addressed in SMS no later than the first annual verification of the company’s document of compliance after 1 January 2021.

SHIP IP LTD – Can assist your company to ensure compliance with Cyber Security requirement  as we can offer FULL support to your company like :

  • Maritime Cyber Security Manual with only EUROS 500 ( pls click here to read more… )
  • Consultancy to complete with TMSA 3 – Element 13 Maritime Security
  • ask for more …

 

SHIP IP LTD – SHIPPING VIRTUAL SERVICES !


Please prove you are human by selecting the Cup.