IMO Archives - Page 10 of 12

On 1 January 2020, a new global cap by the IMO on sulphur content in marine fuels will come into effect. The new regulations, known as IMO 2020, mandates a maximum sulphur content of 0.5% in marine fuels globally. The driver of this change is the need to reduce the air pollution created in the shipping industry by reducing the Sulphur content of the fuels that ships use. The impact of the new regulations on Africa will be profound given the mix of lower and higher Sulphur in oil production across the continent.

Many industry experts and researchers have written on the impact of the regulations from various perspectives with very little detail on the impact on Africa. PwC Nigeria in partnership with Energex Partners and Downstream Advisors Inc. has developed a report examining the impact of the regulation on Africa in detail considering key actors in the African market viz producers, refiners, consumers, governments, industries among others.

A free synopsis of the report is available for download below. The full 58 page report is now available for purchase.

Source: pwc

International Maritime Organization (IMO) is an agency of the United Nations which has been formed to promote maritime safety. It was formally established by an international conference in Geneva in 1948, and became active in 1958 when the IMO Convention entered into force (the original name was the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization, or IMCO, but the name was changed in 1982 to IMO). IMO currently groups 167 Member States and 3 Associate Members.IMO ship pollution rules are contained in the “International Convention on the Prevention of Pollution from Ships”, known as MARPOL 73/78. On 27 September 1997, the MARPOL Convention has been amended by the “1997 Protocol”, which includes Annex VI titled “Regulations for the Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships”. MARPOL Annex VI sets limits on NOx and SOx emissions from ship exhausts, and prohibits deliberate emissions of ozone depleting substances from ships of 400 gross tonnage and above engaged in voyages to ports or offshore terminals under the jurisdiction of states that have ratified Annex VI.

The IMO emission standards are commonly referred to as Tier I…III standards. The Tier I standards were defined in the 1997 version of Annex VI, while the Tier II/III standards were introduced by Annex VI amendments adopted in 2008, as follows:

1997 Protocol (Tier I)—The “1997 Protocol” to MARPOL, which includes Annex VI, becomes effective 12 months after being accepted by 15 States with not less than 50% of world merchant shipping tonnage. On 18 May 2004, Samoa deposited its ratification as the 15^th State (joining Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Liberia, Marshal Islands, Norway, Panama, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, and Vanuatu). At that date, Annex VI was ratified by States with 54.57% of world merchant shipping tonnage.Accordingly, Annex VI entered into force on 19 May 2005. It applies retroactively to new engines greater than 130 kW installed on vessels constructed on or after January 1, 2000, or which undergo a major conversion after that date. The regulation also applies to fixed and floating rigs and to drilling platforms (except for emissions associated directly with exploration and/or handling of sea-bed minerals). In anticipation of the Annex VI ratification, most marine engine manufacturers have been building engines compliant with the above standards since 2000.
2008 Amendments (Tier II/III)—Annex VI amendments adopted in October 2008 introduced (1) new fuel quality requirements beginning from July 2010, (2) Tier II and III NOx emission standards for new engines, and (3) Tier I NOx requirements for existing pre-2000 engines.The revised Annex VI entered into force on 1 July 2010. By October 2008, Annex VI was ratified by 53 countries (including the Unites States), representing 81.88% of tonnage.

Emission Control Areas. Two sets of emission and fuel quality requirements are defined by Annex VI: (1) global requirements, and (2) more stringent requirements applicable to ships in Emission Control Areas (ECA). An Emission Control Area can be designated for SOx and PM, or NOx, or all three types of emissions from ships, subject to a proposal from a Party to Annex VI.

Existing Emission Control Areas include:

Baltic Sea (SOx: adopted 1997 / entered into force 2005; NOx: 2016/2021)
North Sea (SOx: 2005/2006; NOx: 2016/2021)
North American ECA, including most of US and Canadian coast (NOx & SOx: 2010/2012).
US Caribbean ECA, including Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands (NOx & SOx: 2011/2014).

Greenhouse Gas Emissions. 2011 Amendments to MARPOL Annex VI introduced mandatory measures to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG). The Amendments added a new Chapter 4 to Annex VI on “Regulations on energy efficiency for ships”.

NOx Emission Standards

The NOx emission limits of Regulation 13 of MARPOL Annex VI apply to each marine diesel engine with a power output of more than 130 kW installed on a ship. A marine diesel engine is defined as any reciprocating internal combustion engine operating on liquid or dual fuel. There are two exceptions: engines used solely for emergencies and engines on a ships operating solely within the waters of the state in which they are flagged. The later exception only applies if these engines are subject to an alternative NOx control measure.

NOx emission limits are set for diesel engines depending on the engine maximum operating speed (n, rpm), as shown in Table 1 and presented graphically in Figure 1. Tier I and Tier II limits are global, while the Tier III standards apply only in NOx Emission Control Areas.

**Table 1.** MARPOL Annex VI NOx emission limits
Tier	Date	NOx Limit, g/kWh
Tier	Date	n < 130	130 ≤ n < 2000	n ≥ 2000
Tier I	2000	17.0	45 · n^-0.2	9.8
Tier II	2011	14.4	44 · n^-0.23	7.7
Tier III	2016†	3.4	9 · n^-0.2	1.96
† In NOx Emission Control Areas (Tier II standards apply outside ECAs).

Tier II standards are expected to be met by combustion process optimization. The parameters examined by engine manufacturers include fuel injection timing, pressure, and rate (rate shaping), fuel nozzle flow area, exhaust valve timing, and cylinder compression volume.

Tier III standards are expected to require dedicated NOx emission control technologies such as various forms of water induction into the combustion process (with fuel, scavenging air, or in-cylinder), exhaust gas recirculation, or selective catalytic reduction.

Pre-2000 Engines. Under the 2008 Annex VI amendments, Tier I standards become applicable to existing engines installed on ships built between 1^st January 1990 to 31^st December 1999, with a displacement ≥ 90 liters per cylinder and rated output ≥ 5000 kW, subject to availability of approved engine upgrade kit.

Testing. Engine emissions are tested on various ISO 8178 cycles (E2, E3 cycles for various types of propulsion engines, D2 for constant speed auxiliary engines, C1 for variable speed and load auxiliary engines).

Addition of not-to-exceed (NTE) testing requirements to the Tier III standards is being debated. NTE limits with a multiplier of 1.5 would be applicable to NOx emissions at any individual load point in the E2/E3 cycle.

Engines are tested using distillate diesel fuels, even though residual fuels are usually used in real life operation.

Further technical details pertaining to NOx emissions, such as emission control methods, are included in the mandatory “NOx Technical Code”, which has been adopted under the cover of “Resolution 2”.

Sulfur Content of Fuel

Annex VI regulations include caps on sulfur content of fuel oil as a measure to control SOx emissions and, indirectly, PM emissions (there are no explicit PM emission limits). Special fuel quality provisions exist for SOx Emission Control Areas (SOx ECA or SECA). The sulfur limits and implementation dates are listed in Table 2 and illustrated in Figure 2.

**Table 2.** MARPOL Annex VI fuel sulfur limits
Date	Sulfur Limit in Fuel (% m/m)
Date	SOx ECA	Global
2000	1.5%	4.5%
2010.07	1.0%	4.5%
2012	1.0%	3.5%
2015	0.1%	3.5%
2020	0.1%	0.5%

Heavy fuel oil (HFO) is allowed provided it meets the applicable sulfur limit (i.e., there is no mandate to use distillate fuels).

Alternative measures are also allowed (in the SOx ECAs and globally) to reduce sulfur emissions, such as through the use exhaust gas cleaning systems (EGCS), aka scrubbers. For example, in lieu of using the 0.5% S fuel (2020), ships can fit an exhaust gas cleaning system or use any other technological method to limit SOx emissions to ≤ 6 g/kWh (as SO₂).

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

MARPOL Annex VI, Chapter 4 introduces two mandatory mechanisms intended to ensure an energy efficiency standard for ships: (1) the Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI), for new ships, and (2) the Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan (SEEMP) for all ships.

The EEDI is a performance-based mechanism that requires a certain minimum energy efficiency in new ships. Ship designers and builders are free to choose the technologies to satisfy the EEDI requirements in a specific ship design.
The SEEMP establishes a mechanism for operators to improve the energy efficiency of ships.

The regulations apply to all ships of 400 gross tonnage and above and enter into force from 1 January 2013. Flexibilities exist in the initial period of up to six and a half years after the entry into force, when the IMO may waive the requirement to comply with the EEDI for certain new ships, such as those that are already under construction.

In April 2018, the IMO adopted an Initial Strategy on the reduction of GHG emissions from ships [3949], with a target to reduce the total annual GHG emissions by at least 50% by 2050 compared to 2008. The strategy calls for strenghtening the EEDI requirements and a number of other measures to reduce emissions, such as operational efficiency measures, further speed reductions, measures to address CH₄ and VOC emissions, alternative low-carbon and zero carbon fuels, as well as market-based measures (MBM).

Source: dieselnet

Other Provisions

Ozone Depleting Substances. Annex VI prohibits deliberate emissions of ozone depleting substances, which include halons and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). New installations containing ozone-depleting substances are prohibited on all ships. But new installations containing hydro-chlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) are permitted until 1 January 2020.

Annex VI also prohibits the incineration on board ships of certain products, such as contaminated packaging materials and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).

Compliance. Compliance with the provisions of Annex VI is determined by periodic inspections and surveys. Upon passing the surveys, the ship is issued an “International Air Pollution Prevention Certificate”, which is valid for up to 5 years. Under the “NOx Technical Code”, the ship operator (not the engine manufacturer) is responsible for in-use compliance.

The maritime industry is bracing itself for the rapid approach of January 1, 2020 – the day on which the sulphur limit imposed under IMO 2020 comes into effect. But who is ready for IMO 2020; and who is not?There is a somewhat inconsistent approach to the implementation of IMO 2020 and varying degrees of readiness among port and flag states. If this is not adequately, and urgently addressed, this will result in confusion and delays when IMO 2020 comes into force.

The effect of IMO 2020

IMO 2020 is a term used to describe the implementation of the Regulations to Annex VI of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL). MARPOL is one of the most important international marine environmental conventions and IMO 2020 aims to improve air quality and to protect the environment by reducing sulphur oxide produced by ships.

With effect from January 1, 2020, ships will be required to use:

fuel oils with a sulphur content of 0.5 percent m/m or lower;
an approved equivalent means of compliance such as exhaust gas cleaning systems (EGCS) commonly referred to as “scrubbers”; or
Non-fuel oil alternatives such as switching to liquefied natural gas (LNG) as fuel.

It is anticipated that, at least initially, most ships will utilize new blends of fuel oil which meet the 0.5 percent limit on sulphur in fuel oil or compliant marine gas or diesel oil.

It is important to note that IMO 2020 will not affect designated emission control areas (ECAS) where there is already a stricter sulphur limit of 0.1 percent m/m in place, such as in the Baltic Sea, the North Sea, the North American ECA and the US Caribbean ECA as well as the 0.1 percent sulphur cap already in place in European Union ports.

Who will enforce IMO 2020?

Following the 74th session of the IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee (MPEC), the IMO released the 2019 Guidelines for Consistent Implementation of the 0.5 percent Sulphur Limit under MARPOL Annex VI (the 2019 Guidelines) which aim at ensuring a consistent implementation of IMO 2020 across port and flag states. The 2019 Guidelines provide helpful guidance to state parties on interpreting their obligations under, and implementing, IMO 2020.

Enforcement, compliance and monitoring of the IMO 2020 sulphur limit is the responsibility of the state parties that have ratified MARPOL and acceded to Annex VI and are therefore obliged to give effect to, and enforce, its provisions. This includes both flag states (in whose registries ships are flagged) and port states who are obliged to enforce IMO 2020 within their territorial waters.

Port states must enforce the provisions of MARPOL by monitoring vessels within their territorial waters, reporting non-compliance to the relevant flag state, ensuring that there is adequate low sulphur compliant fuel available within their jurisdiction and providing shore-based facilities for the receipt and removal of scrubber waste.

How will ships be monitored for compliance?

Under Annex VI and the 2019 Guidelines, port states should take appropriate measures to ensure compliance. Specifically, port states should conduct initial inspections based on documents including Bunker Delivery Notes (BDN), as well as the use of remote sensing and portable devices. If there are “clear grounds” to conduct a more detailed inspection, the port state may conduct sample analyses and other detailed inspections to verify compliance with the Regulations. What exactly constitutes “clear grounds” is not defined in Annex VI or the 2019 Guidelines.

Regarding the use of remote sensing and portable devices, the 2019 Guidelines indicate that the former can trigger inspections and the latter may be used during initial inspections but the results of both should be considered indicative only. They should not be regarded as evidence of non-compliance although they may be considered clear grounds for expanding the inspection to check for non-compliance.

The 2019 Guidelines expressly provide that all possible efforts should be made to avoid a ship being unduly delayed or detained as a result of the steps taken to implement IMO 2020. In particular, the analysis of fuel oil samples should not unduly delay the operation, movement or departure of a ship. However, delays may be inevitable in ports where there are limited or less efficient mechanisms for testing of fuel oil and particularly where ships are only in port for several hours in order to stem bunkers rather than working cargo.

Non-compliance by ships

When a port state identifies clear grounds of suspected non-compliance of a ship based on its initial inspections, then the port state may require samples of fuel oils to be analyzed. Where a sample is taken from a ship, a receipt should be provided to the ship and the ship should be advised of the outcome of such analysis.

If non-compliance with IMO 2020 is established by a port state, the port state may prevent the ship from sailing until the ship takes suitable measures to achieve compliance, which may include debunkering all non-compliant fuel oil. However, ship’s tanks are designed to receive fuel oil and not to pump it out, which renders debunkering very difficult and time-consuming.

In addition, the port state should report any non-compliance to the flag state. The port state should also advise the state in whose jurisdiction the bunker delivery note was issued in respect of non-compliant fuel oil.

When determining what sanction to impose on a non-compliant ship, a state party must take into account all relevant circumstances and the evidence presented, which may include not taking any steps against the non-compliant vessel. Flag and port state control authorities may take into account the ship’s implementation plan when determining compliance with the 0.5 percent sulphur limit requirement.

What if there is no compliant fuel oil available at a port?

Concerns have been raised that the shift to low sulphur fuel may result in a shortage of compliant fuel on or after January 1, 2020. For ships that have not been fitted with scrubbers, or are not equipped to use alternative fuel such as LNG, this may result in sudden non-compliance when calling at port states after the deadline.

The Regulations and the 2019 Guidelines require that where a ship, despite its best efforts, is unable to obtain compliant fuel, the Master or shipowner must present a record and evidence of actions taken to obtain compliant fuel oil and show that, despite best efforts to obtain compliant fuel oil, no such fuel oil was available. Best efforts to procure compliant fuel oil include, but are not limited to, investigating alternative sources of fuel oil prior to commencing the voyage. If, despite best efforts, it was not possible to procure compliant fuel oil, the Master or shipowner must immediately notify the port and flag state. This notification by the ship is commonly referred to as a Fuel Oil Non-Availability Report (FONAR).

The 2019 Guidelines have a standard reporting format for a FONAR but state parties may develop more detailed guidance for the consistent use and acceptance of these reports, including specifying what evidence should accompany a FONAR. In order to minimise disruption and to avoid delay, the Master or shipowner should submit a FONAR as soon as it is determined, or becomes aware, that it will not be able to procure and use compliant fuel oil. The submission of a FONAR does not render a ship compliant with the Regulations but rather is a factor that shall be taken into account by a port or flag state when determining what steps to take against a ship for non-compliance.

The IMO and the International Chamber of Shipping have confirmed that whilst safety or operational concerns regarding the quality of low sulphur fuels is a sufficient reason for shipowners to issue a FONAR, this does not give ships or shipowners blanket permission to use or carry non-compliant fuel after the deadline. The increased price of low sulphur fuel oil is also not a valid basis for non-compliance. Master and shipowners should retain bunker samples for use in the event that they may use sulphur quality as a basis for alleging the non-availability of compliant fuel oil.

State parties are obliged to take all reasonable steps to promote the availability of compliant fuel oil, to investigate reports of non-availability and to report non-availability of compliant fuel oils in its ports and terminals to the IMO. This process is important to ensure a consistent supply of compliant fuel as well as preventing incentives for ships to use ports where it is known that compliant fuel is not available on an ongoing basis. Critical to this process will be the sharing of information between states parties on reported compliant fuel oil supply issues.

The use of scrubbers

An alternative to the use of low sulphur fuel oil is the fitting of scrubbers to a ship. Scrubbers remove particulate matter, sulphur oxides and nitrogen oxides from the exhaust gases produced by a ship’s engines. Open-loop scrubbers use seawater to remove chemicals and particulates and the waste is then treated before being discharged into the sea. In closed-loop systems, the water is recycled back into the scrubber. Hybrid scrubbers are a combination of open and closed-loop systems.

The Regulations do not prescribe the type of scrubbers that may be used but some jurisdictions have rejected the use of scrubbers or specifically the use of open-loop scrubbers within their territorial waters. Where a ship is fitted with open-loop scrubbers and enters a port in a state where these are not permitted, the ship will be obliged to use compliant fuel oil. Where the ship is fitted with a hybrid loop system, the ship will need to switch over to a closed-loop system.

Jurisdictional approaches to IMO 2020

A number of countries have not ratified MARPOL Annex VI including Argentina, Bahrain, Colombia, Ecuador, Egypt, Hungary, Israel, Mexico, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Thailand and Venezuela.

Other countries that have ratified Annex VI have not yet adopted appropriate legislation to give effect to their obligations. South Africa has yet to pass legislation indicating how it intends to enforce IMO 2020. Whilst the South African Maritime Safety Authority previously issued a marine notice authorising the use of all types of scrubbers within South African territorial waters, it subsequently indicated that it would make the decision on whether to allow any types of scrubbers during September 2019. However, at the time of publication no such decision has been taken.

The Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA) has indicated that Singaporean and foreign-registered ships calling at Singapore will be selected for inspection based on a risk matrix that takes into account the compliance option of the ship and whether a FONAR has been submitted. Inspectors will be equipped with portable sulphur kits for onsite testing of in-use fuel and the MPA may send fuel oil samples to a laboratory for detailed fuel oil analysis. Singapore has banned the use of open-loop scrubbers and ships fitted with hybrid scrubbers will be required to switch to closed-loop mode whilst in Singaporean waters.

As a signatory to MARPOL and Annex VI, Indonesia originally undertook to enforce the Regulations in respect of all ships operating within Indonesian waters. It subsequently backtracked and indicated it would not enforce IMO 2020 sulphur limits in respect of domestic shipping and would only do so in respect of international shipping. As of August 2019, the Indonesian Ministry of Transportation has said that it will enforce IMO 2020 limits in respect of both Indonesian and foreign-flagged ships.

With effect from January 1, 2018, China has already implemented a 0.5 percent sulphur cap within its designated emission control areas, which have subsequently been expanded. Ships may use scrubbers or other alternative means to meet the emission control requirements. From January 1, 2020, oceangoing ships will be required to use low sulphur content fuel not exceeding 0.1 percent m/m when entering China’s inland water ECA and stricter sulphur limits will also be imposed on ships entering other Chinese ECAS over the next few years.

The United States has already implemented a 0.1 percent sulphur cap within its ECA and accordingly ships calling at US ports ought already to be familiar and accustomed to a significantly stricter sulphur limit than that imposed by IMO 2020.

Information regarding the implementation of IMO 2020 in other member states is not always readily available and will need to be clarified and publicised well before January 1, 2020 to ensure that ships calling at those ports can comply with the particular requirements imposed by each jurisdiction.

What still needs to be done?

State parties that have not yet adopted legislation to give effect to their IMO 2020 obligations need to do so as a matter of urgency. Flag and port states must ensure adequate publication of their specific requirements so that ships can ensure timely compliance. MARPOL Annex VI does not specify what penalties are to be imposed for non-compliance, but MARPOL does require that penalties must be sufficiently severe to discourage contravention. Accordingly, member states must determine what civil and possibly criminal penalties will be imposed on non-compliant ships.

Ships that have been fitted with open-loop scrubbers need to be aware of the risk that they may not be permitted to operate these within the territorial waters of certain port states. They will need to ensure that they will be able to procure compliant bunkers in those jurisdictions.

Crew members need to be properly trained and made aware of the importance of accurately recording information in the ship’s logs such as the date, time, and position of the ship when a fuel oil changeover occurs as well as the volume of low sulphur fuel oil in each tank.

Port states need to ensure that they have adequate compliant fuel oil or alternative fuels available from January 1, 2020. They need to ensure that they have adequate inspection and testing protocols in place and port facilities to receive scrubber waste residue.

Conclusion

Much work remains to be done to ensure a consistent approach to compliance with IMO 2020. Given that January 1, 2020 is only a few months away, all relevant parties, including port and flag states, bunker suppliers, shipowners, Masters, charterers and ship builders, need to prepare themselves urgently.

Source: nortonrosefulbright

As the travel restrictions and social distancing rules necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic continue, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) has announced that its original 2020 calendar of meetings has now been ‘rescinded’.

According to a notice posted on the IMO website yesterday (20 July), the IMO Council, which is meeting by correspondence for its thirty-second extraordinary session (C/ES.32), is currently ‘considering the reconstruction of the schedule of meetings for 2020, including the possibilities for virtual meetings’.

The IMO added: ‘As discussions on the reconstruction of the schedule are still under way, the previously issued programme of meetings for 2020 (and preliminary programme for 2021) should not be used for planning purposes. Information regarding the rescheduling of postponed meetings and scheduling of future meetings will be made available in good time, to allow Member States and other participants to make appropriate arrangements.

‘All IMO meetings originally planned to be held between late March and July 2020 have been postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

‘Resuming physical meetings will depend on guidance from the World Health Organization (WHO) and the UK Government, as well as the situation of IMO Member States.’

The COVID-19 pandemic is also continuing to disrupt the scheduling of the major maritime business conferences and exhibitions. It was announced this week that Posidonia 2020 has been cancelled – after it had initial been postponed from its traditional June slot to October. Theodore Vokos, managing director of Posidonia Exhibitions commented: ‘The worrying increase of cases in certain jurisdictions and the inability to predict reliably where the pandemic will take us in the months ahead compounds the uncertainty that now prevails, imposing upon us circumstances that are beyond our control.’ The next Posidonia event will take place in June 2022.

Meanwhile, the organisers of the Singapore International Bunkering Conference and Exhibition have announced that SIBCON 2020 will be ‘delivered digitally’ on 6-8 October.

Source: bunkerspot

The IMO’s lower sulphur limit for marine fuels effects good or bad for the shipping industries, countries and other groups. Advantages of IMO 2020 are making strongest benefits of public health and encourage development of green power generation. However, It also brings about adverse effects: Large majority of commercial fleet in the world will switch from high sulphur fuel oil (HSFO) to marine gas oil (MGO) or distillates, resulting in high pressure to refiner to increase crude oil to maximize distillate, increasing distillate prices. It is expected that the potential cost of compliant fuel for IMO 2020 will be a big difference from cost of HSFO, creating ship-owners to install scrubbers on board or using alternative fuel like blended fuels or switch to LNG. Therefore, the estimating implications of one option decision for the IMO 2020 on changing the maritime activities will be discussed by using thematic analysis combined with PLEETS analysis through different aspects (Figure 1).

Possible implications

Firstly, the changes in the geographical aspect after implement of the Kra Canal, which are new maritime routes can be developed. They are for instance: Northern region (Hai Phong port) – Hon Khoai – Kra – Middle East/Europe; Central region (Van Phong port) – Hon Khoai – Kra – Middle East/Europe; Southern region (Ba Ria – Vung Tau) – Hon Khoai – Kra – Middle East/Europe. Vietnam has a priority strategy for developing international gateway port for vessels of larger than 100,000 DWT in Hai Phong, Ba Ria – Vung Tau and Khanh Hoa, developing comprehensive navigation facilities in all channel systems. Interestingly, Hon Khoai Project was approved by Vietnam’s Prime Minister that it would build a deep-water seaport, named Hon Khoai Port, on the Southeast of Hon Khoai Island 15 km off the coast of Ca Mau province. According to the opinions of various experts, Hon Khoai Port will be invested to become the largest seaport in Vietnam, making the main link, opening new gateway connection port of global goods and services in Vietnam, especially coal, petroleum and container. The “Investment report on Hon Khoai general seaport project”, prepared by VIP, determined the total estimated investment of US$ 5 billion, of which US$ 3.5 billion for the “super port” and US$ 1.5 billion for the logistics. It is expected that the Hon Khoai Port will have the capacity to transport 800 million tons of cargo each year.

Secondly, after developing the Kra Canal, the geographical advantage of the Hon Khoai Port, it is predicted that the Hon Khoai Port will be one of the target destinations that will go significant benefits from the increase foreign ships calls as global logistics hub for the handling of import and export cargo of Mekong Delta River as well as transhipment cargo.

Currently, Vietnam is enhancing on waterway between Ho Chi Minh City and Ca Mau to facilitate the operations of barges of more than 2,000 tons, upgrading Xa No Canal and the Dai Ngai-Bac Lieu-Gia Rai sea route, modernizing large river ports for containerized goods including Binh Long, An Phuoc, Long Binh and Cai Lay Ports, upgrading project to dredge and expand Cho Gao Canal to 80 meters, etc.

The Hon Khoai Port becomes the new shipping hub as a special trade zone; it attracts investment of various production companies and providing opportunities to business as well as development of regional economy.

Pros and cons implications of option for the IMO 2020

Obviously, four options above also have pros and cons when considering political, legal, economic, environmental, technological and sociological aspect. In this section shows the results of option using LNG and option using blended fuel oil as potential trend of Vietnamese ship-owners.

According to plan for development of the gas industry of Vietnam by 2025 with vision to 2035 (Prime Minister Decision No 60/QD-TTg 2017), research, find markets and accelerate the construction of port infrastructure facilities to be ready to receive and import LNG with the reaching 1–4 billion cubic meter per year in the period of 2021–2015 and reaching 6–10 billion cubic meter per year in the period 2026–2035. Using LNG or sulphur-free fuel for Vietnamese commercial fleet will have both pros and cons implications of new energy. Through a data collection process or direct interviews with experts, the information is showed on the Table 2 as below. It is note that using LNG as alternative fuel oil will be potential development of new ship building which encourage for Vietnam shipping.

Source: tandfonline

The member state delegates of the IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) have formally adopted an amendment to ban the carriage of high sulfur HFO for on-board combustion, except aboard vessels equipped with a scrubber. The move was widely expected, and the regulation will enter into effect on March 1, 2020.

The IMO says that the amendment is intended to support implementation, compliance and port state enforcement of the new IMO fuel sulfur limit, which will cap sulfur content at 0.5 percent beginning in January 2020.

Earlier this week, Bangladesh led an attempt to delay the carriage ban amendment, citing the high cost of low sulfur fuels and concerns about their availability. The proposal was rebuffed by the majority of member states.

Separately, a group of industry associations for the liquid and dry bulk sectors, supported by the largest flag states, asked MEPC to consider a soft rollout for the sulfur cap in order to avoid “unduly penalizing individual ships” for noncompliance. MEPC turned down this proposal on Wednesday.

IMO Secretary General Kitack Lim has repeatedly said that shipping cannot reverse course on the implementation of the limit on fuel sulfur content. High-sulfur fuels form hazardous levels of sulfur oxides (SOx) after combustion. “There is no turning back! The lower global sulphur limit will have a significant beneficial impact on the environment and on human health, particularly that of people living in port cities and coastal communities,” Lim said in February.

The rule is also expected to drive significant price changes in the markets for middle distillates and heavy fuel oil, with implications for the broader transport sector and for consumers.

Source: maritime-executive

There were renewed calls for governments to consider seafarers’ welfare today, as the International Maritime Organization (IMO) celebrated its Day of the Seafarer.

IMO general secretary Kitak Lim again called on IMO member states to classify seafarers as key workers and facilitate ships’ crew changes to relieve those trapped on vessels long after their shifts ended.

“Just like other key workers, seafarers are on the front line in this global fight. They deserve our thanks, but they also need – and deserve – quick and decisive humanitarian action from governments everywhere at all times,” Mr Lim said.

The UN body has drawn up a set of crew change protocols to allow seafarers to embark and and disembark ships safely during the pandemic.

The World Shipping Council said: “We applaud those countries that have taken action and demonstrated to the world that crew changes can indeed take place safely. We urge all nations that have not yet acted to do so immediately, and to use the IMO crew change protocols.

“Moreover, we remind all nations that seafarers are key workers and need to be designated as such.”

Meanwhile, the UK government used the occasion to announce that it would hold the first international summit on the repatriation of stranded crews.

Maritime minister Kelly Tolhurst said: “Seafarers have worked tirelessly during this pandemic to ensure people across the globe can access the essential food, medicine and supplies, but thousands have been left with no way of coming ashore when faced with border restrictions.

“This government has helped more than 7,000 crew get home to their loved ones across the world, regardless of nationality or circumstance.”

Guy Platten, secretary general of the International Chamber of Shipping, said: “The fragile supply chain and global trade is now at threat of logjam due to government inaction and bureaucracy.

“Government leaders must cut through the bureaucracy, lift the continuing imposition of travel restrictions on these key workers and focus on this issue now.

“The solutions do not need money; they do not even need complicated negotiations, this is simple. The leadership provided by the UK to cut through this red tape is just the sort of initiative that is needed to free the thousands of seafarers who are trapped onboard ships across the world,” he added.

According to charity Seafarers UK, hundreds of thousands of seafarers are “currently stranded on merchant ships, with crew changes curtailed due to restrictions imposed by governments”.

It said: “Many seafarers of all nationalities have been compelled to work beyond their contract end dates, with shore access denied at most ports on global trade routes.

“As a result, seafarers’ medical conditions are going untreated, pastoral and other visits by port chaplains and welfare workers are banned, and access to free communications is infrequent.”

Source:theloadstar

Communication plays a major role in the maritime industry, whether it be between crew members, officers or between two ships.

Ambiguity and confusion are the primary causes of accidents and untoward incidents that happen onboard ships and other vessels.

When crew members speak a wide variety of languages, there can be some confusion in the meaning of phrases that they wish to convey.

To compound this problem, ships and seafarers travel all over the world. They can fly a flag of one country, have a captain of another, and a crew of at least 7 to 8 different nationalities.

Without a common language, there can be difficulty in passing instructions among officers and crew members.

This is where Maritime English comes into play.

Building on the basics of everyday English, certain maritime terms have been adopted by the maritime and shipping community.

seafarers maritime courses

By having a set of terms unique to this domain, it rules out any possibility of confusion in meaning. A major issue with using normal terms such as left or right, front or back, etc. is the ambiguity associated with the directions.

For instance, say the captain issues an order changing direction by 5 degrees to the left. Whose left is to be taken for consideration in this scenario?

If the captain and the crew member controlling the navigation are in different locations, there can be quite a bit of confusion in this regard.

Furthermore, if the crew member is facing in a different direction, the ship may proceed off course, leading to possible damages. Thus, terms that can be used irrespective of one’s orientation and location are extremely important.

Similarly, front and back face an issue with the relative direction. These issues are solved by adopting a common set of terms and phrases, used by all seafarers across the world.

This is known as Maritime English and is also referred to as the Standard Maritime Communication Phrases (SMCP).

SMCP has been developed by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) as the international standard for all maritime communication.

As English is considered to be the common language while at sea, Maritime English builds on the basic vocabulary of English while including unique phrases and terms to rule out any possible ambiguity.

It primarily serves three main functions-

1. Ship to ship communication
2. Ship to shore communication
3. Internal communications onboard a ship

Origin and Uses of Maritime English

SMCP or Building on the basics of everyday English, certain maritime terms have been adopted by the maritime and shipping community. Maritime English is thus various combinations of the English language and certain fixed phrases.

Seaspeak is known as a Controlled Natural Language (CNL) and borrows heavily from a limited English vocabulary.

In phrases where finding an appropriate English word may be difficult, terms from other common languages are also used. Seaspeak was developed at a conference of the International Maritime Lecturers Association (IMLA) in 1985.

It underwent multiply updates that aimed at improving the language to account for all possibilities of communication that may arise while at sea.

Eventually, it was combined with the Standard Maritime Navigational Vocabulary (SMNV) to form the SMCP language. This was in response to accidents that took place due to confusion in commands.

Ultimately, the SMCP was adopted in the 2001 conference of the IMO and has been in use since then. It aims to reduce language and communication-related accidents.

In a study conducted on the most common causes of maritime accidents, over 50% of the incidents were due to some form of miscommunication, and of these incidents, just under half was due to the improper use of SMCP and IMO approved phrases. Thus, it is important to equip all seafarers with sufficient knowledge on how to effectively communicate while at sea.

Commonly Used Terms Of Maritime English

There are some terms unique to the maritime sector that is a part of SMCP.

Firstly, direction plays a major role in navigation while at sea. Using lay terms such as right, left, front or back can be ambiguous. For this purpose, there are terms specific to ships.

The front of the ship is referred to as the bow or fore. The region at the back where the propellers are housed is known as the aft or stern. The region in between the aft and bow is known as the midship.

Similarly, when viewing the vessel from the stern to the fore, the left-hand side is known as the Port side, while the right side is the Starboard side.

The various horizontal levels on the vessel are known as decks, while the base is known as the keel. Another important term that is used is the draft of a vessel.

The draft refers to the depth of a vessel that is below the waterline. Thus, when the captain says that the fore-starboard region on deck 4 is out of bounds, he implies that the area to the front right-hand side of the vessel cannot be accessed by unauthorized personnel. Deck 4 is the number allotted to that particular deck which is inaccessible.

Another part of the ship that has a specific maritime name is the elevated area in which the captain and officers work. This is called the bridge of the ship and serves as the main heart of the vessel. Another term used in direction is abaft, which indicates an object being relatively closer to the stern. Thus, the rudder is abaft to the propellers on most conventional ships.

Abandon ship is a term used on ships to imply that a disaster has occurred and that the ship will eventually sink. It is an order issued by the captain to indicate that passengers and crew members are to board rescue vessels or life rafts and follow emergency protocols. Another accident that may occur is when a ship runs aground. In such situations also the call to abandon ship may be issued. When a ship is said to capsize, it turns over such that the keel is above water while the decks may be fully submerged. In such situations, the vessel is said to be taking on water.

An interesting way of referring to windows and doors within a ship is by calling them access holes. Similarly, the passages within a vessel are called alleyways. The gangway refers to a structure similar to a ladder that permits boarding of a vessel. The windows cut out into the hull of a ship is called portholes. The pennant refers to a flag that a ship is flying. This can either be a flag of convenience or a flag under which a warship operates.

The course of a ship refers to the path it is taking. This path can also be determined by referring to the absolute bearing of a vessel. This type of bearing gives the direction of the vessel with respect to true North. When the order to stow something away is given, it indicates that a particular object must be stored in specifically assigned locker or bunker.

The ballast of a ship refers to additional water that it takes on board-specific ballast tanks to lower itself in the water. A berth refers to a place assigned to a ship at a port. It can either be for loading, unloading or just as a port of transit.

Lastly, there a few terms referred to as message markers. They are used to prefix certain statements to clarify their meaning in case of poor communication. These include keywords such as “INTENTION” that means the seafarer is about to state a probable course of action.

“WARNING” suggests a possible warning issued by the authorities to a vessel. “ADVICE” is used to provide suggestions to the officers of a vessel regarding heading and a course. A “REQUEST” implies that some aid or facility is required by a ship. Another similar type of message marker is the QUESTION-ANSWER phrase, that is discussed in the next section.

Common Phrases and Examples Of Maritime English

One of the most common phrases used while at sea is “Say Again”, which indicates that the receiver was unable to understand the message and needs it to be repeated. This comes in place of other more complicated phrases that can be lost while in the relay. Instead of lengthy sentences such as “I could not hear you” or “Please repeat yourself”, this two-word phrase is short and to the point. It also has a lesser likelihood of being misunderstood or misheard.

Another very common set of phrases that are used in the maritime sector is the “QUESTION – ANSWER” group. Instead of asking a question using phrases such as “Should I” or “May I”, the seafarer can use the term QUESTION as a prefix to his query.

This states his intention and allows the receiver to understand that he has a question. In response, the receiver particularly uses the term ANSWER prior to answering the query. This ensures that the seafarer at the other end knows that his query is being addressed. Thus, using these 2 prefix phrases, ambiguity about the nature of the conversation can be removed.

In case of some accident or issue, sentences such as “I am in trouble” or “I need help” can be easily misunderstood, especially in bad weather with poor broadcasting. Instead, the phrase “I require assistance” ensures that the message is not lost or misunderstood.

Prior to starting this phrase, it is advisable to also mention the reason or cause for your accident. This could be due to icing or immediate danger of sinking. After issuing the standard mayday and distress calls, it is also prudent to mention if any particular type of assistance is required and to also enquire into the ETA of the rescue vessel.

This is useful when it comes to reducing wasted time. By stating the issuing that you are facing and the type of aid required, the rescue team can send a group that is prepared to help you in this regard. They can also inform the shipowners of any complications and seek their help in understanding the layout and design of the vessel. SMCP plays a major role in disaster scenarios, as any miscommunication in such cases can have major consequences.

Certain distress signals can be used depending on the severity of the issue. The phrases Mayday-Mayday-Mayday, Pan-Pan-Pan and Securite-Securite-Securite are all used to indicate some form of distress information. Each varies in severity, with mayday implying a major issue with a high probability of sinking.

Securite is the least severe and is a French word used to simply indicate that the information following the signal contains important safety directives. Lastly, SOS is a common distress signal, which originated from the phrase “Save our Souls” or “Save Our Ship”. Most distress signals are repeated three times successively, to ensure that the message is carried out and is not lost in any possible miscommunication.

How to Use Maritime English

Using this type of language can be challenging for beginners. That is why it is important to pick up the nuances of conveying information. While conveying any message, it is important to ensure that the complete data is transferred.

Similarly, when speaking to passengers or crew members, it is also good practice to give them a brief idea of what to expect in a particular scenario. In this section, we will look at some common sentences and phrases used by seafarers in maritime English.

“Ship has run aground. I require assistance. Kindly provide rescue vessels to location … Passenger and crew count totalling one-five-zero.”

The phrase is short and to the point. It indicates that the ship is in some form of distress and requests for assistance. The type of rescue and the location has also been provided. In addition, it allows the rescue team to know that they will have to look for a total of 150 individuals during search operations.

“Possible piracy attack. Location … and heading … I require immediate assistance. What is ETA of backup?”

By implying immediate danger and enquiring into the ETA, the person has conveyed a significant amount of information in just 3 short phrases.

Using the heading and course, a possible piracy attack can be thwarted by sending troops or a warship to the affected region.

One can also use single-word message markers to convey a message.

“QUESTION. What is the ETA of your vessel?”

“ANSWER. ETA zero nine hundred hours GMT.”

This exchange conveys the required information in an understandable manner. The person answering the question is conveying their estimated time of arrival (ETA) to be at 9 am GMT.

It is common to use military time standards using 4 digits in a 24-hour format. This removes ambiguity about the time into consideration.

Similarly,

“WARNING. Proceed with caution. Iceberg ahead.”
“INSTRUCTION. Stay on traffic lane 1.”
“REQUEST. Dispatch pilot immediately.”
“INTENTION. Vessel to move to traffic lane 1.”

When speaking to passengers over a PA system, using maritime English is also advised. In case of an emergency, take this opportunity to reassure the passengers and reiterate that the crew are doing everything in their power to improve the situation.

For instance,

“This is Captain … Passengers are advised we have collided with another vessel. Minor fire on the upper deck. No imminent danger. Firefighting measures being implemented. In case of adverse conditions, you are advised to prepare for possible evacuation by heading to assembly areas nearest to you. Further information will be relayed by either me or members of my crew.”

Although this is evidently a stressful situation, the captain has conveyed a calm and composed message that boosts confidence among passengers.

Even during normal procedures, officers often communicate with passengers in maritime English. For example, once boarding has been completed, the captain often welcomes passengers and briefs them about basic safety guidelines.
“Ladies and gentlemen. This is Captain … This is to inform you that we have left the port. We are currently at heading … with favourable weather conditions. The stern and bow doors have been secured and you are advised not to venture to zones … ETA at our destination is 1600 hours GMT.”

By sticking to maritime English phrases, one is able to ensure communication without any probable issues. In addition, it reflects a calm and collected demeanour that suits officers and crew members of sailing vessels.

How to Obtain Maritime English Certification

Budding seafarers are often not provided with the opportunity to learn proper maritime English. This acts as a disadvantage when applying for jobs and when trying to move up the industry ladder.

That is why several private and government bodies offer third-part certification in maritime English. Along with teaching you the basics and more advanced phrases, they also provide documentation that shows your proficiency in the course.

The primary step to learning maritime English lies in picking up basic English terms. This can be especially challenging for non-English speakers, but there are a variety of courses out there that can help you in this regard.

The next step is to attempt one of the many certification exams conducted by authorized bodies around the world. With the documentation provided by them, one can apply for jobs in the maritime sector.

One of the most common tests taken by seafarers looking to pick up SMCP is MarTEl, which stands for the Maritime Tests of English Language. Provided by the European Union (EU) under a funded learning program since 2007, it combines standards from both IMO and SMCP. The project uses 3 grades provided by joint partners from around Europe to provide maritime English certification to seafarers.

Seaspeak, or Maritime English as it is more commonly known today, refers to key phrases used in the maritime industry to prevent accidents because of a difference in language fluency. It removes ambiguity in common everyday phrases and instead replaces several words with more relevant terms. From the crew to the officers, everyone must be up to date on the latest terms and usage of maritime English. A large number of courses can be found- both online and in-person, which provides certification for budding maritime seafarers.

By using the correct terms, information can be conveyed between members of a ship. It even ensures that 2 captains who speak different native languages can still understand each other. In addition to replacing common English phrases and words, maritime English also uses certain codes to indicate various occurrences. This can include fires, leaks, a probable chance for sinking etc. When used correctly, it can be immensely useful in the maritime world.

And now over to you. Do you know any other interesting maritime English terms? Share your thoughts in the comments section below…

Disclaimer: The authors’ views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Marine Insight. Data and charts, if used, in the article have been sourced from available information and have not been authenticated by any statutory authority. The author and Marine Insight do not claim it to be accurate nor accept any responsibility for the same. The views constitute only the opinions and do not constitute any guidelines or recommendation on any course of action to be followed by the reader.

The article or images cannot be reproduced, copied, shared or used in any form without the permission of the author and Marine Insight.

Source:marineinsight

From 1 January 2020, the limit for sulphur in fuel oil used on board ships operating outside designated emission control areas will be reduced to 0.50% m/m (mass by mass) in accordance with MARPOL Annex VI.

As an organisation committed to improving maritime safety and environmental sustainability, RightShip actively supports the safe and complete implementation of this international regulation.

Change Management Process

This new regulation represents a significant change and requires a robust change management process. All stakeholders in the fuel custody chain are expected to ensure they are compliant in all respects and have made adequate preparations to ensure their chosen compliance option is safely implemented.

Mitigating risk in the selection of the available compliance options

A range of compliance options exist and each must be evaluated carefully by the ship operator with respect to managing operational risk and safety as required by the ISM code.

This requires a comprehensive process to manage these risks through the whole supply chain, including the correct procurement, logistics and fuel management on board.

Ship operators must also ensure they complete and provide a ship-specific implementation plan well in advance of the due date to allow for familiarization and training on board and in the office. See link below for more details.

Verification, compliance & effect on RightShip ratings

Verification of compliance will primarily be carried out by class, Flag, Port State Control and local regulatory regimes.

In instances where non-compliance with IMO2020 is discovered or reported to RightShip, such incidents will impact negatively on the vessels risk rating – particularly where a lack of proper implementation of the required compliance measures, company support and inadequate training on board is found.

It is anticipated that the (extra) electrical power required to fuel the scrubber will be provided by the auxiliary engines. This therefore does not translate into an increase in the EEDI / EVDI and will not affect a vessel’s GHG Rating.

IMO website references:

Frequently Asked Questions: http://www.imo.org/en/mediacentre/hottopics/pages/sulphur-2020.aspx

Ship Implementation Plan: http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/PollutionPrevention/Documents/MEPC.1-Circ.878.pdf

Shipping is vital to the world supply chain. During the COVID-19 pandemic, it is crucial that all personnel involved are protected from infection, including those onboard ships and shore personnel who may need to temporarily go on ships or interact with seafarers.

IMO has circulated World Health Organization (WHO) guidance on the safe and effective use of personal protective equipment (PPE), to support decisions on use of PPE to minimize the risks of COVID-19 infection for seafarers, marine personnel, fishing vessel personnel, passengers and others on board ships. This guidance also applies to shore personnel intending to go on board (such as pilots, port workers, port State control officers, shipʹs agents, etc.); and when any of these people interact with each other. The PPE guidance is available here (CL.No.4204/Add.15

To support decision making and risk assessment, IMO has also circulated practical measures to address COVID-19 risks for all people involved on ships and in ports when they may need to interact with each other, available here (CL.No.4204/Add.16). Recognizing that there are differences in national requirements, the guidelines propose a straightforward system to evaluate the risks and communicate the control measures that will be put in place, by mutual agreement, to reduce infection risk. They also propose simple steps and precautions to take if attendance onboard a ship is unavoidable. These include minimising the number of persons attending; using outer walkways rather than access through the crew accommodation; frequently cleaning hands and maintaining social distancing.

The COVID-19 related guidelines for ensuring a safe shipboard interface between ship and shore based personnel were proposed by a broad cross section of global industry associations in consultative status with IMO: ICS, IAPH, BIMCO, IACS, IFSMA, IMPA, INTERTANKO, P&I Clubs, CLIA, INTERCARGO, InterManager, IPTA, FONASBA, and WSC; and also take account of input from the International Maritime Employers’ Council (IMEC) and the International Support Vessel Owners Association (ISOA).

Source:
http://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/WhatsNew/Pages/default.aspx

Newer Posts

Older Posts