MARITIME NEWS Archives - Page 79 of 210

In 2020, the German navy signed a contract for four F126 frigates and an option for two more with Damen Shipyards. The war in Ukraine will now likely see Germany make use of that option, meaning a multi-billion-euro order is once again headed for Damen.

Dutch newspaper FD says the plans were revealed Johannes Dumrese, sea captain and head of the German Navy Press and Information Centre.

The Federal Office of Bundeswehr Equipment Information Technology and In-service Support (Das Bundesamt für Ausrüstung, Informationstechnik und Nutzung der Bundeswehr (BAAINBw)) and Damen Schelde Naval Shipbuilding signed the contract for the construction of the MKS 180, now named F126, for the German Navy on 19 June 2020. It is one of the largest procurement projects in the history of the German navy.

The F126 will replace the F123 Brandenburg class frigates. The contract comprises the supply of four ships from 2028 to 2031 with an option for two more beyond 2032. The new frigates come with a price tag of more than one billion euros a piece.

Built in Germany

The signing of the contract is the result of a European tender issued by the BAAINBw in 2015. Damen, together with its partners Blohm+Voss, a subsidiary of the Lürssen Group, and Thales, was declared the winner of the five-year tender. Together with its partners and involving German Naval Yards Kiel, Damen will handle the order in such a way that about eighty per cent of the total net investments will remain in Germany.

The ships will be built at Blohm+Voss in Hamburg, involving other Northern German shipyards in Bremen, Kiel, as well as in Wolgast and thus 100 per cent in Germany. The main contract also includes logistic services and multiple land-based test and training sites.

All signals green for extending order

According to Dumrese the political decision still has to be made at a later stage in the Bundestag, but according to him all signals are green for extending the frigate contract, adding that Germany wants ‘to be quick’.

A spokesman for Damen Shipyards tells FD the company is both delighted and ready should Germany decide to make use of the option.

Jun 19, 2022 (Bloomberg) –An unfinished mega-liner that was to be one of the world’s biggest cruise ships by capacity is sitting in a German shipyard, waiting to be scrapped, because bankruptcy administrators can’t find a buyer, according to cruise industry magazine An Bord.

The lower hull of a liner known as Global Dream II, the second global class vessel from insolvent MV Werften shipyard on Germany’s Baltic coast, is to be disposed of at scrap price, An Bord reported, citing insolvency administrator Christoph Morgen. Machinery and much of the equipment, which had already been delivered, are to be sold, the German magazine cited Morgen as saying at a press conference on Friday.

Morgen’s focus is now on its sister ship, Global Dream, which is ready to float in the dock in Wismar, northern Germany, the magazine said. MV Werften’s Wismar shipyard was sold to Thyssenkrupp AG’s Kiel-based naval unit, which plans to build military vessels there from 2024 amid rising tensions following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Thyssenkrupp Marine Systems wants the large dock to be available by the end of 2023, it said.

Both of the ships were initially commissioned by Asia-based Dream Cruises, which collapsed along with its parent company Genting Hong Kong earlier this year after the Covid-19 pandemic sapped demand for cruises.

Plans to complete the Global Dream at the Wismar site have collapsed, An Bord said. Sweden’s Stena AB, which wanted to build a cruise product in Asia, was the only interested party, but bailed out when former Genting owner Lim Kok Thay announced a new cruise brand in Singapore at the same time China upheld strict travel restrictions, the magazine said, also citing tensions in the South China Sea.

Global Dream could be towed to any location in the world by ocean-going tugs, the magazine said. If no serious buyer is found in coming weeks, Morgen will have to start a bidding process, which would allow ship brokers with contacts to maritime scrap yards to submit their bids, it said. German cruise ship builder Meyer Werft could help finish Global Dream, after which the liner would be mothballed due to the current lack of buyers, lo Ostsee-Zeitung reported this week.

Digitalization undeniably results in significant efficiency gains, safer and more resilient supply chains, and lower emissions. The impact would also extend far beyond the maritime sector given the strategic role of the shipping industry. However, this has also brought about the digital divide between more economically developed ports and those in emerging economies.

Digital transformation has the potential to bring wide-ranging economic benefits and contribute to a stronger, more sustainable recovery from the global Covid-19 pandemic, particularly in low and middle-income countries.

Port hierarchy

Eleanor Hadland, senior analyst in Drewry’s Ports and Terminals practice, noted in a recent industry update, “There’s increasingly a requirement for high-quality digital infrastructure, specifically extensive internet and mobile data networks and digital supply chain networks.”

So, ports and terminals, she said, need to “pay as much, if not more, attention to digital infrastructure as they do to physical infrastructure. The shift to e-commerce reinforces the business case for port-centric logistics in many places. And, most importantly of all, failure to invest in digital connectivity could result in a loss of physical connectivity.”

According to the consulting firm Deloitte, only the top few ports around the world, those Tier 1 ones with resources and financial capabilities, can be said to have achieved a “smart port” status, hence enjoying the benefits of digitalization.

On the other hand, over 80 percent of the ports in the world are in “Tier 2 and below”, implying that they do not have the kind of access to digital technology, or it is out of their financial capabilities.

Boston Consulting Group said that many ports, in particular, the small to medium sized ones “remain firmly anchored in the past”, with paper-based documentation and manual labour. This, in turn, creates an unbalanced landscape within the global port sector.

The “old fashioned way” leaves them not only vulnerable to delay from supply chain disruption, as witnessed during the recent and still ongoing pandemic but perhaps more importantly, vulnerable strategically as they are less able to compete in an increasingly digital maritime world.

Refusal to share data

In the Future of Shipping 2021 webinar by Lloyd’s List, during a panel discussion, it was agreed that data sharing is fundamental to digital progression in the industry. However, electronically sharing data, an important component of digitalization, is still not widespread in the maritime industry.

“Dare to share data,” said Søren Christian Meyer, CEO of ZeroNorth and a panelist. “[This is] a big, big change that we are now seeing in the industry. People are beginning to realize [that] we cannot build all the technology ourselves, we have to find out what are our angles, and then we need to collaborate with others.”

The industry value of real-time operational data collected onboard digitally-integrated ships increases enormously if the data is shared and used strategically for big data analysis, benchmarking and performance optimization across companies and authorities.

The International Maritime Organization (IMO) has made it mandatory for all its member states to exchange key data electronically under the Facilitation of International Maritime Traffic (FAL) Convention.

Unfortunately, a recent International Association of Ports and Habors (IAPH) survey revealed that only a third of over 100 responding ports comply with that requirement. This poses a barrier to the collaboration and sharing community that enables a smooth transition to digitalization and ultimately delivers industry-wide advantages.

Interestingly, the main barriers cited by the ports are the legal framework in their countries or regions, human capital limitations, and failure of the multiple private-public stakeholders to collaborate, but not the technology itself.

And it is not just ports and terminals that need to bridge the digital gap. The container carrier industry, which is known to be opaque due to a lack of open data, would need to close the gap too.

The Digital Container Shipping Association (DCSA) pointed out in its digital standards report that “track and trace data is not aligned or digitalized across carriers and their logistics partners, which means that multi-modal transport chains often appear as ‘black boxes’ to customers, and containers are lost from view at certain points in the supply chain.”

“Standardizing data handling practices,” the DCSA report said, “is equivalent to installing modern plumbing in a city. Without it, good quality water – in this case, accurate and actionable data – simply cannot flow freely to every household.”

So, the industry needs, among other things, to embrace what the DCSA advocates, a standards-based digital innovation imperative that will set the industry’s course into the future.

According to the World Bank, in the short term, countries that are left behind may experience shortages of essential goods and higher prices, as was illustrated at the start of the Covid-19 pandemic. In the medium to long term, delaying the digital transition of the maritime supply chain could lead to higher trade costs, lower competitiveness, lower economic growth, and lower employment.

The digital divide may eventually widen the gap between developed and developing economies and exacerbate the isolation of the poorest countries.

Senate authorizers want to stop the Navy from retiring half the ships it planned to decommission next year, according to a summary of the bill.

The Senate Armed Services Committee’s Fiscal Year 2023 defense authorization bill would halt the Navy’s plans to retire 12 ships, half of the 24 the service proposed decommissioning in its budget request.

Should the upper chamber’s bill become law, the Navy would need to keep four Dock Landing Ships, five Littoral Combat Ships, two Expeditionary Transfer Docks and one Ticonderoga-class guided missile cruiser.

The cruiser the Navy would need to keep in service is USS Vicksburg (CG-69), which is nearly finished with a modernization overhaul at BAE Systems Ship Repair in Norfolk, Va. The four LSDs are USS Germantown (LSD-42), USS Gunston Hall (LSD-44), USS Tortuga (LSD-46) and USS Ashland (LSD-48), while the two ESDs are USNS Montford Point (ESD-1) and USNS John Glenn (LSD-2). It’s unclear which five LCSs the committee is saving in its bill. The Navy asked to decommission nine LCSs in the FY 2023 budget request.

Asked why the panel is preventing the Navy from retiring some of the ships, committee staff said the vessels still have years of service life left. Staff also noted that the committee included a requirement for 31 amphibious ships, meaning the service would need to keep the LSDs. The LCSs are young ships, and the cruiser’s modernization overhaul is almost complete and would give it more years of service life, according to staff.

The bill follows a similar provision in the House Appropriations defense subcommittee’s legislation, which would also mandate the Navy keep five LCSs and allow the service to retire four. Meanwhile, the House Armed Services Committee seapower and projection forces subcommittee’s mark of its policy bill would require the Navy keep Vicksburg and the four Whidbey Island-class amphibs.

The SASC bill, which the committee approved on Thursday, increased the defense topline by $45 billion, about half of which will go toward inflation, according to committee staff.

The panel met the Navy’s request for ship procurement by authorizing eight battleforce ships: two Virginia-class attack boats, two Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, one Constellation-class frigate, one San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock, one T-AO-205 John Lewis-class oiler and one T-ATS 6 Navajo-class towing, salvage and rescue ship

The SASC notably included research and development funding for the Sea-Launched Cruise Missile, which has become a controversial pursuit over the last year. The Biden administration in the FY 2023 budget proposal chose to cancel SLCM. SASC committee staff pointed to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley’s, U.S. Strategic Command chief Adm. Chas Richard’s, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Chris Grady’s support for developing SLCM in justifying why the panel included the research and development funding for the program.

Some House Democrats have voiced opposition to the program. House appropriators did not allot any funding for SLCM in their defense spending bill, unveiled earlier this week. The House Appropriations defense subcommittee passed the bill on Wednesday and it awaits markup from the full House Appropriations Committee.

On the aviation side, SASC largely met the Navy’s request – authorizing 15 F-35B Lightning II Joint Strike Fighters, 13 F-35Cs, and five E-2D Advanced Hawkeyes. The service authorized 12 CH-53K King Stallions for the Marine Corps, an increase of 2 aircraft from the Navy’s request for 10. HAC-D similarly allotted funding for 12 CH-53Ks.

Now that the authorization bill has passed through SASC, it will head to the Senate floor.

“This forward-looking NDAA invests in people, platforms, and infrastructure. It authorizes increased funding for our national defense and sets policies to equip, supply, and train U.S. forces now and in the future. It provides for military families while strengthening America’s industrial base and the workers who contribute to our national security,” SASC Chairman Jack Reed (D-R.I.) said in a statement. “This year’s markup provides our troops and Defense Department civilians with a well-deserved 4.6 percent pay raise, as well as new tools and reforms to protect the health and well-being of our servicemembers and their families.”

In March 2022, a rather unusual event took place in Athens. Co-organized by Panteion University and the Japanese Embassy in Greece, a hybrid workshop was successfully completed, aiming at “Establishing a Free and Open Maritime Order” with a focus on bilateral cooperation between the two countries. It is perhaps the first time in the last decade that academics and government officials between Japan and Greece have come together at a public event dedicated to maritime security and cooperation.

The timing of the event was not random. Greece’s relationship with Turkey is deteriorating and tensions are escalating dangerously due to their maritime disputes in the Aegean Sea and the eastern Mediterranean Sea. The dispute is complicated, and perceptions from each side are different. According to Turkey, for instance, everything starts back in 1923 and the Treaty of Lausanne, the main treaty between the two countries concerning the border delimitation and demarcation, including of the Aegean Sea. But the main issue in the last decades is the potential undersea resources of the maritime area and control of the waters and seabed.

Of course, tensions are nothing new in the historically troubled bilateral relationship between the two nations. However, back in summer 2020, the crisis almost turned into an accident, which could easily turn into a conflict. The Turkish survey ship Oruc Reis, along with a part of the Turkish fleet, came face-to-face with their Greek counterparts in the eastern Mediterranean. The Turkish side was willing to proceed to seismic surveys in the Greek-claimed part of the seabed without the necessary permission as provisioned by the United Nations Law of the Sea Convention (UNCLOS). The result was fleets on high alert, two warships colliding, and foreign navies intervening. In a more general context, it was the longest and worst crisis since the events of the 1970s, which culminated in the Turkish invasion in Cyprus.

Certain elements of the above may sound familiar to Asia watchers. In the Sino-Japanese dispute over the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands, talks go nowhere and both countries have different perceptions fueled by nationalism and their respective domestic political agendas. The equivalent of the Lausanne Treaty is the Treaty of Shimonoseki, with different interpretations from the parties involved. Collisions in the disputed waters are frequent, especially since 2010, with the last notable one, also by coincidence in 2020, between a Japanese naval ship and a Chinese fishing vessel, with the Japanese vessel receiving damage. Of course, the main issue concerns the ownership of the islands and subsequent demarcation of the sea areas, which will in turn affect the exploitation of the potential natural resources on the seabed.

Hence, it is indeed not a surprise that Japan found a potential ally in Greece and vice versa. For a start, both are maritime nations, and both are in the top three of ship-owning countries worldwide. Both are also adopting a defensive posture in terms of security policy, and are facing similar threats and security dilemmas in their neighborhoods. In the eyes of Greece, Turkey is a revisionist power that unilaterally challenges the status quo and poses threats to the regional and international security. For Japan, this role is played by China. Both countries feel that their territorial sovereignty is threatened and are siding with international law in order to find solutions; their neighbors, however, have a different interpretation of reality and the law.

As a result, the maritime-themed workshop between the two countries was a pleasant surprise. An exchange of ideas for cooperation is always the first step, especially in the areas of strategic dialogue and joint training. As expressed by the Japanese side and professors from Keio and Tokyo Universities, future cooperation could include navy-to-navy and coast guard-to-coast guard Staff talks; exchanges on maritime domain awareness (MDA) and best practices at sea; and more importantly, bilateral participation in regional exercises and training in the Pacific and the Mediterranean Sea.

The title of the event is notable as well. The call to establish a “Free and Open Maritime Order” is just a slight alteration of the “Free and Open Indo-Pacific” strategy, which Japan has been following since the Abe administration. The goals of the latter are, very briefly, to connect the “Two Continents” (Africa and Asia) and the “Two Oceans” (the Pacific and the Indian), based on the principles of “international cooperation” and of a diplomatic initiative with a “panoramic perspective of the world map.” The steps toward Greco-Japanese cooperation are an extension of this strategy, moving it a past the east coast of Africa. In that sense, it’s a recognition of the important geopolitical area of the eastern Mediterranean and the potential chokepoints on the Aegean Sea.

It is also an indirect step toward the enhancement of the EU-Japan bilateral relationship and bolstering Japanese influence in the European Union through Greece. And Japan is not alone is seeing this opportunity. Greece became a part of the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) through a years-long process to bolster China’s influence in the European country.

The Chinese conglomerate COSCO de facto controls one of the largest ports in the Mediterranean, Piraeus, and is a significant shareholder of the second biggest port of Greece in Thessaloniki. In public diplomacy terms, the cooperation and understanding between China and Greece has advanced enormously during the last decade; this engagement has translated into political gains for the Chinese. One prominent example was an incident back in 2017, when Greece blocked an EU statement criticizing the human rights record of China in the United Nations. At the time, the Greek foreign minister stated the resolution was an “unconstructive criticism of China.”

Of course, Japan is not China, and their goals are different. There is no Japanese equivalent of China’s BRI project, aiming to expand into the Balkans. That said, the China-Greece relationship is more advanced; that also means that the Greco-Japanese one has its limits.

Nonetheless, the new steps toward Greece-Japan engagement should be enhanced and cultivated further. In security and defense policy, Greece can and should invest in bilateral talks with Japan, as mentioned earlier. In tactical terms, engagement in military and especially naval exercises should become the norm, taking advantage of the Japanese military technology, experience, and special relationship with the United States. Washington is a security provider for both countries, through NATO and subsequent bilateral treaties with Greece, and through a special long-standing military alliance with Japan.

The problem, however, is more on the Greek side. Greece for decades engaged in a short-sighted, neighbor-oriented foreign policy. The top priority in the agenda was, justifiably, Turkey; the second priority was a name dispute with a small neighbor to the north, draining large politico-diplomatic resources due to misrepresented cultural imageries and nationalistic sentiments. Now, with the latter issue resolved, Greece finally seems willing to catch up with the world. Greece has become engaged in African diplomacy, trying to secure votes for a U.N. Security Council placement, and in East Asia as well, with following visits of the minister of foreign affairs to India and Japan, for instance.

For Greece, cultivating a relationship with Japan, other than public diplomacy events and yearly celebrations in their embassies, will lead to the incorporation of useful lessons on how to deal with maritime disputes and how to bolster its deterrence posture. The exchange of ideas will be valuable for understanding how to respond together to common existential threats from their neighbors, while taking the differences into account. It is a unique opportunity to gain experience and knowledge from a global actor and potential ally.

Japan seems ready to contribute; Greece needs to step up.

The recently formed sailing cruise line Tradewind Voyages has announced that it is suspending new bookings and may have to cancel voyages because of sanctions-related disruption to its financing.

The line’s owner, DIV Group, has a financing relationship with the German division of VTB Bank. The Russian state-owned banker has been hit hard by European and U.S. sanctions over the invasion of Ukraine. Among other things, this means that VTB’s German subsidiary has been cut off from its Russian parent company: German financial regulator BaFin has ruled that VTB’s Moscow headquarters can no longer give the German branch instructions or access its assets due to EU sanctions.

DIV Group, the owner of Tradewind Voyages, says that it is currently “taking financial advice” and exploring options. In the meantime, Tradewind has paused voyage sales and it cautioned that “voyage cancellations are expected.” All customer deposits for bookings are secure, however, and are stored in a trust fund.

“While we have been working with VTB Germany, its headquarters are based in Russian where the bank has been sanctioned because of the conflict between Ukraine and Russia,” said CEO Alan McGrory. “DIV Group continues to explore every option to rectify the issue. The decision to pause sale on voyages is a difficult one, but the right thing to do currently.”

Tradewind Voyages’ sole vessel, the gigantic square-rigger Golden Horizon, was scheduled to sail in the Mediterranean through October 2022 and the Caribbean for the 2022-23 winter season.

Golden Horizon is a new five-masted barque built by Brodosplit Shipyard for Star Clippers. After a series of complex disputes over the vessel’s construction and financing, Star Clippers dropped out of the project, and Brodosplit completed the vessel on its own. The shipyard then leased her to newly-formed Tradewind Voyages, which began commercial operations in May 2021.

The United States was assigned 80 percent of the responsibility for causing a deadly 2017 collision between the guided missile destroyer USS John McCain and a Liberian-registered oil tanker Alnic MC in the Singapore Strait according to a decision filed on June 15 by a U.S. District Court Judge in the Southern District of New York. In this 70-page decision, the judge reconstructs the minutes leading up to the collision as he sought to apportion liability for the collision and calculates the respective damages for the U.S. Navy and the tanker’s owners Energetic Tank.

The court decided to split the long-running case into two phases, with the first phase heard last November in a bench trial presided over by U.S. District Court Judge Paul Crotty. Based on this decision handed down yesterday, the case will proceed to a second phase where the court will then adjudicate the personal injury and wrongful death claims by the sailor-claimants against the shipping company.

The shipping company had sued in 2018 seeking to limit the compensation for any claims filed by the Navy, injured sailors, or the families of sailors who died in the collision to more than the $16.7 million value assigned to the tanker and her cargo. Energetic Tank sought to place blame for the accident entire on the U.S. Navy and the crew of the destroyer. While the Navy has admitted partial responsibility for the accident, they argue that the tanker played a role in the collision while the survivors and families of the 10 sailors killed when compartments on the McCain flooded argued the collision was entirely avoidable.

The court ruled that the McCain was primarily at fault for “creating a scenario where collision between the vessels was either inevitable, or all-but inevitable. However, Alnic bears significant blame for its failure to take any meaningful action to minimize the carnage caused by the collision.” The judge also considered efforts by the tanker’s operators at a cover-up and false statements in their defense.

The judge denies Energetic Tank’s petition for limitation of the liability and its petition for exoneration. Instead, using the $185 million damages to the McCain and 450 days it took to repair the warship, along with the $442,445 in damages to the Alnic, the judge ordered the tanker company to pay the United States $44.6 million.

“The rich trove of data from both vessels played an important role at trial. It helped to reassemble, second-by-second, exactly how the collision happened,” writes judge Crotty in his ruling. The decision constructions a moment-by-moment account of the events leading up to the collision.

Early on August 21, 2017, the USS John McCain was behind schedule and increased speed to 20 knots while navigating the busy shipping lane heading for a regularly scheduled port visit. Captain Alfredo Sanchez who was commander of the McCain, decided to overtake a group of slower moving commercial vessels including the Alnic, which was operating at 9.6 knots. Before reaching the vessels, the commander testified that he ordered transfer of thrust control to the lee helm so that the helmsman “could focus on steering, particularly given McCain’s proximity to nearby vessels.” An examination of the records reveals that only port thrust control was transferred and the vessel immediately went out of control. Confusion ensued on the bridge as the officers and sailors attempted to determine the problem and regain control.

The destroyer signaled its loss of control but the tanker failed to take appropriate evasive actions. Later they made false statements saying they had ordered a stop but in fact never ordered a stop and only ordered slower speeds when they observed the McCain.

Aboard the McCain, they were left to navigate the vessel with the ship’s Integrated Bridge and Navigation System, which the court refers to in its decision as “new, glitchy, and unwieldy, complicating McCain’s ability to navigate.”

The court denied the United States’ contention that the Alnic was 70 percent to blame instead saying that the McCain’s crew acted negligently by deciding not to stop outright after they had lost control of steering. “Despite his awareness of severe problems on the bridge, Commander Sanchez ordered the destroyer to continue forward at around 10 knots—still faster than many nearby vessels …. The crew had at least three minutes to press the All Stop button, which was available in plain sight on the IBNS touchscreen.” While noting it would not have been an immediate stop, the court cites the captain who said the vessel has impressive stopping power.

“There is no question McCain created the situation of danger in the Singapore Strait,” writes the judge. “The improper use of steering and thrust was entirely preventable.” The court also find that there was a longstanding lack of training for the McCain’s crew that sparked the confusion on her bridge and fueled the mistakes leading up to the collision.

The court also cites a list of problems with the Alnic leading to its decision to assign 20 percent of the blame to the tanker. Judge Crotty says the vessel’s bridge was improperly staffed hampering its ability to assess the situation and take steps to avoid the collision. He says the tanker could have slowed or turned away from the McCain. “Alnic’s most inexcusable fault, though, was her failure to do anything to mitigate the damage after colliding with McCain,” the judge writes while also citing false logs and statements. “The crew’s subsequent cover up confirms the apportionment of Alnic’s fault.”

Having concluded that Energetic Tank shall not be exonerated from liability, the court will proceed to the wrongful death and personal injury claims against the tanker company in phase two of the trial.

Ports are increasingly taking steps to support the decarbonization of shipping. In addition to the initiatives looking at the formation of green shipping corridors, individual ports are introducing green incentives providing incentives for ships that meet emission standards or employ alternative green fuels to reduce emissions.

The Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore announced as of May 1, 2022, that it was introducing enhancements to its Green Port Program to encourage environmental sustainability among ocean-going vessels calling at the Port of Singapore as well as for licensed harbor craft operating in the port. Part of the Maritime Singapore Green Initiative, this program is an adjunct to its Green Ship Program. In April, Singapore announced it would offer financial incentives to ships entering the Singapore flag registry or currently registered in Singapore that adopts IMO efficiency standards or green fuels. New ships registering in Singapore can qualify for reductions ranging between 50 and 100 percent for their initial registration fee and annual tonnage tax while currently registered ships that adopt the new standards qualify for reductions between 20 and 100 percent.

Under the Green Port Program Singapore is now also offering reductions in port dues. Ships calling at the port can receive a 30 percent reduction by using zero-carbon fuel ranging from hydrogen to synthetic, non-carbon fuels derived from renewable electricity based on solar, wind, or hydropower. Ships can qualify for a 25 percent reduction in port dues for using low carbon fuels including LNG and 20 percent or greater biofuel blends.

ingapore is also extending its incentives to licensed harbor craft operating in the port. Newly-built vessels using low or zero-carbon fuels or operating fully electric once they register will receive a five-year waiver of their port dues.

The Halifax Port Authority in Canada announced that it is also now offering incentives to container and RoRo vessels that voluntarily register and meet the International Association of Ports and Harbors’ (IAPH) Environmental Ship Index’s requirements for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The ESI formula evaluates the amount of nitrogen oxide (NOx), sulfur oxide (SOx), and carbon dioxide (CO?) emitted by a vessel providing a score for each vessel. The index assists in identifying ships that proactively go beyond the emission standards required by the International Maritime Organization.

Halifax announced that it is joining the World Port Climate Initiative as an incentive provider. The WPCI was launched initially in 2008 by the IAPH and regional port organizations to provide ports worldwide with a framework to mitigate their impact on climate change. Ports in North and South America, Europe, the Middle East, Asia, and Australia have all become incentive provider ports,

The HPA will administer, and rebate annually, an ESI Harbor Dues Incentive of C$500 for vessels with an ESI-assigned Index score between 20 and 49.99, and C$1,000 for vessels with an ESI-assigned Index score of 50 or higher per port call.

The IAPH recently announced that an initiative is underway to introduce a second generation of the index as well as a new at-berth module. The proposals will be presented at the IAPH World Ports Conference later this month. Starting in 2023 with cruise ships as a pilot for a two-year period, the at-berth module is then expected to expand to other types of traffic rewarding actual performance related to each port call.

The Maritime Anti-Corruption Network (MACN) has launched a one-of-a-kind online platform that shows the frequency with which corruption is reported at individual ports. The Global Port Integrity Platform (GPIP) is based on MACN’s catalogue of incident data, including more than 50,000 incident reports collected since 2011. It also draws on external data sources to allow MACN’s members to compare individual ports’ integrity risks.

“GPIP will be a gamechanger in the fight against maritime corruption. Currently, there are no international standards, or systematic methods of measuring integrity within and between ports,” said MACN Associate Director Martin Benderson. “GPIP will allow charterers, cargo owners, and shipping companies to compare ports’ integrity performance and identify risks when trading. For seafarers and shipping companies, GPIP will provide dynamic data that will help empower the industry to ‘Say No’ to corruption.”

The platform currently includes data on 106 ports from over 50 countries, but MACN’s ambition is to double the number of ports in the system by the end of the year. Access is available for MACN members, select stakeholders and port sector partners, like investors and international donors.

MACN also sees the portal as a tool for “evidence-based” conversations among governments, industry stakeholders, and port operators – a new way to share information about corruption and to compare and contrast performance

The petty corruption found at certain ports and strategic waterways is an impediment for global trade. Solicitations for bribes – typically for cigarettes, alcohol or cash – are routinely encountered in official interactions at some ports, and refusing to pay often results in delays for the ship.

“The cost of corrupt demands, and the repercussions for refusing them, have massive consequences for the industry and trade,” said MACN CEO Cecilia Müller Torbrand.

Thanks in part to efforts by campaigners like MACN, port corruption has been on the decline for many years. The drop-off was especially pronounced during the height of the pandemic, when vessel quarantine restrictions made it more difficult for port officials to come aboard and solicit bribes in person.

The Biden administration is quietly asking its partners in the EU and the UK to soften a recently-announced ban on marine insurance for Russian oil cargoes, according to the Financial Times.

The ban was agreed at the end of May, and when it takes effect, it will cut Russian energy exporters off from the Lloyd’s market and from the International Group of P&I Clubs, which provides about 95 percent of global cover for tanker liability. It will also cut off Russian cargoes from much of the reinsurance market, which is heavily concentrated in Europe.

The expectation of a coming ban is already having an effect, according to Reuters: Western insurers have already begun shying away from Russian oil cargoes, leaving the tanker operators who are willing to move the crude with fewer options. The effects of these early “self-sanctioning” decisions will begin to be seen as early as next month, shipping executives told Reuters, and oil traders have already begun pricing in the effects.

The concern in Washington is that a full insurance ban would make trade in Russian oil nearly impossible, and it would remove up to eight percent of the world’s crude supply from the market. After all, this is the stated objective of the ban, and it is likely to succeed in cutting the Kremlin’s income. However, the resulting supply shock is expected to cause another jump in energy prices for everyone, right before the U.S. midterm elections.

In a recent editorial, prominent economist Olivier Blanchard estimated that cutting off Russia from the global oil market could lead to a crude price hike of 20-30 percent. This would have damaging effects for the global economy, not just for Russia. Instead, he suggested, it would be less damaging if the EU and UK were to allow Russia to keep shipping oil – but only if it sold at a low price. “The policy aim should be to make it very expensive to handle Russian oil cargoes, but not prohibitively so,” he argued.

According to the Financial Times, the Biden administration is asking its European partners to soften the marine insurance ban in exactly this way – to allow some Russian oil exports, but only for cargoes sold below a certain price threshold. However, the FT reports that this idea is not taking hold among policymakers in the EU, who have already legislated a full insurance ban and have no plans to revisit the issue.

Newer Posts

Older Posts

Germany seeks to extend F126 frigate order with Damen Shipyards

Built in Germany

All signals green for extending order

Giant Cruise Ship’s Maiden Voyage May Be To A Scrapyard

Digital Divide Splits Maritime Industry

Port hierarchy

Refusal to share data

Senate Defense Authorization Bill Halts Half of Navy’s Planned Ship Retirements

Greece, Japan, and Maritime Disputes

Sanctions Impact Bookings for Tradewind Voyages’ Barque

US Navy 80% Responsible for 2017 Collision, Tanker Owner to Pay $45M

Ports Providing Financial Incentives for Green Vessels

MACN Launches First-of-its-Kind Anti-Corruption Database

Report: U.S. Asks EU to Soften Insurance Ban for Russian Oil Cargoes

News

Navigating Rising Maritime Purchasing Expenses in 2025

Recent Cybersecurity Incidents and Regulatory Developments in the Maritime Industry (March 2025)

Navigating Maritime ESG: Upcoming Regulations and Compliance Strategies

Quick Menu

Company DETAILS

ISO 9001:2015 CERTIFIED