International regulation for autonomous maritime
Päivi Haikkola,
Senior Ecosystem Lead, One Sea – Autonomous Maritime Ecosystem,
DIMECC Ltd,
Finland
Autonomous maritime traffic, or MASS (Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships), as it is also called, has been a popular topic in recent years. Maritime actors hope that adapting these technologies, would enable maritime traffic to decrease their GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions in the future. Both the European Union and IMO (International Maritime Organization) have set ambitious reduction goals, and they cannot be reached by adapting merely one set of tools. IMO has adopted an initial strategy on the reduction of GHG emissions from ships and set a goal to reduce the total annual GHG emissions by at least 50% by 2050. The European Commission intends to achieve climate neutrality in the EU by 2050.
To be able to apply these technologies more widely, however, the use of these technologies needs to be regulated on an international level. There are currently several projects around the world that aim to use autonomous and related technologies in ships, but without international regulation, the vessels can only be approved nationally. Vessels using these technologies, that have been approved by the national authorities, can be held up to different standards and are difficult, if not even impossible to sell internationally. For the ship owners to be ready to invest in these technologies, the international rules and regulations need to be known.
The Maritime Safety Committee (MSC) of IMO did their first foray into Maritime Autonomy already in 1964, where agenda item 11 of their 8th session was Automation in ships. The committee started with the basics, namely a definition of automation “automation refers to those processes in which machines – often including electronic controls – adjust and control their own performance with little or no human intervention once the operation is started. A distinction is generally made between a fully automated system, a partly automated system and remote control.” (MSC VIII/11, 9 March 1964).
It took a few decades, until in 2017 at MSC 98, when the issue of automation in ships was taken up again. MSC was the first of the IMO main committees to plan to undertake a scoping exercise. The purpose of the exercise was to go through the instruments under the purview of the MSC, to find out where one could expect problems, when going towards increased automation and remote operations. The work they decided to undertake, was indeed massive. MSC had to develop a framework for the regulatory scoping exercise (RSE), that would include among others the objectives, methodology, instruments, and provisional definitions. They also had to agree upon plan on how to do the RSE.
A MASS (Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships) working group was formed at MSC 99 and under the leadership of its chairman, Henrik Thunfors from Sweden, the working group started its work by clarifying what they were about to do. Again, the work started with some definitions that were necessary to complete the work, but it was clearly stated that the definitions were created for the RSE, not for anything else.
When all the preliminary work was done, the working group set out to do the actual work, namely, to go through the IMO instruments that were determined by MSC. Several member states volunteered to go through the instruments. It was impressive how the representatives where able to find the time to go through these individual instruments, despite having to complete their normal jobs at the same time. The IMO Secretariat also had to work overtime preparing the tools for the storing and commenting of RSE results on a short notice. A correspondence group and an intersessional working group were needed, so that the work could be completed on time.
The MSC had the most instruments to go through for their RSE, but other main committees of IMO initiated their RSE: s soon after MSC. The Legal Committee (LEG) and Facilitation Committee (FAL) started their work soon after MSC. LEG finalized their RSE at their 108th meeting in July 2021. FAL also finalized their work in an intersessional working group in October 2021, although it needs to be approved in the next FAL meeting. This leaves only the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) of the main committees, as not having started their work on MASS regulation. As the MEPC is quite overwhelmed by the work regarding reduction of CO2 emissions, it is possible, that they will not complete an RSE, but rather follow the lead of the other committees in the creation of rules and regulations for MASS.
At MSC 103, which ended 14th May 2021, the regulatory scoping exercise for MSC was finalized, a year later than originally planned, due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The next question was naturally, how to go forward? There were four output proposals for MASS at MSC 104 in October 2021. The proposals were merged into one and with the help of that output, MSC will start the regulatory work for MASS at MSC 105 in April 2022. The first step will be to create a roadmap for the regulatory work and in the following committee meetings (and possible intersessional working groups) the actual work on the new regulation will be started.
After the RSE, the suggestion was that the issues should be handled in a holistic manner through the development of a goal-based MASS instrument. A liaison is to be appointed to improve the coordination of the MASS issues between the different IMO committees. As it stands today, it seems that instead of making changes to several regulations regarding MASS, there will probably be a new MASS instrument that will be anchored to major IMO conventions, such as for example SOLAS (Safety of Life at Sea). In the output proposals there were suggestions that the new instruments could be finalized by 2028, but I do not expect to have them ready before 2032.
The original work of the MSC in 1964 did not result in much else than the report, that is surprisingly on point over 50 years later. This time it seems that we will be able to create regulation for the vessels utilizing these technologies. The delegates and IMO personnel, that were responsible for the report in the nineteen-sixties, would probably be both surprised that it has taken us so long to come where we are today and happy at the same time, to see IMO and the maritime community finally tackle these questions.
Email: paivi.haikkola@dimecc.com
Expert article 3099
> Back to Baltic Rim Economies 5/2021
To receive the Baltic Rim Economies review free of charge, you may register to the mailing list.
The review is published 4-6 times a year.