By Mehrangiz Shahbakhsh, Shipping Australia
Are there significant legal and regulatory barriers to address the adoption of autonomous ships? Will the ship master and crew be replaced with AI?
Since 1967, the International Maritime Organization (IMO), has been actively involved in the realm of automation technology within the maritime industry. During this time, the IMO’s Maritime Safety Committee (MSC) distributed Circular 37, titled “Automation in ships.” Building upon this foundation, Circular 55 (1968), Circular 66 (1969), and Circular 78 (1970) were subsequently introduced to establish a baseline for the introduction of automation and autonomy onboard ships. These early efforts demonstrated that the integration of technology onboard vessels has been a longstanding focus for the IMO.
While technology integration is not a novel subject for the IMO, the emergence of autonomous ships represents a significant leap forward and necessitates continuous development in legal and regulatory dimensions.
The rapid development of autonomous ship projects last decade through pioneer countries worldwide encouraged the IMO to initiate a Regulatory Scoping Exercise in 2017. This exercise is conducted by IMO’s three committees, including Maritime Safety Committee, Legal Committee, and Facilitation Committee of the IMO, with the goal of addressing the issues.
In 2018, the MSC defined Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships (MASS) as: “A ship that operates at various levels independent of human interference”.
Based on this definition, the IMO proposed four degrees of autonomy ranging from crewed ships with automated processes and decision support (Degree1), remotely controlled ship with seafarers onboard (Degree2), remotely controlled ship without seafarers onboard (Degree 3) to fully autonomous ships (Degree 4).
It is important to note that these degrees were established during the Regulatory Scoping Exercise as a guide for discussions and may be subject to change as MASS regulations continue to evolve.
After a series of meetings and discussions in 2021, the outcome of the regulatory exercise revealed the importance of addressing high-priority concerns related to the safety of navigation in some conventions, such as SOLAS, MARPOL, COLREGs, and STCW. It was concluded that existing provisions in some international conventions could accommodate the concept of MASS, though some interpretations or amendments might be necessary. Moreover, it was highlighted that conventions beyond the IMO’s jurisdiction, such as UNCLOS and the MLC 2006, may need to consider future initiatives by the IMO regarding MASS.
As part of this process, this joint Working Group was established a cross-cutting mechanism to investigate the applicability of existing IMO instruments and address high-priority concerns.
The working group conducted its first session in September 2022, where discussions and insights were shared during the MASS Seminar regarding associated responsibilities of MASS master, crew, and remote operators. Moreover, a dynamic table was designed to serve as an evolving document to identify preferred approaches for resolving shared concerns.
Within this process, the IMO devised a roadmap that includes the development of a non-mandatory goal-based MASS Code, expected to be adopted in early 2025 as the first phase. This will be followed by the formulation of a mandatory MASS Code, set to be effective from January 1, 2028. The mandatory Code will incorporate findings and conclusions from the non-mandatory Code report.
The second session, held in June 2023, provided several key updates. The human master remains responsible for MASS, regardless of the degree of autonomy or operational mode, and should intervene when necessary. The definitions for the Remote Operations Centre and the Remote Operator were proposed during this session. It was also noted that under specific circumstances, one or more Remote Operations Centres (ROCs) could be responsible for a MASS on a single voyage. Moreover, in certain circumstances, a master may be accountable for multiple MASS simultaneously, or multiple masters may be responsible for a MASS on a single voyage. The Standards of Training, Certification, and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW) as it applies to seafarers working onboard MASS was discussed.
However, STCW does not apply to remote operators and masters at ROCs. The MASS Code will address all training, certification, and competency requirements, with STCW forming the basis.
This update emphasized the essential role of human operators at varying levels of autonomy within the operational loop, with technology as a supportive tool.
Further details can be found on the IMO website.
Contributing to the development of IMO policy
The IMO is working to shape the regulatory landscape of autonomous shipping. It’s important to note that the IMO operates through its committees and assemblies which are attended by delegates from the countries that have signed up to become Member States. A variety of inter-governmental and non-governmental organisations also contribute expert input and insight into the policy work of the IMO.
So, If you wish to influence the development of IMO policy on autonomous shipping, the first step is to reach out to either your country’s maritime administration or to an IMO-recognised inter-governmental or non-governmental organisation to express your views.
