January 31, 2025

The autonomous shipping paradox: regulators’ cautious pace as industry races ahead could result in local chaos

By Mehrangiz Shahbakhsh

A century and a half after steamships revolutionised the maritime industry, the sector is now undergoing another transformative shift toward remotely operated and autonomous ships.

This transformation is evident in innovative pioneer projects worldwide, including but not limited to AUTOSHIP (Autonomous Shipping Initiative for European Waters), Yara Birkeland, the Autonomous and Remote Navigation Trial Project (ARNTP), Kongsberg Maritime Projects, MEGURI2040 Fully Autonomous Ship Program, K Line’s Autonomous Voyage Trials, Korea Autonomous Surface Ship (KASS) Project.
This shift is further supported by pioneering classification societies such as DNV, ABS, BV, CLASSNK, LR, KR, RINA, and RS. These organisations are assisting frontrunners by providing necessary frameworks and guidelines to support the development and operation of this new class of ships and associated technologies, ensuring alignment with flag and national state regulations.

For instance, DNV recently announced the launch of “a new family of class notations, Autonomous and Remotely Operated Ships (AROS)” providing a framework to assist autoremote vessels in achieving safety levels equivalent to or higher than those of conventional vessels.

In this context, remotely operated and autonomous ships are redefining the concept and the scope of safety, security (both cyber and physical), liability, insurance, interfaces complexity, and human-machine interactions. As the industry is moving towards an envisioned future and competing at a rapid pace, the question remains:

How will international regulations evolve to keep pace?

Regulating this new class of ships requires a comprehensive approach from IMO, which demands time and global consensus to draft a robust new framework and code to address existing and emerging gaps.
As the primary regulatory body, the IMO’s role is to establish a unified approach by integrating the efforts of all pioneers and stakeholders into a cohesive framework and code. Without such coordination, fragmented or unilateral regulations may create inconsistency across jurisdictions, posing challenges that could disrupt the maritime industry over time.

Revised IMO roadmap for the autonomous ship Code announced!

The IMO has been developing a Code for autonomous ships, structured in two stages: first, a voluntary (non-mandatory) phase that aims to establish an initial framework for remotely operated and autonomous ships, as well as Remote Operation Centres (ROCs), followed by a mandatory phase.

The voluntary (non-mandatory) Code was scheduled for release this year. However, at the recent IMO Safety Committee meeting, a revised roadmap was considered and announced, postponing its release to May 2026. Additionally, the development of the Experience-Building Phase (EBP) framework, initially planned for the first half of 2026, has been rescheduled to December 2026.

Despite these adjustments, the IMO has not changed the long-term goals for the mandatory Code. The development phase will start in 2028, with its adoption in 2030 and entry into force in 2032.
Thus, the IMO’s updated roadmap brings notable shifts to two key short-term milestones, reflecting both the evolving nature of this class of ship technologies, the introduction of Remote Operation Centres (ROCs), and the regulatory complexity. These adjustments may also reflect the IMO’s intent to take a more comprehensive approach and incorporate broader stakeholder input.

Global standards vs. local chaos

There are different perspectives on IMO’s slower pace and cautious regulatory approach, which may be due to a lack of preparedness among member states, limited public interest and support, the need for more concrete testing results from pilot projects, concerns over the immaturity and reliability of emerging advanced technologies, inadequate cybersecurity infrastructure and measures, or potentially complex political and bureaucratic constraints.

While there are many beliefs about the IMO cautious regulatory approach, the importance of timely international regulations in response to the development of this new class of ships, ROCs, and associated technologies cannot be denied. A unified international Code—along with amendments to existing regulations and standards—is essential for closing or at least minimising the emerging gaps and risks posed by fragmented national regulatory frameworks.

Without a cohesive IMO framework, individual pioneers may develop their own operational standards within national jurisdictions. While local regulations and standards play a critical role in the early stages of transition by supporting the innovators, significant challenges will arise as the industry moves towards internationally regulated Remotely Operated Centres (ROCs) and remotely operated and autonomous ships.
The existence of diverse national standards may create complexities that require time to harmonise, resolve potential conflicts arising from different risk appetites among nations, and align with IMO Code and standards. This process could lead to potential operational delays at ports, regulatory inefficiencies, and potential safety and security risks (both cyber and physical). Maritime operators, including seafarers, may face regulatory confusion—potentially resulting in accidents, incidents, or near misses— particularly when national rules differ slightly, are interpreted inconsistently, or are misaligned with international regulations governing this class of ships and ROCs.

From the big picture to the finer details of transformation

As the “Double D Trend” drives the maritime industry toward digitalisation and decarbonisation, the transition to remotely operated and autonomous shipping, along with ROCs, is evolving in parallel. If we zoom in on the scope of the ship itself, the shift towards remotely operated and autonomous ships is gradually transforming conventional ships into highly advanced, technology-oriented, and technology-driven platforms. Vessels will gradually be equipped either through retrofitting process or as the newly built ships with advanced technologies, real-time data capabilities, enhanced situational awareness, and a new, deeper level of integration with the cyber world.

This transformation is enabled by advanced technologies and sensor fusion embedded across the entire ship’s systems, including machinery, tools, navigation and propulsion systems, cargo handling (loading and unloading), high-connectivity data transfer to shore facilities, decision-support tools, and backup or real-time support from remote monitoring or remote-control operation centres onshore, among other advancements.

Human in the loop or out of the equation!

While these changes promise enhanced levels of safety, efficiency, and support for the human element, they do not entirely remove humans from the operational loop. However, it is important to clarify that when we talk about autonomous ships, it does not mean vessels are fully monitored and controlled by AI and other intelligent systems from point A to point B with zero human involvement. Instead, it refers to different levels of autonomy, with humans remaining in the loop—albeit in varying hierarchical roles, locations, and responsibilities—involving all dimensions of ship operations and everything the ship touches during its journey.

To better understand this new class of ships, sometimes generally referred to as autonomous ships, we need to distinguish between autonomy and automation. The key difference lies in the level of human involvement and the degree of intervention required. For instance, Wärtsilä explained it this way: “An automated vessel does not have the level of intelligence or independence that an autonomous one has. The range between manual – automated – autonomous tends to be a sliding scale of different capabilities of man vs machine. Autonomous is on the side where the vessel makes sufficiently complex decisions on its own and has zero human intervention”.

Setting that aside and returning to our topic, the transition to this new class of ships introduces various categories, levels, flavours, and degrees of autonomy, reflecting advancements in automation, autonomy, and embedded sensors technologies in navigation, propulsion systems, and entire ship’s systems. These gradual developments enhance the capabilities of these ships, making them gradually viable and paving the way for a shift from traditional operation to remotely operated and autonomous ships with ROCs backup. However, achieving this envisioned future requires parallel advancements across all dimensions of the maritime industry.

In this envisaged future, AI, along with other advanced and intelligent systems, may serve as core team members at certain stages, overseeing ship operations and eventually monitoring and controlling vessels without direct human involvement—though humans will still stay and play a role in the operational loop, reflecting the high-level concept of human-machine teaming and collaboration. However, full autonomy in autonomous ships may not yet be feasible, viable, or widely accessible in the near future and will likely remain a long-term target for international jurisdictions.

Do transition challenges hold back the future?

The short answer: NO!

Our industry has always been resilient, adapting to changes of all kinds, and it will continue to evolve, remaining one of the most robust and reliable modes of transport.

The timeline for when and where these advancements towards remotely operated and autonomous ships and ROCs will be fully realised remains uncertain, as it depends on numerous factors unique to each nation—factors that are beyond the scope of this article.

However, the shifts towards the remotely operated and autonomous ships, along with ROCs, will progress at different paces due to varying risk appetites, available resources, national regulatory approaches, and feasibility assessments conducted by individual nations. While some countries may advance rapidly, others may take a more cautious approach, considering challenges such as the immaturity of technologies, AI reliability, lack of resources and investment, lack of intelligent fairways, and limited experience with the coexistence of conventional and remotely operated and autonomous ships on shared operational routes. Additional concerns include the absence of precise national and international regulations, discrepancies between theoretical emergency response frameworks and real-world capabilities and capacity, liability concerns, environmental risks, lack of intelligent and advanced infrastructure in ports and terminals, limited public support and interest, an uncertain pathway for evolving human roles in shore-based sectors, and concerns over digital and physical piracy, among other safety and cybersecurity considerations.

Progress for individual nations

While progress may vary for individual nations, the transition away from conventional shipping and operational models is inevitable. This transition has already begun—sometimes quietly, sometimes making global headlines—across all maritime sectors. As it progresses, it requires a strategic global regulatory approach to achieve its promised goals; otherwise, we may experience chaos and inefficiency in the supply chain due to regulatory inconsistency.