WHITE PAPER

AUTONOMOUS SHIPS
AND SAFETY AT SEA

ONE SEA | Autonomous Ships and Safety at Sea 1

 Contents
p2 Foreword WHITE PAPER
p3 Introduction
p4 1 | Today’s safety framework
p5 2 | Cyber security
p6 3 | Owner/Operator views
p8 4 | The role of the human in decision-making
p9 5 | Insurance implications
p12 6 | Classification
p14 7 | Next steps

Foreword
By Capt. Eero Lehtovaara
Chairman, One Sea

Advances in connectivity and digital technologies are transforming all aspects of

life today, and most notably, through the recent months of global pandemic. In a
marine context, and combined with advances in ship autonomy, they are also having
a dramatic impact on global shipping with major implications for the future.
I am proud to say that amongst the membership of the One Sea alliance, we have
some of the world’s most distinguished marine automation technology innovators
and enablers. Independently, our members will affirm that in principle there are few
technological constraints on the potentially autonomous ships of the future. In the
years ahead, they envisage autonomous ships making a significant contribution to
raising industry productivity, enhancing sustainability and improving the conditions of
those working at sea.
Perhaps less fully appreciated is the direct and powerful contributions autonomous
ship technologies are and will make to enhancing maritime safety. The purpose of this
publication is to examine the safety gains for shipping being achieved and expected,
in order to drive the wider consultative process without delay.
All of us realise that technology depends on a robust regulatory framework and, as
technology pioneers cooperating in our autonomous shipping ecosystem, we have
considerable knowledge and expertise to offer as new rules and regulations are drawn
up.
After all, where ‘autonomy’ includes the greater use of automated systems in deep-
sea and coastal trades, remote control systems to improve tug and port service
vessel safety in busy port areas, or fully autonomous systems for short-haul crossings
between two points, the vessels concerned will continue to be manned. Indeed, far
from posing a threat to seafarers’ jobs, such solutions will demand new skill sets of
seagoing personnel. And to reflect these developments, it is fair to say that a new
regulatory framework is now urgently required.
One Sea members spearheading new initiatives in ship autonomy in Europe and Asia
are engaging not only with national maritime authorities in the development of specific
projects within their jurisdictions, but also at an international level in the development
of this global regulatory framework.

ONE SEA | Autonomous Ships and Safety at Sea 2

Introduction
Global shipping is facing at least three decades of momentous change as it adapts to
Industry 4.0 and an unprecedented transition to carbon-free fuels that have not yet
even been developed for marine applications.
Industry 4.0 neatly describes the challenges faced by shipowners and operators
today. It represents the combination of new digital technologies which offer scope
for significant efficiency gains, increased transparency and thus improved decision
making, and the adoption of operational automation and potentially autonomous
ships in the future.
At first sight, the link between the marine fuels of tomorrow and ship autonomy seems
remote. But it’s not. None of the fuels currently under consideration, as shipping’s
decarbonisation drive gathers pace, are as energy-intense as the hydrocarbons used
today. Not only will new fuels be several times more expensive, but in most cases
they will also require more storage space on board ship, more frequent bunkering,
and more rigorous safety standards and handling procedures.
With no action, shipping’s new sources of power will have a significant impact on ship
operating efficiency. Higher costs, less space on board ship for revenue-generating
cargo, more time to load fuel… these will all have an impact on productivity.
This is one reason the work of One Sea and its members is so essential. While the
end goal may be to facilitate autonomous maritime logistics, the waypoints will
establish new systems and procedures, based on the internet-of-things, all of which
can contribute to efficiency gains. Individually, the impact may be marginal, but taken
together, they have the potential to generate significant contributions to shipping’s
climate-related profile.
Another reason, and one which has perhaps been misunderstood, relates to the
safety of those working at sea. Indeed, according to One Sea member Kongsberg,
autonomous ship technology provides a focus for “removing humans from hazardous
working environments onboard vessels, reducing the likelihood of human error by
introducing smarter systems that are highly automated and autonomous to various
degrees, (and) improving the internal and external situational awareness”.
One Sea is a high-profile collaboration of stakeholders including shipping companies,
technology developers and enablers, autonomy experts, satellite communications
providers, and IT specialists. Its aim is to assist in the development of safe autonomous
systems in global shipping that could lead towards an effective operational maritime
ecosystem by 2025.
We also aim to expand our membership, particularly in Asia and the Americas,
because we believe that collaboration involving as many stakeholders as possible is
essential as global shipping faces the challenges of digitalisation and the development
of autonomous systems. As a priority, we also seek to engage in constructive and
purposeful dialogue with the regulators, insurers, representatives of maritime labour,
training establishments, flag administrations and classification societies who can help
shape the future of autonomous shipping for the satisfaction of all.
The One Sea ecosystem plans
to set the course for new indus-
trial standards. In doing so, we
invite all stakeholders to partici-
pate fully in the development of
these standards based on their
likely consequences for marine
safety, as well as for facilitating
new business models, reducing
shipping’s carbon footprint, and
opening new commercial op-
portunities.

ONE SEA | Autonomous Ships and Safety at Sea 3

1 | Today’s safety framework
We sometimes envisage the world’s seas populated by autonomous vessels, operating
in a coordinated network alongside traditional vessels manned by seafarers. But in
the real world, experts across most of shipping’s skill sets believe this scenario is still
some years ahead.
That is not to say, however, that we should not embark on the voyage. Every digital
advance, every autonomous development offers potential to raise safety standards,
improve efficiency, and improve the life and working conditions of millions of seafarers.
Potential benefits include a reduced risk of human error, improved safety of life at sea,
more shipboard capacity for cargo and/or fuel, and improved productivity.
In a topical instance, a recent Tradewinds article revealed that the ultra large contain-
er ship, Ever Given, which caused one of shipping’s highest-profile accidents when she
grounded and blocked the Suez Canal, actually had two pilots on board at the time.
Interviewed by the newspaper, Capt. John Dolan, Standard Club’s Deputy Director of
Loss Prevention and head of the International Group of P&I Clubs’ subcommittee on
pilot safety, said that vessel monitoring technology could play a role in reducing acci-
dents and aid the sometimes poor communication between ship masters and pilots.
Shipping’s regulatory regime is structured on several levels. They range from
international conventions negotiated, drafted, adopted and ratified by the IMO and
its 174 members, to national jurisdictions, flag authorities, and regional regulations
applying to access channels, the waters of ports, harbours, fjords and estuaries.
Apart from the pace of autonomous development, which has accelerated, the
backdrop has not changed much since the Standard Club’s Senior Claims Director,
Heather Maxwell, wrote in the P&I club’s Technology Bulletin1 in 2018. Referring to
international trade by sea, she stated: “The predicted degrees of ship automation
and the timeframes to implementation can vary dramatically, but the simple fact is
that the current legal framework lacks the basic language required to account for
autonomous ships in any capacity.”
Maxwell highlighted some of the principles enshrined in shipping’s legal framework
today. From a practical point of view, in Article 94.4 of the UN Convention on the Law
of the Sea 1982, ships are required to have a master who is “in charge” at all times.
Meanwhile, the IMO’s Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing
Collisions at Sea 1972 (COLREGS) provides navigation instructions for ships to follow
to prevent collisions.
But she pointed out that the instructions only apply when ‘one ship can be observed
visually from the other’. Rule 5 (Lookout), she explained, insists above all on perception
and judgement to assess the ‘special circumstances’ and to make a full appraisal of
the risk of collision. “Whilst it is feasible that ships remotely operated or monitored
from ashore could satisfy these conditions, it is difficult to see how a fully autonomous
ship ever could,” she wrote.
Turning to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), minimum
standards of safety at sea are set out, including an obligation for masters to assist a ship
or person in distress. “Regulation V/33 explicitly requires masters to deviate to save life,”
she noted. “In some cases, autonomous ships may be better at responding to distress
signals, but sometimes there can be no substitute for visual identification.
Maxwell concluded by pointing out that not only will international regulations framed
by the IMO have to be overhauled, but so too will individual countries’ own shipping
legislation. According to the UN, she noted that the Law of the Sea Convention 1982 was
implemented as an update to the centuries-old freedom-of-the-seas doctrine in order to
account for ‘the technological changes that had altered man’s relationship to the oceans’.
Now is the time to re-evaluate our relationship once again, she declared.

1 Standard Club Technology Bulletin, September 2018

ONE SEA | Autonomous Ships and Safety at Sea 4

2 | Cyber security
The digital revolution has come upon global
shipping so quickly that it is no great surprise
that cyber security systems have not necessar-
ily kept pace with progress. At various online
webinars and presentations recently, experts
have warned that an approach based broadly
on compliance with newly introduced IMO cy-
ber regulations, rather than active threat risk
management, simply will not be adequate.
Speaking recently at a maritime cyber security webinar2, Ben Densham, Chief
Technology Officer of Nettitude, a cyber security consultancy and Lloyd’s Register
subsidiary, revealed the gap between the approach of many shipping companies and
those of its many other clients in sectors such as financial services, health care and
aviation. He pointed to the increase in cyberattacks since the onset of the pandemic,
and the fact that new technologies are opening up “shipping’s attack service”.
Cyber security, Densham noted, is affected by factors including, but not limited to
connectivity, artificial intelligence, situational awareness, sensors, digital health
management, energy management and the environment, and the adoption of digital
twin technology. A clear understanding of how data is transferred is absolutely
essential, he said, pointing out that the cyber challenge is bigger for existing ships
than it is for new vessels that are built for purpose.
This, he explained, is because the digital transformation of vessels in operation today
tends to take place one stage at a time – incorporating monitored components from
different original equipment manufacturers who have their own security systems.
The absence of a holistic approach to cyber security is prone to result in weak links in
the cyber protection armoury. In contrast, a newly designed vessel with autonomous
capabilities, such as Yara Birkeland, would have been developed with a holistic
approach to cyber security in mind.
Densham noted that the complacency amongst some ship operators is not universal.
Some shipping companies, he said, had adopted rigorous cyber security strategies.
And separately, one major container line is known to employ a team of hacking
specialists, working round the clock to identify weak points in their system.
However, following a realisation of the scale of the SolarWinds cyber breach and industry-
specific cyberattacks on companies including the world’s largest container lines, port
authorities, and even the IMO itself, cyber safety is right at the top of the agenda.
Thought to have been carried out by state hackers, the SolarWinds attack offers a
wake-up call for the shipping industry, partly because it highlights how unprepared
many companies and organisations are to prevent, detect and respond to cyber
threats. However, many of those attacked already had sophisticated cyber security
systems in place that were not based merely on regulatory compliance, but featured
active threat detection and management. SolarWinds’ customers include 425 of US
Fortune 500 companies, the top ten US telecommunications companies, the top ten US
accounting firms, all branches of the US Military, the Pentagon, the State Department,
as well as many academic institutions around the world.
At session 101 of the IMO’s Maritime Safety Committee, in June 2019, approved
Interim Guidelines for Maritime Autonomous Surface Ship (MASS) trials were agreed,
with a view to ensuring that trials of systems are conducted safely, securely, and with
due regard for protection of the environment. A series of recommendations regarding
best practice were also set out. Specifically, on cyber security, the Guidelines say:
“Appropriate steps should be taken to ensure sufficient cyber risk management of the
systems and infrastructure used when conducting MASS trials.”

2 Sixth MASWRG Conference: MASS Regulation – Unlocking the Future of MASS

ONE SEA | Autonomous Ships and Safety at Sea 5

3 | Owner/operator views

The complex business of international shipping is populated by thousands of shipping

companies ranging from those with just a few vessels to vast corporations with
hundreds of ships across a variety of sectors. It is no surprise, therefore, that there
are many different views on the application of smart technology across this industrial
sector.
At one end of the spectrum, there are the progressive innovators anxious to adopt the
latest technologies – including sensor fusion, artificial intelligence, machine learning,
clever algorithms – or at least try them out in real life aboard their vessels. It is these
owners who will be first in the adoption of autonomous technologies in the future.
It is also these pioneers who will demonstrate the ways in which digital systems and
advances in autonomy can assist in raising ship safety. These are the companies for
which BIMCO’s drafting committee, aided by London law firm HFW, completed the
industry’s first standard contract for the operation of autonomous vessels, published
in 2021.
Commenting on the initiative, leader of the HFW team, Gudmund Bernitz, said:
“BIMCO and the drafting committee are facing an interesting challenge with creating
this standard contract, in that there are currently no autonomous ships actually in
operation. In fact, fully-autonomous shipping is likely still several years away. Many
of the provisions are therefore having to be based on assumptions and expectations,
and will continue to be refined and adapted over time as automation projects start to
go live across the industry, to ensure that the standard contract continues to meet the
needs of this emerging technology.”
However, the vast majority of owners and operators are keen to embrace the
automation of certain procedures – electronic chart display and information systems
(ECDIS) are a case in point – but view autonomy with some caution. Many believe that
it will first be adopted in some inshore and harbour applications, where companies
including ABB, Keppel Singmarine Pte Ltd, Kongsberg Maritime, ST Engineering,
Svitzer and Wärtsilä, for example, are all actively engaged in a range of autonomous
tug experiments and trials.
In a deep ocean context, there is more scepticism, based primarily on the reality of
shipping’s existing regulatory and safety framework and Conventions, developed by
the IMO over many decades; change at the IMO is a drawn out process.

ONE SEA | Autonomous Ships and Safety at Sea 6

At the same time, some concede that discrete autonomous technologies – those that
aid human situational awareness, for example – can have a major impact on maritime
safety generally. Experts point specifically to the high incidence of pilot-related acci-
dents and those involving service and support vessels operating in harsh conditions.
Where attitudes are concerned, one key will be keeping the distinction between
automated systems and full-blown autonomy firmly in mind. Dr Kalevi Tervo, ABB Marine
& Ports’ Corporate Executive Engineer and Global Program Manager, has observed:
“Mathematical models can be designed to enable a conventional automation system to
handle more complex tasks. An automation system becomes an autonomous system
when you start to automate human capabilities such as perception, understanding
and decision-making.”
“As a practical example, an autonomous navigation system would support the human
operator to identify the other ship, interpret any potential threat and change course
to prevent a collision,” Dr Tervo added. “Even when the level of automation increases,
we will always need competent crew working alongside the technology”.
It is nonetheless widely accepted that automation, real-time connectivity, sensors,
the cloud, data analysis and remote monitoring will have a growing impact on the
maritime sector and that their adoption is likely to accelerate further as the sector
wrestles with decarbonisation.
Sensing, tracking, simultaneous real-time monitoring on ship and shore, artificial
intelligence, machine learning, virtual engineering and augmented reality are just
some of the technologies that now facilitate new strategies in ship operation. They
enable component condition and performance monitoring, voyage optimisation, just-
in-time arrival, and entirely new strategies for maintenance of components on board.
Ultimately, some ships will be equipped for autonomous operation in which systems
can not only be programmed but will also be capable of ‘thinking for themselves’. In
other words, they will be able to identify potential hazards or obstacles to achieving
a certain aim and, in light of that, take a different approach or strategy. (Please find
more on this in The role of the human in decision-making, Section 4)
None of these new technologies would have been possible without the pioneering en-
deavours in ship autonomy undertaken by One Sea members, amongst others. As noted
above, changes to shipping’s safety and regulatory systems, necessary for the adoption
of some more far-reaching autonomous technologies, are customarily slow. The success
of trials of various autonomous applications that are being undertaken today suggests
that, where ship safety is concerned, there may not – in fact – be a moment to lose.

ONE SEA | Autonomous Ships and Safety at Sea 7

4 | The role of the human in decision-making
Over recent decades, shipowners
and operators have scrutinised
vessel operating costs to iden-
tify any conceivable opportunity
where savings may be possible.
Many of these costs, if not fixed,
are relatively constant – vessel
insurance, for example, surveys
and drydocking.
But manning is one major cost
centre where there is much
more flexibility. Provided that
the Minimum Safe Manning re-
quirements of a ship’s registry
are met, managers have a de-
gree of flexibility over a ship’s complement, both above and below deck. Substantial
reductions in crew numbers have taken place, therefore, to the point where further
cuts are not practical in many instances, and there are concerns over the welfare of
seafarers who live for weeks with minimal social interaction.
It cannot be a surprise, therefore, if many seagoing personnel - and particularly older
ones - view the steady advance of digital technologies and, in the future, higher levels
of autonomy as a pending threat to employment. They fear another round of job
losses and more stressful working lives in the 24/7 shipboard environment.
Yet many experts in the field suggest that these views are misplaced. Digital
development, more automation, and ultimately autonomous operation in some
applications, promise to improve the quality of seafarers’ lives. And, far from proving
dispensable, their role as part of a new ship management framework will be more
important than ever.
ABB Marine & Ports’ Dr Kalevi Tervo pointed out that although autonomous systems
can mimic certain cognitive processes, their abilities so far are limited to specific
tasks such as navigating a ship or controlling industrial machinery. However, a fully
autonomous system for a general purpose would apply human-like creativity and
judgement to solve any number of problems, he said, including unfamiliar ones.
“We’re now at the stage where human capabilities and experience in combination
with intelligent technology is able to do a better job together than any one of the two
could do alone,” he said.
Nevertheless, the role of seafarers, their required skill sets, and even the location of
their employment are likely to change significantly. Experts suggest that there will be
a reduced requirement for conventional able seamen and, in the engine room, wipers
and greasers. The nature of their work will change too, with new demand for multi-
skilled troubleshooting personnel on board some ships and at the ports and terminals
they serve.
Set in a maritime context, the adoption of digital systems for administration and
day-to-day operations management provide early examples of automated processes
that have a significant impact in the industry. Examples include digital maintenance
management, remote surveys, shore management centres manned by experts, and
various software systems designed to support operational efficiency including voyage
performance, weather routeing, speed and consumption.
Further into the future, master mariners and navigators are likely to be required at
shoreside control centres, monitoring the safe passage of autonomous vessels in
coastal waters. In the event of a major incident such as an allision, collision or a ship
threatened with being overwhelmed by the elements, safety rules will be required to
formalise procedures for manual intervention or control.

ONE SEA | Autonomous Ships and Safety at Sea 8

5 | Insurance implications
There are some aspects of commercial ship operation which must be considered
urgently in response to accelerating digital developments and advances in autonomy.
One concerns the requirement to have effective asset insurance in place at all times.
Marine insurance is sometimes viewed as one of the less transparent sectors of
commercial ship operation but it is, nevertheless, essential. For financial covenants
not to be breached, for ships to be able physically to trade, and to meet ship registry
and classification requirements, commercial vessels require valid marine insurance
relating both to hull and machinery, and third-party liabilities covered by protection
and indemnity (P&I) insurances.
One Sea has already identified some of the challenges relating to the development of
robust insurance cover for ships with varying degrees of autonomy, and some of these
are set out below. However, in our view, this is a critical safety issue and in relation to
One Sea’s drive to develop stakeholder dialogue, the engagement of representatives
from the marine insurance industry is now pressing, both for those in the vanguard of
new technology, as well as those who will underwrite the related risks.

5.1 Hull and machinery cover

Most ship operators today assume that their hull and machinery insurance policies are
sufficient to provide insurance cover for their assets in the event of a physical event
such as a collision, grounding or, in the worst case, a total loss. However, in a digital
context, this has not yet been put to the test and could yet prove that existing policies
require modification if they are intended for assets with varying level of autonomy.
This is because most hull and machinery policies exclude cyber risk cover through the
Institute Cyber Attack Exclusion Clause 380, as follows:
1.1 Subject only to clause 1.2 below [which relates to risks of war, civil war, revolution,
rebellion, insurrection, or civil strife and is not relevant to this paper], in no case shall
this insurance cover loss damage liability or expense directly or indirectly caused by or
contributed to by or arising from the use or operation, as a means of inflicting harm,
or any computer, computer system, computer software programme, malicious code,
computer virus of process or any other electronic system.

ONE SEA | Autonomous Ships and Safety at Sea 9

There are, however, specialist cyber-risk policies available in the London market
although these are understood usually to be tailored to meet certain specific cyber
risks, rather than a more general cover-all policy. This relatively young branch of
marine insurance has a short track record and actuaries therefore have limited data
on which to base their risk assessments. It is understood, therefore, that the policies
are expensive.
It would seem, however, that traditional hull and machinery insurance policies are not
fit for the purpose of insuring autonomous ships. Without valid insurance, however,
ship operation is not possible. Both class and ship registration are invalidated and
any finance relating to a specific asset is contingent upon valid insurance. In physical
terms, a ship is unable to operate, prevented from entering coastal waters, channels
and port areas.
Therefore, it is evident that a robust appraisal of autonomous ships’ insurance
requirements must be undertaken, possibly leading to a new type of policy or, at
least, major revisions to existing ones.

5.2 P&I cover

Potentially far more complicated is the issue of P&I liability insurance which covers risks
including cargo liabilities, crew claims, damage to third-party property including fixed
and floating objects, collision liabilities not covered by hull and machinery insurance
including pollution-related costs, apportioned by the degree of fault, and wreck removal.
Since P&I Clubs are owned by their shipowner members, it is clearly in their interest
to minimise the volume and quantum of claims. Therefore, risk assessment and loss
prevention are an essential part of their operation. What are the risks, and how can
they be managed and minimised?
However, P&I insurance is not a precise science. The assessment of risk and the
prevention of losses rely on history, data, and in some cases, legal precedent. Terms
like “seaworthiness”, “good seamanship” and “best practice” may sound loose, but
they have been well-defined over the years. A huge body of case law has established
the clear interpretation of statutory regulations including the International Convention
for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), the International Convention for the Prevention
of Pollution from Ships, the International Convention for Preventing Collisions at Sea
(COLREGs), and the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification
and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW).
Although each P&I Club has its own rules, there are also rules embodied in the Hague
Visby Rules, brought into English law by the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1971, to define

ONE SEA | Autonomous Ships and Safety at Sea 10

the right and obligations of parties to a voyage, also specifying maximum exclusions
of liability. P&I Clubs also provide their liability insurance cover on the basis of a ship’s
“seaworthiness”, which includes have a competent and fully manned crew on board.
The IMO is currently conducting a detailed analysis of the principal codes that cover
the safe operation of ships with the aim of producing a gap analysis for autonomous
vessels. However, as we know, the IMO’s procedural wheels turn slowly, and experts
say that there is no chance that the IMO’s deliberations can match the exponential
acceleration in shipping’s digital and autonomous technology development.
Experts in loss prevention at P&I Clubs highlight emphasise that many of the risks
they cover relate to human beings. In their absence, therefore, a whole tranche of
potential risks could well disappear. However, new and potentially unquantifiable risks
could develop, and they identify several key areas of concern relating to the new risk
assessment requirements that would be required. We have noted some of these here,
although these are examples and the list is not exhaustive.
Loading and cargo monitoring during voyage – under the Hague Visby Rules,
a carrier commits to his counterparty to transport cargoes with care. This includes,
but is not limited to, the safe loading or cargo at origin, the monitoring and carriage
throughout a voyage, and safe discharge at destination
Attitude to risk – the identification and assessment of risk by a seafarer on board
ship is likely to differ markedly from that of a remote operator sitting many miles
away in a comfortable shoreside control centre.
Training competence – so far, there is no requirement to have seafarers directly
involved in the operation of autonomous vessels. This has not yet been considered
in relation to the STCW. The Convention could be modified by the addition of another
chapter, for example, but this would take time.
Physical risk to shoreside control centre – the safety and security of the control
centre is paramount, both in a cyber and also a physical context
Other issues identified by P&I risk assessment and loss prevention experts include:
Remote control centre jurisdiction;
Definition of “good seamanship” as referenced in the IMO’s COLREGS;
Seaworthiness and its definition under Hague Visby Rules;
Apportionment of liability in the event of an accident.

ONE SEA | Autonomous Ships and Safety at Sea 11

6 | Classification
Longstanding principles of ship classification are being carefully assessed to see
whether they are fit for the purpose of classifying assets incorporating varying levels
of autonomy. However, assuring the quality and safety of an asset that has not existed
before is a completely new challenge.
As noted by One Sea member MacGregor: “We are systematically working on the
development of autonomous technologies that will further contribute to raising safety
and efficiency standards. However, it is not one isolated development that will secure
this safer, more efficient environment but many smaller advances that will be inte-
grated together, with this process being critically dependent on stakeholder collab-
orations. The success of partial or fully autonomous operations will rely on greater
connectivity between systems. The important part will be to standardise connection
protocols so that a system, comprising a number of components, can work effectively
together.”
Tony Boylen is a Principal Specialist, Assurance of Autonomy, at Lloyd’s Register. In a
recent article3, he explained that projects involving different levels of autonomy must
be broken down into separate elements for the assurance process, before allowing an
entire project to be viewed holistically and assured as one complete system.
The assurance process is a formidable task and must be undertaken at various
levels, Boylen explained, from the original equipment manufacturers shipowners and
operators offering and adopting new technologies, to the regulators and flag states
who require classification society approvals and validations. Then, ultimately, there is
the IMO which will have the final say on how far automation is allowed to take over
and/or support decision-making at sea.
Boylen also highlighted the scale of the assurance task. He explained it like this: if
someone said, I give you my word that this person can be trusted 99.99% of undertake
this task, you’d probably feel confident. “However, in a million lines of software code,
99.99% means that one hundred lines could be wrong. That’s not good enough.”

Image: Wärtsilä

3 www.lr.org/en/insights/articles/the-rapid-pace-of-autonomous-technology-applications-in-shipping

ONE SEA | Autonomous Ships and Safety at Sea 12

The assurance process is almost certainly requiring classification societies to re-think
their risk assessment protocols to gauge whether they are suitable for the certification
of autonomous technologies and the assets in which they are installed. New ways of
working are evident.
Japan’s ClassNK, for example, recently announced a joint project with Sompo Japan
Insurance to carry out research into risk assessment systems for autonomous ships.
The classification society will collaborate with the insurer and its marine underwriters,
as well as Sompo Risk Management Inc, a group subsidiary, that has established
expertise in the risk assessment of the practical applications of autonomous vehicles.
The research project started in February, with results due to be published in 2022.
Writing recently in The Maritime Executive, Matthieu de Tugny, Executive Vice President
of the Marine and Offshore Division, Bureau Veritas, suggested that autonomous
shipping is less likely to go mainstream but much higher levels of autonomy and
remote control are to be expected in shipboard operations generally.
ABS Senior Vice President, Global Engineering and Technology, Patrick Ryan, has
said that autonomous technology is gradually reshaping the maritime industry,
bringing benefits such as increased operational efficiency, less human error, reduced
emissions, increased safety, and lower operating costs. Speaking on the launch of
new guidance4 on autonomy, he said that the phases between automation and fully
fledged autonomous functionality had been categorised by the classification society in
a Smart to Autonomous framework.
April 2021 saw the launch of the Maritime Technologies Forum (MTF), with the stated
aim of bridging “the gap between technology knowledge and the regulatory process”.
Founding members of the forum include American Bureau of Shipping (ABS), DNV,
Japan’s Maritime Bureau, Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism
(MLIT), Lloyd’s Register (LR), Nippon Kaiji Kyokai (ClassNK), the Norwegian Maritime
Authority (NMA), and the UK’s Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA).
“The regulatory framework for the development and use of new technology must
remain up to date to ensure advances assure the safety of people, assets and the
environment”, the new grouping said. “By bringing together expertise to offer guidance
and advice on technical and regulatory challenges, the MTF will support the shipping
industry and the International Maritime Organization (IMO) to navigate and embrace
the impact of these changes.” Key focus areas include energy efficiency, alternative
fuels and increasing levels of autonomy.
The One Sea Alliance welcomes the launch of the MTF and offers its full cooperation in
working towards bridging the gap between technology and regulation, also expressing
its willingness to offer any contribution requested in relation to ship safety.

4 ABS Advisory on Autonomous Functionality

ONE SEA | Autonomous Ships and Safety at Sea 13

7 | Next steps
One Sea has participated in the regulatory efforts of IMO and flag states around the
world, by informing them of the current status of developments and the consequences
of their decisions. One Sea will continue to support regulators at both national and
international levels. It is in everybody’s best interest that rules that are developed
cover the safe operation, management and maintenance of autonomous ships. The
rules must cover all systems onboard as well as manning-related issues. One must
also not forget shore-based procedures that will become even more important in the
wake of these new technologies.
We invite all actors in the field to engage and collaborate with the other stakeholders
with specific interest in the safety of autonomous ships, including ship designers,
builders, insurers, owners, labour representative organisations, classification societies,
connectivity providers, regulatory authorities, and flag states. Collaboration is the key
to finding solutions that will be both safe and satisfactory to all parties.
The work done at national and international standards organisations aims at the
development of common technical standards in support of integrated and coherent
criteria. One Sea will continue to engage and collaborate in these endeavours. It
is crucial that international harmonised safety rules covering autonomous ships are
developed.
The backbone of the process is the focus on the application, testing and verification
of digital and autonomous technologies that promote and encourage safer working
practices and ease the administrative workload of seagoing personnel. The information
exchange and cooperation between those doing the testing and those that create
regulations and standards will enable the development of safety rules in shipping.

ONE SEA AUTONOMOUS ECOSYSTEM

DIMECC OY
ÅKERLUNDINKATU 8, 33100 TAMPERE
ETELÄRANTA 10, 00130 HELSINKI

WWW.ONESEAECOSYSTEM.NET

ONE SEA | Autonomous Ships and Safety at Sea 14