Update Implementation of IMO s e-navigation Strategy CAPT. SIMON PELLETIER

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Update Implementation of IMO s e-navigation Strategy CAPT. SIMON PELLETIER"

Logan Hill
6 years ago
Views:

1 Update Implementation of IMO s e-navigation Strategy CAPT. SIMON PELLETIER XXII IMPA BIENNIAL CONGRESS Panama April 2014

2 (TITLE SLIDE) e-navigation has become a worldwide phenomenon. This is certainly true at the national level with many countries currently in the process of implementing their own specific e-nav strategies and at the international level, where e-nav is very much a focus of attention at IMO. As the member of IMPA s executive with responsibility for the e-nav file, I have followed IMO s deliberations on the subject very closely since I play an active role in IMO s e-nav Correspondence Group and I have participated in more meetings on e-nav than I can remember, both at IMO itself and in other forums. The many reports that I have presented you over the years typically focus on simply stating the facts; providing information about the latest developments in respect of IMO s initiative, about how some elements of the initiative may impact pilots and what our Association does about this. For those of you who have had the misfortune of listening to one of these reports, you know that they usually involve the presentation of long and I really cannot put it any other way sleep-inducing lists. This is how you got to learn that IMO s initiative is comprised of four key components, nine so-called solutions five of which were prioritized seven risk-control strategies, 16 Marine Service Portfolios, and four sets of guidelines on various related matters. As I was preparing my remarks for today, however, I decided to go another way. Since the first formal discussion at IMO concerning e-nav was initiated in 2005, it means that this year, 2014, we are celebrating the 10 th anniversary of the project. I m sure you will agree that 10 years of discussions is, in and of itself, an achievement that deserves recognition. It is not really important that the initial completion date for the initiative was 2008; in fact, what s more important now is that this first decade of e-navigation discussions provides a good pretext to examine the bigger picture of the initiative. (CHANGE TO SLIDE 2 IMO S DECISION TO BE INVOLVED IN E-NAV) - 1 -

3 IMO s decision to be involved in e-nav This may come as a surprise to some of you, but the initial intention behind the e-nav initiative was to help mariners. In 2005, at the time of the promising start of IMO s work on e-navigation, the seven countries including Japan, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Norway, and the United States that suggested the development of an IMO e- Navigation strategy were driven by the concern that new navigation technologies were being developed in an uncoordinated way. This reflected the experience of mariners who had to deal with new equipment that was not integrated with other pieces of equipment and provided information that was not necessarily relevant. The intention was not to accelerate the introduction of new technology. It was to control technology by making sure that existing and new electronic tools would be integrated in a coherent, systematic, and user-friendly way. The intention was not to change the way ships are navigated from the bridge of vessels. Not from some remote control center. And the intention was definitely not to belittle mariners. It was to show real consideration for their needs and to make sure that the tools at their disposal truly meet those needs. IMO agreed with this approach. Early in its work on the strategy, the Organization stressed that the human element should be the paramount consideration in the development and implementation of e-nav. And by human element, it was clearly understood at the time that mariners would be the humans whose needs were to be predominant. Where we are Now, let s fast forward 10 years and compare this bright beginning with where the initiative stands today. (CHANGE TO SLIDE 3 E-NAV: WHERE WE ARE) - 2 -

4 First, since the strategy let alone its implementation is not finished, I am only stating a fact when I say that the initiative has not yet resulted in any concrete, pragmatic, improvements for mariners. It remains to be seen if it ever will. Second, the focus of IMO s e-nav effort has clearly shifted away from mariners. The initiative today has more to do with shore-based authorities and their own particular agenda than it has to do with mariners and, dare I say, even shipowners. This became apparent early on. This is why IMPA, in 2010, adopted a formal position statement on e-navigation. The statement contains three basic principles: (CHANGE TO SLIDE 4 IMPA POSITION STATEMENT) 1. Predominance of the human element e-navigation must reflect the fact that mariners are the most critical factor in safe navigation. This means that the expert human element on the bridge must be at the centre of decision-making. 2. Meeting the needs of the bridge team and the pilot e-navigation must first and foremost give priority to responding to the needs of the bridge team and the pilot, and facilitate the tasks they perform. 3. Looking out the window remains essential e-navigation must recognize the value of obtaining information through other means. To ensure safe navigation, e-navigation data must be complemented and validated through all the other traditional methods available to pilots. For the last five years, our Association has been relentless in defending these principles. But, in a not-so-funny twist, while everybody apparently agrees with the principles and IMO certainly did when IMPA formally submitted them in 2012 in reality, nothing is changing. Much of the discussion regarding IMO s e-nav strategy and its implementation is now driven by the desires of shore-side authorities for a greater role in ship navigation

5 The future that is being pursued by these stakeholders is one in which ships are navigated by individuals sitting in front of a screen, miles away from these ships, with the role of those on the bridge reduced to a simple monitoring task. Even if that was technically feasible, it does not mean that it would be a good, or safe, thing to do! My third observation about where the e-nav initiative is today perhaps explains the second one that I just made about its shift in focus. The IMO s initiative has been captured by stakeholders who are not in the ship-operating industry. It has been captured not only by those parties that I just mentioned who promote an agenda of enhanced vessel traffic management from ashore, but also by stakeholders who earn a living by being in the strategy development business. This business thrives on user need surveys, gap analyses, cost-benefit analyses, test beds and a whole cohort of other types of self-serving tools. For these stakeholders, success is not defined by pragmatic results, but by the ongoing nature of the process they are involved in. A lack of desire to complete the initiative within the originally agreed-to timeframe; a lack of motivation to focus on the fairly-straightforward solutions that can meet the needs of mariners; and a lack of incentive to listen to those who actually have knowledge of the ship-operating business. Perhaps this explains why we are where we are today. Looking forward Of course, IMPA takes the e-nav initiative very seriously and we will continue to engage IMO in a firm, but constructive, manner. According to the Strategy Implementation Plan that is currently being drafted by the Correspondence Group, the initiative will continue for at least five more years. And future stages that bring us well past the year 2020 are already being discussed. As we move towards these next steps, it is urgent to appreciate that the initiative is at serious risk of losing its way. It is at serious risk of not only being perceived as irrelevant by the shipoperating community but, even worse, as a nuisance

6 I believe the time has come to put humans mariners back at the centre of the equation. The time has come for common sense to prevail. Mariners are not a threat to safe navigation a suggestion that, unfortunately, I have now heard too often. It is not by removing pilots and the bridge team from the decision-making process that navigation will be made safer. Let s get real here! The presence, on the bridge, of qualified mariners and, when applicable, licensed pilots who are free to exercise their expert professional judgement, remains the best guarantee for safe navigation and the best protection possible for the environment and the public interest. Of course technology has always played an important role in the safe navigation of marine traffic. And today, that role is more sophisticated and more important than ever. But navigational technology electronic charts, PPUs, radars, advanced weather buoys can only perform its role properly when used to complement, not to replace, the expertise and judgement of duly-qualified pilots. Making sure that this simple, fundamental truth is well understood and appreciated may be our greatest challenge in the years to come. And clearly, this challenge will not simply go away. (CHANGE TO SLIDE 5 LOOKING FORWARD) More than ever perhaps, it requires that pilots worldwide continue to speak with one voice and take a strong stand in the process. Not only at IMO, but every time it is suggested that the decisive role of those on-board vessels should be transferred to shore-based authorities. I think every pilot in this room likes a challenge! After all, this is why we do the job that we do. This is why we look forward to waking up at 3:00 am to conduct vessels when and where no one else can in dangerous waters and challenging conditions. Just as I like our record as pilots, when I look at the future, I like the odds that, in the end, our point of view will prevail! Thank you

Autonomous/Unmanned Ships

Autonomous/Unmanned Ships IFSMA - PRESENTATION 4/18/17 George Quick Slide 1 Good Afternoon, I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words about autonomous or unmanned ships from the perspective of the