Workshop on “Bridging the Arctic Marine Gap – linking ice condition to ice class requirements. The need for a cross Arctic Ice Regime” Held at the Adam Room, Lloyd’s London 12th of March, 2014
Organizers main take away from the workshop: • That the Arctic Council, or its working groups, is asked to assist in setting up a forum for the sharing of knowledge by industry, Government, the Research community and other parties in order to foster best practice. • That under that proposed forum a specific group be set up to build an ice data regime across the Arctic to encourage each member state to take responsibility for their section of the Arctic in order to ensure best practice that goes beyond current regulatory requirements in areas where it is lacking. This is similar to initiatives already in motion in relation to charting. • That under that forum the issues of crew competence and training be nurtured in a systematic and harmonised way in order to foster and support best practice-­‐ similar to training in relation to dynamic positioning such as that provided by the Nautical Institute. • That the Arctic States come to some agreement about the monitoring of operations outside their Exclusive Economic Zone in areas that constitute international waters. • That such a forum represents a cross section of interests that make it fit for purpose – operators, insurers, and representative bodies such as the International Association of Classification Societies, with representatives from each member state. • That such a forum includes a mechanism for sharing of experience in a way that does not compromise competitive advantage, or confidentiality. • That these recommendations be raised if possible at the meeting of the Senior Arctic Ambassadors, including participation by Mr Koji Sekimizu, at Yellow Knife, Canada, 25-­‐27 March 2014. * * * Executive Summary of the Workshop This workshop, supported by the Nordic Association of marine Insurers, Lloyd’s, the Swedish Club, and the Swedish Polar Research Secretariat, was held the day after the Sustainable Arctic Shipping and Marine Operations Conference in London which was organised by the Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs, with financing from the Nordic Council of Ministers. That Conference was attended by Patrick Borbey, Chairman of the Senior Arctic Ambassadors, Gustaf Lind, Sweden’s Senior Arctic Ambassador, and Mr Koji Sekimizu, Secretary General of the International Maritime Organisation. A key theme of that Conference identified the activity that is taking place in the Arctic, how it is increasing, and where it is happening -­‐ such as increased activity on the Northern Sea Route, the North West Passage, and in exploration and production activities of the high north in areas outside those already seen. The conference looked at the risks and opportunities and it was concluded that industry should go beyond the current national and international requirements in order to create a safe operating environment for all participants in Arctic life, and to also assist the IMO in the finalisation and operationalizing of the Polar Code. 1 This workshop focused on the risks from operating in ice with a particular focus on the gap between the different rules and regulations of the IACS Polar Class Rules, the (draft) IMO Polar Code and the lack of a pan-­‐Arctic benchmark for determining when different ice class requirements apply. The challenge for the marine industry, as seen by the Conference organised by the Swedish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, is that there is no cross-­‐jurisdictional benchmark to determine where the geographical limits are for Ice Class vessels relating to the actual ice conditions. Some countries, like Canada and Russia have their own systems, but there is no common approach among the Arctic States. In addition to increased marine activity across the Arctic, the Arctic States have recently, through the Arctic Council, signed a Search and Rescue Agreement buthere is a knowledge-­‐gap on an international basis between authorities and industry and their insurers. This is causing confusion for operators in the construction of vessels, and for their insurers and financiers, and in their operational limits There have been several near misses where ships have entered ice areas with unsuitable ice strength and power in the Arctic, and, as well publicised recently, in the Antarctic. This workshop was attended by the world’s leading marine, insurance and ice experts in order to come to a consensus to highlight these issues and to make recommendations to the Arctic Council to facilitate the narrowing of the knowledge gap and create a viable cross jurisdictional ice regime that will enable the IMO Polar Code and IACS Polar Class classifications to work efficiently. The objective is in other words, is to support the sustainable development of the Arctic, and avoid incidents. Detailed Review of the Workshop Day Welcome and introductions Welcome to the workshop by Lloyds Introduction to the workshop by Capt. Anders Backman Introduction by the Moderator Bjorn Dahlbäck, Director of The Swedish Polar Research Secretariat. NB: Views expressed during this workshop are the opinions of the persons participating in the workshop and are not to be interpreted as the official standpoint of the organisations they represent. Starting up group discussion -­‐ What did you bring home from yesterday’s conference? “Sustainable Arctic shipping and marine operations” March 11, London. Main comments from the workshop participants: •
•
There has to be more than just minimum requirements in ice operations and ice classes, and an ice regime linking vessel capacity to conditions must be developed to facilitate trade and implement best practice. The IMO Polar Code itself is not enough, it is a start but we need more regulations and more detailed information in how to interpret and implement those regulations. The Polar Waters Operational Manual relies on the operator determining what the ‘worst case scenario’ is in the conditions envisaged that ‘may occur’. This leave a huge scope for error, and the data to 2 •
•
•
•
determine such a scenario is not available. Understanding is also underdeveloped in ‘Flag States’, and by ‘Port State Control’ in certain Arctic countries. It is therefore the responsibility of operators and industry to define how to operate in Arctic areas, and that has to be done on a safety case basis employing best practice. There has to be more intersectional work done, it is important to include the public, private, states, and science to get the best possible outcome. The vision is clear but few actions have been taken. The process with the Polar Code has been slow and it does not address the knowledge gaps that will remain even when it comes into force. In some states there is little regulatory framework in place that is fit for purpose and national regulations are not cross-­‐ jurisdictional. History has taught us that regulation follows incidents, major ones, time and again; that cannot be allowed to happen in the Arctic. Session 1 Presentation by Andrew Kendrick, vice President at STX Canada Marine. Andrew Kendrick gave a presentation; “Linking ice conditions to ice class”, discussing different forms of ice classes, regional interpretation and the safe operating criteria from different systems. Andrew underlined and encouraged the use of one system to apply to the Polar Code. It’s essential for the way forward that every ship has the same system. Andrew highlighted the importance of sharing information on – accident data, non-­‐accident data, and recognizing the need to go forward by validating new methodologies and the collecting and publication of data. Michael Kingston, Marine Trade & Energy Group, DWF LLP, made the comment that it is critically important to understand that for an ice regime to work, the operators and people on the ship need to have the understanding that ice regimes are not a static system, but a live and changing one. It is not a tick box exercise where an operation can be given clearance months, or even days in advance. Of great importance is an experienced crew with competence and awareness of the Arctic environment and ice conditions. That live input is a key component of a proper ice regime, such as in Canada. Victor Santos Pedro, former director of marine safety at Transport Canada continued with a presentation, “IACS Polar classes and draft Polar Code – linking ship ice class and ice conditions”. The presentation described the relationship of the IMO Polar Code and the IAACS Polar Class Rules, and the relationship between the rules and discussing the challenges, and the gaps between the two. Victor also discussed vessel design and operational issues and the importance of crew training and certification. He also explained the current difficulties of addressing ‘equivalence’ of Ice Class between the differing countries with existing tonnage and he explained that the industry had to be very careful with such an approach as it was a very difficult thing to do. Helle Hammer, Managing Director of the Nordic Association of Marine Insurers, presented “The insurance perspective – what is required”. Helle pointed out that the insurance community are not the operators, nor regulators and certainly not experts on technical matters but insurance still needs to assess the risk. The insurance industry lacks loss statistics for Arctic operations. All Arctic insurance risk is looked at on an individual basis. The insurance community welcomes frameworks, like the IMO Polar 3 Code, and also agreements by the Arctic states to achieve a unified vision, and for this reason the International Union of Marine Insurers has supported the Arctic Marine Best Practice Declaration. Session 2 – Expert panel discussion– lead by moderator Björn Dahlbäck The panel, Victor Santos Pedro, Andrew Kendrick, Robert Hindley, Lloyd’s register (here representing the view of the International Association of Classification Societies) and Capt. Anders Backman. They gave their expert comments on establishing best practices in linking ice conditions to ice class, and in the creation of an ice regime Robert Hindley, Lead Specialist – Arctic Technology, Lloyd’s Register; explained that the Polar Class Rules had been circulated and gone through the first applications. The work now focuses on addressing the gaps noticed with two working groups. One of the groups is developing an extensive background document with updates on requirements for propulsion, design and etc. This is supposed to be released / published within approximately 3 months. IAACS decided as a response to the draft IMO Polar Code, to try and include the ice curves to try and harmonize the system of developing this. These kinds of manuals and requirements are required to be on board for guidance purpose. “We find similar challenges to the unknown quantities of ice. We want to collectively finance and develop an ice curve system that everyone can use” Victor Santos Pedro; -­‐ again raised the difficulties in comparing ice class systems. “One cannot talk about Equivalencies it has to be approximations”. Robert Hindley concluded that whatever regime is used, it has to be comparable to increase safety and accessibility. Anders Backman;referred to the EEDI regulation which he said would lead to a decrease in safety and a reduction in power that is dramatic for vessels operating in ice. The index was enforced from the first of January 2014 and for the environment, in his view, it is a disaster. Regarding the ice breakers, the old Baltic ice breakers are hard to classify in this ice class regime because they were built in accordance with the unique experience that old ship builders have. For small ice breakers it is even harder, they have experience from ice breaking in the Baltic and with the power of 1A-­‐1A Super, but now the rules have changed again and their ice classes cannot be compared to the new ones. The same thing can be said about search-­‐and-­‐rescue vessels, where the rescue teams need to go to places where vessels are in distress. “I think that special considerations should be established for these kinds of ice breakers. There is a risk involved when trying to compare the different classes and different ice class regimes, especially when trying to compare the Baltic ice breakers /vessels and with the new ice classes”. Andrew Kendrick; -­‐ “I do believe that the EEDI has special exceptions for some of the ships that are breaking ice. In my opinion though, the formulations of the report are not very good, and it is not sensible to put them in there, and I do hope that the formulation of the index will be up for reinterpretation in the future. The formulas now are too simple for these kinds of complex issues; in my view it is scientifically invalid”. “Regarding ice breakers, when looking at the difference in classes, for example PC1 and PC2, there are differences and the ships are differently built to meet these classes and regulations coming with it. But at the end of the day, even if you have a ship that is less classified and operating in the Arctic, it is still going to hit a lot of ice. Maybe the Baltic system, where regulations are done by checking the tonnage minimum, is a better idea”? 4 Robert Hindley; – Maybe an idea would be to include a requirement for ice breakers to have an ice navigator; this would regain focus and get the power back to the operator. Every ice breaker and its navigator are unique in their operational way and design. The holistic approach that Victor talked about earlier is a good approach. The operator and its crew will go beyond the minimum standard for ice breakers where there are unique conditions. But I do not think you should talk about equivalencies as a “dirty” word as Victor put it in his presentation, it might be a good thing to try and compare the different ice classes and their regimes to not loose ice breaking competence and vessels in the Arctic fleet. Victor Santos Pedro;– My characterization of “dirty” word regarding equivalencies is like trying to compare a round table and a square table just by putting them in the same mould. It is not possible. To say in a statistical, descriptive table that one ship’s ice class is equivalent to another ship’s ice class in another ice class regime is wrong, it’s an approximation, not equivalent. It will be better if the comparisons are made case-­‐by-­‐case, because it will make more modifications available. If you try to equivocate25-­‐year-­‐old ships that have been built for Baltic conditions, they might have been built according to the same rules and standard and they might be equivalent to the newer ships and their ice classes, but it has to be analysed on a case-­‐by-­‐case basis. With the new Polar Code and SOLAS and MARPOL regulations, we might have some clarifications in this, but I believe that more additions in ice class regimes and ice classes are needed to be able to make secure comparisons between them. Anders Backman; – You mentioned the IMO Polar Code and the SOLAS, I would like to add that many of my colleagues that operate in Arctic waters are anxious about the new SOLAS commitments, for example the new rules about life boats and other requirements. The lifeboats existing are not always built for the Arctic conditions and it’s worrisome that some fall beneath a submarine level when released from the ship. Are there any alternative options to lifeboats? Victor Santos Pedro; – The requirements do matter, both research and work has been done to develop the lifesaving packet that should be on board. The lifeboats will not be on a sub marine level but important equipment both for the personnel and the guests, but there are some gaps on this topic at the moment. Michael Kingston; In commenting on the difficulties Victor Santos Pedro sees in defining ‘equivalence’ with existing tonnage between regimes suggested that it might be sensible to at least have a system to compare tonnage, for new tonnage being built, as a possible way to move forward? Victor Santos Pedro; – Well, a short answer from me would be yes, but it would be a complex system that would need a lot of preparation work and clarification before becoming a working system. Andrew Kendrick; – Every ship can be assessed on a case-­‐by-­‐case basis, this is something we do in Canada and which we also will release a paper on, this is a completely possible way of structuring the comparisons. The problem that might arise is the misunderstanding that if one ship of a certain model, for example the Russian LU8, gets the standard of A1-­‐Super, every ship of that model automatically gets that ice class. This is not the case; the ice class is not administered by default. The different ice class regime operates and determines the class in many ways and therefore equivalence might be hard to get between the systems. 5 Dr Dougal Goodman, CEO Foundation for Science and Technology UK.; – When I worked for BP we noticed that we focused on the maximum load of the vessels instead of focusing on the regular loads the vessel would carry. So we decided to make an experiment on one of our ships, where we measured the average weight of the regular loads and the conditions for this. The technology has improved since then. Is there a gulf between maximum design loads and the average regular loads the ships encounters. Is this an important topic of consideration and/or something you would see more work being done in? Robert Hindley; -­‐ Yes, this is something we would really like to see more work on but it is expensive and hard to implement. It is hard for us to implement because there are few ships that can provide that kind of data, but it is data and feedback we would love to get. Andrew Kendrick – There is a meaning behind the thought of a public domain research fleet. When new ships are designed and built, even experienced shippers may have problems operating them. They may know the operational drill in theory but not in practice. Victor Santos Pedro – There are several advantages of making this kind of information available. The information and technology are the factors needed to move forward and should be available for safety reasons. Stephen Harris, Senior Vice President, Marsh; – I think that we should try and not get too hung up on different ice classes. The classes are important when discussing physical damage, but the insurance also covers the salvage cost. Salvage cost appears after the accident, so the focus should be on how to get a safe operation. For us, the cost can be much greater at with salvage costs than with the cost of physical damages. The focus should be to focus on all aspects of the incident; maritime accidents occur due to human factors in 75% of cases, not mechanical failure. Malin Pétre, Claims Executive Lawyer, Gard P & I Club;– Salvage costs are covered when travelling in some Arctic waters, for example when travelling the Northern Sea But if an accident occurs, even a minor accident, when the vessel in a remote place the salvage and wreck removal costs can be huge. In these cases you cannot really rely on, for example Rosatomflot, to cover the wreck removal for free and it could become a major casualty. Gilles Longevue, President, Maritime Passive Safety; – Wreck removal is a tricky question, one where there’s one new concept of salvage friendly wreck removal , where vessels are fitted with special equipment. This is a new way of reducing salvage costs expectations and a way for improvement of ship design. Ilan Kelman, IRDR College London; – In accidents there are often collective human failure in emergency response, and this is something we should consider more when analysing Arctic risks and to expand the view beyond the technical factors. 6 Session 3 – Introduction of Workshop focusing on various hypothetical industry scenarios Björn Dahlbäck Introduced the ideas for the afternoon session and the working group’s topics. Below is a summary of comment from the different working groups. 1. In Canada, Russia and in the Baltic there are regulations describing minimum requirements for ice class in certain areas during different times of the year based on established ice data regimes. How can we establish a system that covers all ice areas of interest for navigation? • Sharing of best practices is most important – we recommend the creation of a forum for sharing of experiences perhaps under the Arctic Council or its working groups – an Arctic Marine Best Practice Forum, AMBPF (?), with a mechanism for a closed forum for sharing of data in relation to incidents. • It is Important to include experience from a cross section of competence and from each country. • A universal underwriter agreed standard linked to the Polar Code is needed. A regulatory framework is not enough. Voluntary standards should be encouraged and Operators should endorse the Arctic Marine Best Practice Declaration in order to foster this approach. • Control/inspection of ships is vital. The AMSA report recommends this and points out that it could be a national responsibility. 2. How do we ensure that operators are following requirements for size and ice class in areas outside a state´s jurisdiction? • Port State control could take the responsibility working in conjunction with other States • The AIS system could be used for traffic control. • Insurance can assist with incentives to comply with regulations and guidelines. • Design of regulations and guidelines allowing NGO’s monitoring of compliance. 3. How can the Polar Code requirements be interpreted in planning of operations in polar waters? Are all flag states prepared to check the operator’s responsibilities? • Class, flag and port state control should do surveys every five years. Vessels should be built to an appropriate ice class and the vessel can keep the class notation for the life of the vessel. • The Polar Code Operating Manual should specify clearly the capabilities of vessels and owners should have the responsibility to operate within these limits. 4. How can operators share best practice and experiences to increase safety and avoid environmental impacts? • The Arctic Council should facilitate the sharing of best practices in the above mentioned forum. • Operators should be involved in this forum with a mix of other business, such as insurers and the research community. There has to be greater focus on training of crews. This training should be harmonized with theoretical training and simulator training, but also very importantly training in real Arctic conditions. • There is a challenge that not all operators may want to share their best practices or good/bad experiences due to competition between companies. • If the Arctic Council is involved in a forum, it could encourage the publication, perhaps publish, articles and best practices; for the benefit of operators, pilots, researchers, insurers 7 and lawyers. This could be done perhaps be done using a web-­‐portal, perhaps already existing under the Arctic Council? 5. Some insurance companies require detailed preparations from the operators before they insure a vessel outside the standard areas. Is this a helpful approach? • The only way – insurers will always look at risk. • From the insurance industry point of view, as much regulation as possible is desirable, but still increased preparedness will be needed, for instance in terms of salvage operations and infrastructure. 6. How can we establish a uniform procedure in the training and education of ice navigators? Will there be strict requirements in a STCW annex in the Polar Code. Can sharing of best practices be a solution? • Harmonized training programs for personnel, through simulators and experience as referred to above. • STCW and SOLAS are fairly robust. If NSR is regarded as a national seaway additional/different rules may apply. 7. What should the priorities be for R&D? • Development of sensors. How much information can the bridge take on? We have for example information about ice thickness, ice visibility, snow layers and so on. The bridge needs to have control over the amount/thickness of ice remotely, is there an R&D program available that can enhance the information on/from the bridge? • Encourage vessels operating in ice to carry instrumentation to gather statistical data on the on a continuous basis. • Encourage states to carry out hydrographical surveys in their respective waters. The workshop ended with a group discussion focusing on the replies given and what the take away from the workshop. Some of which has been summarised in the beginning of this memo. Upon closing of the workshop many participants highlighted the importance of this cross sector workshop as an example of how to close the gap between different sectors of the Arctic marine industry and the day demonstrated by example what could be done with the support and involvement of all relevant players by demonstrating leadership. ***
8