The latest IPCC report on Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate, which builds upon previous IPCC's reports, established a causal link between anthropogenic impacts and ocean acidification, by noting a significant decrease in the Ocean's uptake of CO2, with consequent damage to Earth's ecosystems, which in turn has traceable repercussions on the Arctic Ocean and then from the Arctic to the Planet Earth. The impact of ocean acidification is not only in the biological ecosystem but also on human activities, such as livelihood, food security, socio-economic security and developing communities. However, who can possibly be held ethically/legally responsible for ocean acidification from a climate justice perspective? Since what happens in the Arctic does not stay there, a more systematic law and policy approach to study options and responses in a multi-level, climate-ethical, global perceptive is needed. This paper sheds light on the legal responses available at global, regional and national levels to ocean acidification in a law of the sea and ocean context, both in the Arctic and from the Arctic. The gaps in legal and policy responses in connection to the ethical climate component will be identified. It will shed light on the planetary limits that humanity needs to stay within in order to maintain the future of the Earth. Since it touches upon questions of legal responsibility, on who is responsible for ocean acidification, it will connect to the “supply side” of fossil fuels production and global extraction projects causing anthropogenic CO2 emissions, one of the major causes of ocean acidification. It will also identify which actors, be they "officials" or "non-officials" (such as international organizations, states, regional institutes, Arctic citizens or even forums) should be held ethically responsible, and who should take action.
A serious ship-bridge collision accident happens about once a year. These accidents cause fatalities and large economic losses due to loss of transportation service and replacement cost of the bridge structure. One of the most recent, widely published, ship-bridge collisions was the collision where the containership Dali in 2024 collided with the Baltimore Key Bridge in the US city of Baltimore. The resulting collapse of the bridge girder caused six fatalities as well as large financial losses. One effect of this event has been that engineers around the world now are being engaged in evaluation of the vulnerability of existing bridges and establishment of rational design criteria for new bridges.
The presentation will outline elements of a rational design procedure for bridge structures against ship collision impacts. A set of risk acceptance criteria will be proposed and a mathematically based procedure for calculation of the probability of ship collision accidents caused by human as well as technical errors will be presented. This first part of the presentation leads to identification of the largest striking ship, “design vessel”, a given bridge element must withstand without structural failure in order for the bridge connection to fulfil the risk acceptance criteria.
The final part of the presentation will be devoted to an analysis of the needed impact capacity for the bridge pylons and piers exposed to ship bow impact loads from design vessels. A procedure will be described for derivation of expressions for ship bow crushing forces, which can be used in design against ship collision impacts. The resulting collision force expressions are verified by comparison with large-scale laboratory experiments and an analysis of a fullscale shipping accident. Finally, the proposed impact force expressions will be compared with existing standards for modelling ship collisions against bridges as published by AASHTO, IABSE and Eurocode.
This paper deals with two speed optimization problems for ships that sail in and out of Emission Control Areas (ECAs) with strict limits on sulfur emissions. For ships crossing in and out of ECAs, such as deep-sea vessels, one of the common options for complying with these limits is to burn heavy fuel oil (HFO) outside the ECA and switch to low-sulfur fuel such as marine gas oil (MGO) inside the ECA. As the prices of these two fuels are generally very different, so may be the speeds that the ship will sail at outside and inside the ECA. The first optimization problem examined by the paper considers an extension of the model of Ronen (1982) in which ship speeds both inside and outside the ECA are optimized. The second problem is called the ECA refraction problem, due to its conceptual similarity with the refraction problem when light travels across two different media, and also involves optimizing the point at which the ship crosses the ECA boundary. In both cases the objective of the problem is to maximize daily profit. In addition to mathematical formulations, examples and sensitivity analyses are presented for both problems.
The power to regulate on-board protection of merchant vessels lies with the flag state. However, the national models of regulation are not developed in a unilateral vacuum. In fact, the whole concept of flag state jurisdiction and legislative power has to be understood and exercised on the national level in close relation with the general regime of the international law of the sea. The aim of the article is therefore two-fold: first, it aims to provide a background for the country reports in this special issue by giving a brief insight into the problem of piracy in the twenty-first century and the international approaches towards this problem. Here the article also provides an insight into the legal background by presenting the concept of piracy in the law of the sea and connected law enforcement powers. Thus, this part of the article provides the overall context in which the discussions concerning on-board protection and the development of national regulations have occurred. Second, the article analyses the issue of on-board protection from the perspective of the legal framework in international law, as well as relevant international soft-law instruments, influencing the development on the national level. On-board protection of vessels as such is not regulated in the international law; however, international law provides a form of general legal setting, in which flags states navigate. Thus, this article aims to draw a picture of the international context in which flags states develop their specific legal approach.
Operational cycles for maritime transportation is a new concept to improve the assessment of ships’ energy efficiency and offer benchmarking options among similar ship types and sizes. This work extends previous research to consolidate the methodology, bring more comprehensiveness, and provide a more holistic assessment of these operational cycles. The cycles are designed from noon reports from a fleet of around 300 container ships divided into eight size groups. The comparison between cycles derived from speed and draft with those based on main engine power identifies that the cycles based on speed and draft are more accurate and allow for estimating the Energy Efficiency Operational Index but require more data. The main-engine-power cycles are more effective in benchmarking through the Annual Efficiency Ratio. These cycles reduce the inherent variability of the carbon intensity indicator and present good opportunities as a benchmarking tool for strengthening the regulatory framework of international shipping.
The 76th session of the Marine Environment Committee (MEPC 76) of the International Maritime Organization adopted several mandatory measures in June 2021 to reduce carbon emissions from ships. One of the measures is the carbon intensity indicator (CII), which is the carbon emissions per unit transport work for each ship. Several options of CIIs are available and none of them is chosen to be applied yet. We prove that, at least in theory, requiring the attained annual CII of a ship to be less than a reference value, no matter which CII option is applied, may increase its carbon emissions. Therefore, more elaborate models, combined with real data, should be developed to analyze the effectiveness of each CII option and possibly to design a new CII.
As of January 2015, the new maximum limit of fuel sulfur content for ships sailing within emission control areas has been reduced to 0.1%. A critical decision for ship owners in advance of the new limits was the selection of an abatement method that complies with the regulations. Two main options exist: investing in scrubber systems that remove sulfur dioxide emissions from the exhaust and switching to low-sulfur fuel when sailing in regulated waters. The first option would involve significant capital costs, while the latter would lead to operating cost increases because of the higher price of the fuel used. This paper presents a literature review of emissions abatement options and relevant research in the field. A cost–benefit methodology to assess emission reduction investments from ship owners is also presented. A study examined the effects of recent drops in bunker fuel price to the payback period of a potential scrubber investment. The results show that lower prices would significantly delay the payback period of such investments, up to two times in some cases. The case studies present the emissions generation through each option for representative short sea shipping routes. The repercussions of low-sulfur policies on large emission reduction investments including cold ironing are examined, along with implications of slow steaming for their respective payback periods. Recommendations are made for research in anticipation of future regulations and technological improvements.
The 0.1% limit in sulphur content within Sulphur Emission Control Areas as of 1st January 2015 requires that ship operators either use pricier ultra-low sulphur fuel oil, or alternatively install abatement technologies through substantial capital investments. A part of the resulting higher operating costs are passed on to shippers resulting in increased freight rates. These may lead to modal shifts towards rail or road options competing with Ro-Ro operators. Due to the unexpectedly low fuel prices in the period 2014–2016, Ro-Ro operators were relatively unharmed by the new limits, but nascent research has shown that if fuel prices increase some Ro-Ro services may not survive. This paper examines a set of policy options that can mitigate or reverse the negative effects of the low-sulphur regulation. The measures include internalizing external costs of transport, repaying fuel surcharges to shippers, subsidizing technological investments of ship operators, or increasing the landbased costs of transport via levies. To compare their efficacy, total costs are calculated for each measure. The results show that the proposed measures can successfully reduce the negative effects of the regulation but this would entail significant costs. A combination of subsidies towards shippers and ship operators is shown to be effective at reversing potential modal shifts and can be crucial in case of high fuel prices in the near future. The findings of this work can assist operators to develop new strategies and improve the resilience of their network, and regulators designing environmental policies that may have negative implications on certain sectors.
This article contributes to the accelerating development of methods for sustainability assessment (SA) to support maritime spatial planning (MSP), by proposing an ecosystem services based framework for SA. MSP is generally seen as an important approach to promote a more sustainable use of sea space. However, so far all sustainability concerns are not equally well represented in planning practice; in particular, social sustainability aspects such as social justice and sociocultural values related to human-nature connectedness receive less attention. We first explored concepts and principles related to sustainability assessment and social sustainability in the scientific literature. Based on this, we analyzed how far the present approaches to assessments in Baltic Sea EU Member States have been extended from environmental concerns to towards broader sustainability concerns so far. Using current best practice in two pioneering countries (UK and Sweden), we illustrated how social sustainability principles could match with applied social impact criteria, and further, how such criteria can inform an ecosystem services-based impact assessment framework. Based on existing frameworks, including the DPSIR (driving forces, pressures, state, impact, response) environmental assessment framework and the ecosystem service cascade, we propose a sustainability impact assessment framework for MSP (MSP-SA) integrating across sustainability dimensions and including assessment of distributional aspects of marine ecosystem service benefits. Finally, we discuss the applicability and further development of the framework in relation to present day sustainability assessment practice in MSP.
The content of Resolution MSC.473(ES.2) can be summarized in five main points and one invitation to IMO Member States.
The first point pertains to the implementation of the Framework of Protocols. The second point pertains to the designation of seafarers as 'key workers' in order to facilitate safe and unhindered movement for embarking or disembarking a vessel. The third point pertains to the consideration of temporary migration measures to ease mobility of seafarers, eg waivers or relaxations of visa or documentary requirements. The fourth point is on the use of prevention measures such as testing crews before embarkation; this requires active conduct by port states, namely providing access to personal protective equipment and testing facilities. The fifth point is on providing seafarers with immediate access to medical care and facilities, as well as with evacuation when the assistance required cannot be provided on board or at port; this aims to prevent humanitarian situations such as casualties on board vessels due to lack of access to intensive care units.
Furthermore, the Resolution invites Member States to designate a National Focal Point on Crew Change and Repatriation of Seafarers ('National Focal Point').