OPERATIONALMANAGEMENT TOACCELERATE SAFE MARITIMEDECARBONISATION

OPERATIONAL MANAGEMENT TO ACCELERATE SAFE DECARBONIZATION — APRIL 2023

Executive Summary
The Maritime Technologies Forum (MTF) is a group of flag States and classificationsocieties which aims to bridge the gap between technological progress andregulatory process. This report provides recommendations to industry stakeholders
toward safe adoption of alternative fuels onboard ships in line with MTF’s purpose.
Safe operation of alternative fuels such as methanol and ammonia requires sound safety management procedures
and trained personnel onboard ships. MTF undertook this study which identifies potential gaps to achieve safe maritime
decarbonisation within three existing Conventions / Codes: The International Safety Management (ISM) Code,International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW) and The
Maritime Labour Convention (MLC); and makes suitable recommendations to close these gaps for future safe use ofalternative fuels.
The report also highlights the perceived urgency to close these gaps so that the maritime industry can prioritise where
they need to channel their limited resources. Finally, the report also identifies barriers that prevent closing and actorsthat help closing these gaps for use of alternative fuels towards a safer decarbonisation.
Summary of identified key gaps and recommendations for closing:
Gap

Recommendation for Closing

ISM-1

Uncertainty related to Safety
Management System requirements
development and implementation.

The development of a guidance document which can beproduced by the industry and submitted to the IMO.

ISM-2

Uncertainty related to emergency
procedure development

IMO may require industry stakeholders to develop a list of
emergency scenarios, drills and associated guidance.

ISM-3

Uncertainty related to maintenancemeasures

IMO may need to define, potentially based on industry
proposals, and mandate the inclusion of measures toaddress maintenance of alternative fuel systems within the
Safety Management System

ISM-4

Lack of familiarity of risks, hazards andcontrol measures

All relevant industry stakeholders may need to identify
training needs, develop training materials and provide
training

STCW-1

Regulatory uncertainty

Industry guidelines for model courses may be developed toencourage and support swift regulatory change.

STCW-2Insufficiencies within model courses

Incentivise relevant industry stakeholders to collaborate withtraining providers.

STCW-3Lack of incentives for training course
developers

Public and private funding may be provided to training
course developers.

STCW-4

Inconsistent implementation of training

Flag states could review the training materials and audit thetraining providers to ensure consistent delivery in line with the
IMO model courses.

MLC-1

Lack of reference to alternative fuels

Reference to alternative fuels could be made in Part B of theCode and international guidelines.

Note: numbering above indicates perceived urgency to close the identified gaps.

MTF’s review demonstrates that the maritime industry is not ready for the safe adoption at scale of alternative fuels yet. To
be able to meet the required decarbonisation targets, all industry stakeholders should collaborate towards safe
adoption of alternative fuels including issues detailed in this report.
MTF would like to emphasise the importance of safety culture in the maritime industry. Safety culture is an organisational
culture that places a high level of importance on safety beliefs, values, behaviours and attitudes, and is vital for safe
implementation of alternative fuels onboard ships. Safety culture should be encouraged through Safety Management
System implementation and onboard health and safety protection and accident prevention programmes, and it will
reduce the potential health and safety risks which may be caused due to the introduction of alternative and morehazardous fuels.

2 Maritime Technologies ForumOPERATIONAL MANAGEMENT TO ACCELERATE SAFE DECARBONIZATION — APRIL 2023

Introduction and Objective
The Maritime Technologies Forum (MTF) is a group of flag
States and classification societies which aims to bridge thegap between technological progress and regulatory
process. MTF has been established to provide technicaland regulatory expertise for the maritime industry. MTF’srole is to publish research based on its member’s expertiseand offer unbiased advice to the maritime industry. The
current research focuses on the common challenge ofmaritime decarbonisation and the safe adoption of newtechnologies, including alternative fuels.
Alternative fuels1 will be one of the key measures
to reduce GHG emissions from shipping, and theirimportance will increase with a potential net zero
emission target for shipping by 2050. The industrywide
introduction and use of alternative fuels in shipping,with some of them more hazardous than conventional
fuels, will lead to new safety hazards and associatedrisks. These risks can be mitigated by appropriatetechnology and operational ship management, including
adequate training of the crew and other personnel.
The international public-private alliance “Zero-Emission
Shipping Mission” highlighted this challenge in theirrecently published industry roadmap [Ref 1] and raisedsafety and operational risk management, addressing
safety, guidelines, training, and methodologies forhandling and the storage of new fuels as one of fiveinnovation areas. The scale of the training needed tosupport a decarbonised shipping industry was highlighted
in a recent report commissioned by the Maritime
Just Transition Task Force Secretariat [Ref 2]. They foundthat there is an immediate need for training seafarers
and that the pace depends on the decarbonisation1

pathway. Potentially, up to 750,000 seafarers need
to be trained by 2050 to operate with alternative fuels.
A recent industry position paper entitled “Green
Curriculum” [Ref 3] outlined future crew knowledge andskills that need to be acquired and how they might beassessed and accredited to a globally accepted andconsistent standard.
In line with its purpose, MTF explored whether crew andship management personnel are sufficiently enabled to
manage new risks arising from operating with alternative
fuels which includes bunkering, onboard storage andusage, maintenance and being prepared for possible
emergency situations. Therefore, this study evaluates
whether existing regulations are sufficiently detailed andcan support the acceleration of safe maritime
decarbonisation: The International Safety Management(ISM) Code [Ref 4], International Convention on Standardsof Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers(STCW) [Ref 5]; and The Maritime Labour Convention(MLC) [Ref 6].
This report makes suitable recommendations to close
these gaps for future safe use of alternative fuels. The
report also highlights the perceived urgency to close
these gaps so that the maritime industry can prioritise
where they need to channel their limited resources. Finally,
the report also identifies barriers that prevent closing andactors that help closing these gaps for use of alternative
fuels towards a safer decarbonisation.
MTF’s recent work can be found on our website:www.maritimetechnologiesforum.com. One recent
study, for example, focuses on “Fuels evaluation throughthe MTF framework for assessing decarbonisation
technologies and alternative energy carriers.”

In this report, we use the term Alternative Fuels to describe low carbon, carbon neutral and zero carbon fuels.

3 Maritime Technologies ForumOPERATIONAL MANAGEMENT TO ACCELERATE SAFE DECARBONIZATION — APRIL 2023

ISM Code – Assessment and Findings
The ISM Code [Ref 4] is an international standard thatis intended to ensure the safe operation of ships, toprevent human injury and loss of life at sea, andprotection of the environment. One of the objectivesof the ISM Code is to ensure compliance withinternational, national and other requirements andrecommendations as applicable. As alternative fuelsrequirements are adopted by the industry, and national
and international regulations are adopted byregulators, shipowners and operators will be required
to address them through their Safety Management
System (SMS) to comply with these mandatory
provisions which then become subject to verification
through sampling during ISM Code audits.
The ISM Code is primarily focused on ensuring the safe
operation of ships and does not directly address design
requirements, energy efficiency and the reduction ofemissions from shipping in a comprehensive manner.
There is a significant reliance on classification andstatutory certifications to confirm that design of the
bunkering, storage and processing equipment has
been verified to meet specified international, national
and industry requirements and that the equipment
is fit for the intended service.
The ISM Code can address alternative fuels in several
ways:• SMS: The company, through its SMS, is required to
identify, assess, and control all hazards that may arise
during shipboard operations. The SMS should include
procedures for the handling, storage, and transferof hazardous fuels, inspection and maintenance ofequipment, reporting of incidents and accidents
as well as emergency response procedures in theevent of a spill or other emergencies involving
alternative fuels.
• Training: The ISM Code requires that crew members
be properly trained for shipboard operations. Crew
members who handle alternative fuels must be
properly trained in the safe handling and storageof alternative fuels. This training should include
information on the properties of fuels, the risks andhazards associated with them, and the precautions
that must be taken to prevent health and safetyincidents or accidents. Shipboard personnel
handling such fuels should be required to obtain
Statutory training . Additionally, companies should
establish and provide shipboard training basedon the equipment and type of fuel being carriedon board.
• Maintenance: The ISM Code requires that the
shipboard equipment be inspected and properly
maintained in order to ensure its safe operation. The
company’s planned maintenance schedule should
include all equipment used for handling, storage anduse of alternative fuels to ensure availability andreliability.

4 Maritime Technologies Forum• Emergency response: The ISM Code requires thatships have plans and procedures in place forresponding to all identified hazards andemergencies. The company will be expected todevelop an SMS procedure which includes hazards
and emergency situations involving alternative fuels.
Therefore, the ISM Code already has the framework forsafe handling of hazardous fuels from the perspectiveof safety and pollution prevention. Provided that theequipment for handling, processing and storage ofsuch fuels is certified as meeting all classification andstatutory requirements when installed, the following
SMS enhancements/mitigating measures should be
implemented:
1) An additional risk assessment carried out by thecompany must identify and assess all hazards posedby these fuels. Once these hazards are assessed,
the SMS must be updated to include necessary
measures to control identified risks, mitigate
consequences of an unexpected event, andprevention measures as applicable. This includes
establishing inspection and maintenance schedules
and development of emergency response plans.
2) Crew must be certified as per national andinternational requirements (when developed).
Additionally, the crew must be trained in the newrisks and SMS procedures to control/mitigate suchrisks. Drills should be carried out to ensure that the
emergency response plans are understood andthe crew is prepared for any emergency situation
at all times.
3) Internal audits and periodic reviews should be
carried out to confirm that the crew is adequately
trained and familiar with the SMS procedures forhandling alternative fuels and that the SMS has
been implemented effectively.
MTF has identified some gaps in relation to alternative
fuels and ISM Code’s implementation which aredetailed in Table 1 below. For each gap, a description
is provided, listed in the form of perceived urgency
to close. Perceived urgency should not be seen aslevel of importance as they all lead to safe onboard
operation. However, their adoption may need tofollow a sequence (and the limitation in resource todeliver the results) hence they are numbered asperceived urgency to close. The table also outlines
pathways to address and close the gaps. It is notedthat there may be other pathways to close the gaps;
however, MTF believes that these recommendations
will lead to a smooth and effective transition to safe
decarbonisation. Finally, the table presents actorsthat help closing the gaps; and barriers that limit
or prevent them being closed. Understanding
these actors and barriers are helpful to achievea smooth and accelerated transition to safe
decarbonisation. These actors listed might help
industry stakeholders to collaborate and achievesafe decarbonisation.

Due to its risk-based nature and level offamiliarity with risks associated withalternative fuels, some elements of safe
operation/hazards may be overlooked; andthe SMS procedures might be insufficiently
developed and implemented for eachcompany.

ISM-1: Uncertainty
related to Safety
Management
Systemrequirements
development andimplementation

5 Maritime Technologies Forum

Lack of awareness of risks associated withalternative fuels may lead to certain
emergency scenarios being overlooked orinadequate SMS procedures.

Planned maintenance facilitates ship
operators to plan, perform and document
onboard inspection and maintenance atintervals complying with Class andmanufacturer requirements. Currently,
there are no requirements for inclusion ofalternative fuel systems in the SMS (such as
in a Planned Maintenance System) which
may cause relevant equipment being
overlooked resulting in system failures.

Alternative fuels in maritime industry arenew, therefore, there is a lack offamiliarity related to alternative fuelmanagement for various stakeholders.
Hence, some elements may not berecognised and overlooked by relevant
industry stakeholders during the
introductory period.

ISM-2: Uncertainty
related toemergency
proceduredevelopment

ISM-3: Uncertainty
related tomaintenanceactivities

ISM-4: Lack offamiliarity ofrisks, hazards
and control
measures

Identification of hazards and risks for safe
operation and management of alternativefuel systems is essential for the developmentof SMS procedures and safety culture which
may differ for each company.

DefinitionGap

To ensure safe application ofalternative fuels, the identificationof training needs, the developmentof training materials and theprovision of training are needed for
all relevant industry stakeholders(those not covered by STCW
requirements).

To ensure safe application ofalternative fuels within the SMS, IMO
may need to define, potentiallybased on industry proposals, andmandate the inclusion of measures toaddress alternative fuel systems
within the SMS (this may happen via
an MSC circular).

To ensure safe application ofalternative fuels, IMO may require
industry stakeholders to develop a listof emergency scenarios and drills(involving alternative fuels) andassociated guidance (this may
happen via an MSC circular).

One way of encouraging safe
application of alternative fuels may
be the development of a guidance
document which can be producedby the industry and submitted to the
IMO. This guidance document would
help towards the development of a
Maritime Safety Committee (MSC)
circular for industry wide application;
acceptance; and consistentdevelopment and implementation.

Recommendation

Table 1: Summary of identified gaps and recommendations for closing

All relevant industry stakeholders may
be able to help towards developmentof model training courses and deliveryof training.

Collaborative approach between theworking groups at the IMO and industry
stakeholders.

Collaborative approach between theworking groups at the IMO and industry
stakeholders.

Flag States or other relevant stakeholders
may lobby to prioritise this topic which
may help to speed up the process ofregulatory change.

All relevant industry stakeholders may beable to prepare draft submissions to help
speed up the process of regulatorychange.

ActorsThere may be dependence onother identified gaps being
addressed beforehand
therefore delaying this gap to
be closed.

Ownership of the action required
to close the gap is unknown. If
ownership is shared by multiple
IMO committees, this may lead to
additional delays.

Ownership of the action required
to close the gap is unknown. If
ownership is shared by multiple
IMO committees, this may lead to
additional delays.

This is a complicated subject andthere is lack of depth ofknowledge, expertise andexperience within maritime
industry which typically requires
longer time frame to establish.

Barriers

OPERATIONAL MANAGEMENT TO ACCELERATE SAFE DECARBONIZATION — APRIL 2023

OPERATIONAL MANAGEMENT TO ACCELERATE SAFE DECARBONIZATION — APRIL 2023

STCW – Assessment and Findings
The International Convention on Standards of Training,
Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers 1978 (STCW)
as amended [Ref 5] provides minimum standards fortraining and certification of seafarers. The lastcomprehensive review of the STCW was started in 2006
and adopted in 2010 which demonstrates the long timerequired to undertake such a review. During this review,
there were no discussions on the implications ofalternative fuels onboard ships. However, a model courseon handling of fuels subject to the International Code of
Safety for Ship Using Gases or Other Low-flashpoint Fuels(IGF Code) [Ref 7] has been developed, adopted and iseffective since 1 January 2017.
Unfortunately, a scheduled comprehensive review was
postponed during 2020 due to the COVID pandemic.
In the year 2023, a working group for the comprehensive
review of the Convention and Code was formed
and a newly formed correspondence group under the
Sub-Committee on Human element, Training andWatchkeeping (HTW 9) [Ref 8] was tasked to develop aroadmap; and identify relevant items for considerationin the comprehensive review. Onboard usage ofalternative fuels is identified as one of the areas which is tobe reviewed under this comprehensive review. This

6 Maritime Technologies Forum

revision is likely to bring the Convention and Code up
to date with developments regarding alternative fuels
and latest technologies by 2028. It is expected that
IMO may task relevant stakeholders for thedevelopment of model courses for alternative fuels.
MTF has identified some gaps in relation to alternative
fuels and STCW which are detailed in Table 2 below.
For each gap, a description is provided, listed in theform of perceived urgency to close. Perceived
urgency should not be seen as level of importance as
they all lead to safe onboard operation. However,their adoption may need to follow a sequence (andthe limitation in resource to deliver the results) hence
they are numbered as perceived urgency to close.
The table also outlines pathways to address and close
the gaps. It is noted that there may be other pathways
to close the gaps; however, MTF believes that theserecommendations will lead to a smooth and effective
transition to safe decarbonisation. Finally, the table
presents actors that help closing the gaps; andbarriers that limit or prevent them being closed.
Understanding these actors and barriers are helpful toachieve a smooth and accelerated transition to safe
decarbonisation. These actors listed might help
industry stakeholders to collaborate and achieve safe
decarbonisation.

Definition

The intended output from thecomprehensive review is unknown at thispoint therefore it is not known what changes
will be made to the Code and what model
courses and their timeline will be adopted
regarding alternative fuels.

Future model training courses only
addressing competencies and not including
behaviour aspects may not be sufficient to
mitigate the risks posed by alternative fuels.
Necessary details might not be available
possibly because of lack of collaborationfrom system suppliers due to commercial
sensitivities.

As it is unclear which fuel will be more
dominant globally, and which fuel related
technologies will be adopted, the training
course developers may not have thecommercial incentive to develop
alternative fuel courses in advance and forall potential alternative fuels.

Delivery of training based on modeltraining courses may vary from provider
to provider which could causeinconsistencies. OEM training courses are
typically supplementary to the modeltraining courses (as industry bestpractice, these are not mandatory) anddo not require statutory approval fromboth delivery and content perspective.
This also may cause inconsistencies as
there are no minimum requirements. tshould be highlighted that theimportance of consistency is crucial for
shipboard deployment of the alternative
fuels due to high level of health andsafety risks.

Gap

STCW-1:
Regulatory
uncertainty

STCW-2:Insufficiencies
within model
courses

7 Maritime Technologies Forum

STCW-3: Lack of
incentives fortraining course
developers

STCW-4:
Inconsistent
implementationof training
Flag States could review the training
materials and audit the training
providers to ensure consistentdelivery in line with the IMO model
courses. Consideration should bemade to require OEM training course
to be audited to improve consistency
and alignment.

Outcome based phased funding
could be based on delivery of
training outcomes.

Public and private funding may beprovided to training course
developers.

Incentivise relevant industry
stakeholders to collaborate withtraining providers on various
alternative fuel types and to include
behaviour aspects within modeltraining courses may help close thisgap.

Industry guidelines for model courses
may be developed by industry
stakeholders to encourage andsupport swift regulatory change.

Recommendation

Table 2: Summary of identified gaps and recommendations for closing

Safety culture enhancement,
encouragement and support from theflag States.

Public and private funding to training
developers and shipowners.

If flag States approve these training
courses, they can encourage OEMs toinclude behaviour-based training.

Business decisions made by the
shipowners in selection of OEMs.

Effective communication between
industry stakeholders emphasising theneed for urgent action.

ActorsThere is no known precedent for
approval of OEMs training
courses.

Lack of funding andinfrastructure; uncertainty on
dominant alternative fuel type;unclear regulatory landscapeand demand.

OEMs might feel that the
behaviour aspects are not their
responsibility to address.

Collaboration by system suppliers
might be limited by commercial
sensitivity.

Lack of recognition of urgency at
the IMO working groups.

Willingness to develop andcollaborate by the industry
stakeholders.

Barriers

OPERATIONAL MANAGEMENT TO ACCELERATE SAFE DECARBONIZATION — APRIL 2023

OPERATIONAL MANAGEMENT TO ACCELERATE SAFE DECARBONIZATION — APRIL 2023

MLC – Assessment and Findings
The Maritime Labour Convention (MLC) 2006 [Ref 6], establishes minimum requirements for working and living conditions
for seafarers. MLC is an international requirement which applies to all ships regardless of their trading areas (as long as therelevant flag State Administrations have ratified the Convention).
ISM and STCW only applies to ships trading in international waters and, therefore, including reference to alternative fuels
within the MLC is vital, as impacting working and living conditions of seafarers also in national waters. One other way MLC
differs from ISM and STCW it how it places the responsibility on the flag state to develop or adopt relevant health and safety
protection legislations to fulfil MLC objectives.
MTF has identified one gap in relation to alternative fuels and MLC which is detailed in Table 3 below. For this gap, a description and a pathway to address and close it is provided. It is noted that there may be other pathways to close the gap;
however, MTF believes that this recommendation will lead to a smooth and effective transition to safe decarbonisation.
Finally, the table presents actors that help with closing the gap; and barriers that limit or prevent the closing of gaps. Understanding these actors and barriers are helpful to achieve a smooth and accelerated transition to safe decarbonisation.
These actors listed might help industry stakeholders to collaborate and achieve safe decarbonisation.
Table 3: Summary of identified gap and recommendation for closing
Gap

Description

Recommendation

ActorsBarriers

MLC-1: Lack ofreference toalternative
fuels

Currently, MLC andinternationalguidelines referred totherein do notaddress alternative
fuels which may leadto certain health andsafety considerations
being overlooked bymember States.

Reference toalternative fuels
could be made inPart B of the Codeand internationalguidelines which will
ensure that themember States willaddress the relevant
requirements in theirnational legislation.

Flag States, seafarers’organisations andshipowners forum
could makesubmissions to special
tripartite committee
to include referencesof risks posed byalternative fuels tothe seafarers working
and living conditions.

Working with theInternational Labour
Organization
convention (ILO)
tripartite structure*.

• The tripartite structure provides management and labour, a status equal to that of representatives of governments in
the ILO. This principle aimed at inspiring confidence among workers’ and employers’ representatives and associatingthem with governmental action in order to achieve and maintain social peace.

8 Maritime Technologies ForumOPERATIONAL MANAGEMENT TO ACCELERATE SAFE DECARBONIZATION — APRIL 2023

Conclusions and Future Work
The assessment of ISM, STCW and MLC regulations reported herein highlights critical gaps that exist related to safely
operating alternative fuels that need to and can be closed to accelerate a safe maritime decarbonisation. These gaps
relate to safety management, crew training and safety culture.
IMO and industry need to collaborate to close the identified gaps. In several areas, industry including MTF can takea lead to provide regulators with appropriate proposals on how the gaps can be closed. This will help to achieve thenecessary acceleration in the process of closing the gaps.
MTF would like to emphasise the importance of safety culture in the maritime industry. Safety culture is an organisational
culture that places a high level of importance on safety beliefs, values, behaviours and attributes and is vital for safe
implementation of alternative fuels onboard ships. Safety culture should be encouraged through SMS implementation,
onboard health and safety protection and accident prevention programmes, which will reduce the potential healthand safety risks which may be caused due to the introduction of alternative and more hazardous fuels.
This report provides recommendations to all industry stakeholders towards safe operational management of alternative
fuels onboard ships. The key findings in relation to the three regulations that are discussed in this report, may be listed
as below:
ISM

STCW

MLC

Identification of hazards and risks
from operation of alternative fuels isessential for the development andimplementation of the safety
management system, emergency
procedures and related
maintenance activities.

Industry collaboration is needed toaddress current regulatory
uncertainties, insufficiencies withinmodel courses and inconsistent
implementation of training.
Considering the need for funding
the future training course
development and delivery, afraction of future revenues frommarket-based measures might beearmarked appropriately.

Reference to alternative fuels could
be made in Part B of the Code andinternational guidelines which will
ensure that the member States willaddress the relevant requirements intheir national legislation.

9 Maritime Technologies ForumOPERATIONAL MANAGEMENT TO ACCELERATE SAFE DECARBONIZATION — APRIL 2023

References
1. Zero Emission Shipping Mission: Industry Roadmap for Zero Emission Shipping, available at http://mission-innovation.
net/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Zero-Emission-Shipping-Mission-Roadmap-1-1.pdf, April 2022.
2. Kaspersen, Raymond Antoni, Henning Ødeby Karlsen, Henrik Helgesen, Georg Giskegjerde, Christine Lagerstedt
Krugerud and Peter Nyegaard Hoffmann: Insights into Seafarer Traingin and Skills Needed to Support a
Decabonized Shipping Industry, DNV report 2022-0814, November 2022.
3. Green Curriculum, Position Paper on Green Seafarer Safety Needs, Chamber of Shipping, International Transport
Workers Federation, Institute of Marine Engineering Science and Technology, The Nautical Institute, and Ocean
Technologies Group, August 2022.
4. The International Safety Management (ISM) Code was adopted in 1993 by resolution A.741(18) and was mademandatory with the entry into force, on 1 July 1998, of the 1994 amendments to the SOLAS Convention, which
introduced a new chapter IX into the Convention.
5. International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW) adopted
in 1978 and entered into force in 1984 with major revisions in 1995 and 2010.
6. The Maritime Labour Convention (MLC) is an International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention establishedin 2006.
7.

International Code of Safety for Ship Using Gases or Other Low-flashpoint Fuels (IGF Code).

8. Sub-Committee on Human Element, Training and Watchkeeping (HTW 9) dated February 2023.
9. Guidance on implementing the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 - Model National Provisions [2nd impression(with modifications), 2014]

10 Maritime Technologies ForumOPERATIONAL MANAGEMENT TO ACCELERATE SAFE DECARBONIZATION — APRIL 2023

Acknowledgements:
MTF Member Organisation

ParticipantABS

Dinesh Thareja

ABS

Jesse Lashbrook

ClassNK

Naoki Saito

ClassNK

Vikrant Sharma

DNV

Pierre Sames

DNV

Wenche Lunde

Lloyd’s Register

Andrew Sillitoe

Lloyd’s Register

Yildiz Williams (Project Manager)

Maritime and Coastguard Agency, UK

Siva Thevaruvattath

Maritime and Coastguard Agency, UK

Saskia Dagett

MLIT*

Hirotaka Taoguchi

MLIT*

Takayuki Hasegawa

MLIT*

Yo Shibata

Norwegian Maritime Authority

Bjorn Mikkel Rygh

Norwegian Maritime Authority

Dale Konrad Odd

Norwegian Maritime Authority

Simen Mildal* MLIT: The Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, ministry of the Japanese government

For any enquires about this report, please send a message to:contact@maritimetechnologiesforum.com.

11 Maritime Technologies Forum