Is the IMO's e-Navigation Initiative Relevant?

by Paul Kirchner, American Pilots Association

Unlike most of the eNavigation conferences, workshops, and seminars conducted around the world, the annual eNavigation conference hosted by Pacific Maritime Magazine is focused on the use of eNavigation tools in actual ship operations, both today and in the future. Despite this focus, the conference always includes a report on the current status of the IMO’s eNavigation Strategy initiative. This is appropriate and useful, considering that IMO, with help from IALA, has now spent over ten years on the project, and participating individuals and organizations have expended a great deal of time and resources. Listening to the IMO report at last December’s Pacific Maritime conference, however, many of the attendees may have been wondering what, if anything, the work of IMO and IALA on eNavigation may have to do with what is actually taking place on the bridges of ships, particularly in the U.S. and Canada. 

The development and use of advanced electronic navigation and communication technologies to increase the quantity and improve the quality of information available to vessels has been going on for some time now. It has proceeded, by and large, outside of the IMO’s eNavigation Strategy. At the December conference, U.S. and Canadian mariners from diverse segments of the shipping industry, ship operating companies, and ports discussed their experiences with what would be considered eNavigation tools. These discussions were meaningful, and were informed by actual and recent shipboard experience. On the other hand, apart from the IMO/IALA update, the eNavigation activities of those two organizations were rarely mentioned over the course of the two-day conference

It is fair, therefore, to ask: what’s the real world relevance and value of the IMO’s ten-years-and-counting eNavigation initiative? My opinion: so far, not much. Nevertheless, there may be some positive developments for mariners and ship operators that may emerge from the IMO’s initiative.

For example, the IMO’s Strategy Implementation Plan (SIP) adopted in 2014 envisions several measures or “outputs” designed to improve the usability and reliability of eNavigation tools. One output, “Guideline on Software Quality Assurance and Human Centred Design for e-Navigation” has already been developed and issued by the IMO. The IMO has also approved future work on four other proposed outputs that have the potential for real improvements in the tools and information available to mariners and ship operators:

• Revised Performance Standards for Integrated Navigation Systems relating to the harmonization of bridge design and display of information;
• Revised guidelines and criteria for ship reporting systems relating to standardized and harmonized electronic ship reporting and automated collection of onboard data for reporting;
• Guidelines for the harmonized display of navigation information received via communication equipment; and
• Requirements for Built In Integrity Testing for navigation equipment.

These five projects involve the type of in-the-trenches, technical grunt work that may offer significant value to the ship operating world. The IMO should be praised for taking these on.

There is a legitimate concern, however, that the promise of these projects might never be realized, at least based on the experience of the past ten years of work at IMO and IALA. The small group of delegations (led by the Scandinavian countries and the Netherlands) that currently dominates the eNavigation efforts at the IMO doesn’t seem very enthusiastic about these projects.  That’s because these delegations are composed primarily of VTS operators and other shore-based governmental authorities who see eNavigation not for enhancing shipboard operations but rather as a vehicle for expanding the role of governments in controlling vessel movements from shore. For these delegations, improving the quality, reliability, and usability of marine information to help mariners perform their navigation duties doesn’t seem to be as sexy or “paradigm-shifting” as their more exotic ideas, such as Sea Traffic Management, Route Exchange, or the Maritime Cloud.

Mariners and ship operators should actively participate in the four ongoing projects. These projects could get off track very easily if the shore interests are left free to direct them, and the eventual outputs may be far different from what was intended when the IMO authorized work on them.

Copyright © Philips Publishing Group 2016