MAIN HEAD Getting electronic charts moving 1400 words DECK HEAD Reunifying Primar Stavanger and IC-ENC would be a good way to get electronic charts moving onto ships, Dr Andy Norris argues BODY The professional maritime world has got itself into a tangle in introducing electronic charts. One day its history will make a fine how-not-to-do-it text book for future generations. 'What should have been done to ensure success?' is perhaps an interesting question But right now the important question is 'what is happening now to get things really moving?' Probably one of the main reasons for the difficulties we are in is the overriding need to derive systems that are 100% safe. It is relatively easy to enhance safety standards for existing equipment and systems as a result of experience. With new safety related systems the standards must be evolved before much actual experience has been gained. This has been a particularly difficult problem for ECDIS, not least because data generation and distribution is also part of the equation. The technical, political, commercial and logistical issues in this area are immense - and all have relevance to safety. Today, the technical standards for ECDIS hardware and ENC data definition are under control and appear satisfactory for safe navigation. Over the years improvements will be made but they are no longer the main issue. This leaves only the political, commercial and logistical issues to be sorted out! SUBHEAD Singapore conference A major attempt to get interested parties together to talk about the present situation and see what needs to be done was the 2nd International ECDIS Conference and Exhibition, held in Singapore in October 2003. It was organised jointly by the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA) and the United Kingdom Hydrographic Office (UKHO). Many participants were stunned by a hard-hitting but accurate appraisal of the present situation in the keynote address by Admiral Sir Nigel Essenhigh. Sir Nigel is in a good position to make knowledgeable statements on the situation as he relatively recently retired as being 'No 1' in the Royal Navy (First Sea Lord and Chief of Naval Staff), was chief executive officer of the UK Hydrographic Office from 1994-96 and was a navigation specialist in his earlier sea-going career. "I find it extraordinary that, in the 7 years since I left the UK Hydrographic Office, the electronic charting debate and the production of a genuine world wide ECDIS database has advanced so little", summed up Sir Nigel's view of the present global situation. Sir Nigel left few out of his criticisms but he was speaking passionately on behalf of ECDIS users. However, he was equally passionate about the benefits of electronic charts and cited, with analysis, several accidents that would have been almost certainly prevented had electronic charts been in use by the vessels concerned. SUBHEAD Problems A presentation by Bob Moss of the UKHO at the end of the conference highlighted the main issues that had been debated and explained what the UKHO and MPA would do in order to help the situation. It was not surprising that the issue heading the list was 'coverage'. It is clear that ENCs will be mainly ignored by the shipping industry until this problem is properly sorted. Users were also rightly concerned with issues on the presentation of data on the ECDIS screen. Different hydrographic offices, for instance, use different depth contours. This presents a confusing picture on the screen at the 'HO' boundaries, especially with the display of the vessel's safety contour. Also, on zooming in and out at these boundaries different application by HOs of the 'scale minimum' parameter causes different degrees of detail to be displayed on other side of the boundary. The third major issue was on the interpretation of the ECDIS carriage requirements by different maritime administrations. This mainly involves the use of the word 'may' in the revised (2000) SOLAS regulations concerning ECDIS - "ECDIS may be accepted as meeting the chart carriage requirements". When this was being drafted many saw that 'may' was at the prerogative of the user but a number of administrations have decided that 'may' allows them to say whether and how ECDIS can be used on their flagged vessels and possibly in their own national waters. Among other concerns was the need for a global catalogue of ENCs and the high cost of ECDIS training. The latter is becoming an ever growing problem for the shipping industry in general. The situation perhaps worsened by the vast difference in the operation of ECDIS equipment from different manufacturers. The conference organisers agreed that they would identify priorities and timescales and communicate the concerns to the International Hydrographic Office (IHO) and other 'relevant bodies'. They also both agreed to increase their interaction with users. SUBHEAD IHO All this is well-meaning enough - but is it going to get results? Can the IHO really get ENCs moving? The IHO has been informed on many occasions of the issues that the UKHO/MPA letter will highlight. Many of the problems are directly attributable to the IHO's handling of the introduction of ENCs and they still appear to be unable to rectify matters in appropriate timescales. Of course they are not responsible for all of the issues but many of the problems with ENCs lie with them: The lack of ENC coverage and the slow rate of increase in their availability. By implication promising a lot, without ensuring that their member countries could properly finance the operation. Data presentation 'inconsistencies' at boundaries. A confused distribution process. Lack of a global catalogue and planned coverage schedules. Lack of meaningful tie-up of their members with their corresponding maritime administrations. For much of the last decade when ECDIS and ENCs were being defined, the IHO did not have a proper dialogue with users and relevant commercial bodies. It was made clear that they alone defined the ENC and its processes. This meant that many of the practical and commercial realities of the marine world were ignored. "Routes to market" was apparently an unheard phrase and theoretical models of distribution, which ignored commercial realities, were proposed. It is good, however, to see a change in their attitude to industry. Vice Admiral Alexandros Maratos, president of the IHB Directing Committee said at the Singapore Conference: "Industry is a very valuable technical partner of the IHO. The procedures for a more efficient and effective formal cooperation have been identified and actions are in place". SUBHEAD Primar and IC-ENC Unfortunately the problem is probably too complex for the IHO to resolve. To be fair, international bodies of this type have huge problems in decision making because of the diverse view of their members and the need to have consensus. The very recent IMO resolution, A.958(23), encouraging governments to promote ECDIS and further the production of ENCs may help but it is unlikely to make a significant difference without structural alterations to the ENC 'system'. So, what should be done? A potentially successful route would be to reunify Primar and the IC-ENC and re-launch the new body as a truly international organisation, with IHO (non-financial) backing. Through some form of additional funding (perhaps organised at UN level), together with licence income, this body would become responsible to oversee the standards, production and update of a global ENC database. In areas with weak national hydrographic support they would get directly involved with data production. Much of the ENC data production services would be outsourced by this new body to industry, as would the distribution to end users, in a variety of acceptable formats and media. This would ensure that a reasonable split of public and private investment and risk was involved and that commercial competitiveness would evolve ever-improving added value services for the end-user. The non-executive board of this new body should perhaps have a majority of IHO-appointed members. This would enable the IHO to oversee the operation without it getting bogged down in the IHO decision making process. Also it would ensure that the European roots of the new body were rapidly internationalised and made acceptable to all IHO members. Other non-executive board members would be from a commercial background. We really do need something radical to get ENCs with their undoubted safety benefits into real use. The dialogue for change must continue.