International Maritime Organization (IMO) - Experts & Thought Leaders

Raymarine – a global pioneer in high-performance marine electronics — announced the official release of the Pathfinder ECDIS (Electronic Chart Display and Information System). The IMO-compliant Pathfinder ECDS is a premier maritime navigation solution for use both as a primary and backup navigation system for all vessel types, from workboats to large cargo ships and superyachts. Pathfinder ECDIS is the culmination of Raymarine’s marine hardware innovation and Chartworld’s 25 years of ECDIS and commercial navigation experience. Raymarine designed the new Pathfinder ECDIS system for commercial vessels over 3,000 gross tons or international passenger vessels over 500 gross tons — optimising it for faster system familiarity and simplified chart installation, thus reducing the need for extensive crew training. Pathfinder ECDIS Pathfinder ECDIS offers an all-around, operator-friendly experience by integrating seamlessly with Chartworld ENC and data services, making navigation smooth and efficient — no matter the journey. Pathfinder ECDIS achieved its IMO certification from DNV, the respected leader in independent standards testing and certification. The system meets International Maritime Organization (IMO) standards — IEC 61174 and IEC 62288 — and is built on rugged Raymarine hardware, optimised for low maintenance, long lifespan and ease of operation. Designed with security in mind Designed with security in mind, the Pathfinder ECDIS is an embedded navigation device rather than running a legacy desktop operating system. Always connected, every Pathfinder ECDIS system includes a ChartWorld eSync onboard gateway. The eSync gateway ensures ENCs and ChartWorld data services remain up to date, anywhere in the world. eSync also enhances the security and ensures compliance with international maritime cybersecurity standards. Additionally, Pathfinder ECDIS runs on a proven, fan-less hardware platform, offering noise free operation and reduced maintenance. Engineered for the future Engineered for the future, Pathfinder ECDIS is designed to support the S-100 next-generation ENC standard. Teledyne companies Raymarine, ChartWorld, SevenCs and Teledyne CARIS are at the forefront of S-100 chart production, verification and distribution, ensuring Pathfinder ECDIS operators experience a seamless transition to the new ENC standard. “We’re proud to be leading the industry with the latest commercial maritime technologies and the new Pathfinder ECDIS System exemplifies our vision,” said Gregoire Outters, VP and General Manager of Raymarine, adding “From new vessel installations to retrofitting older vessels, the Pathfinder ECDIS will set the standard of safe and secure maritime navigation.”

The Maritime Technologies Forum (MTF) now announced the publication of guidelines for conducting qualitative risk assessments for alternative-fuelled ships: HAZID and HAZOP. The use of alternative fuels will be key to addressing the ‘2023 IMO Strategy on Reduction of GHG Emissions from Ships.’ While IMO has developed guidelines for design and operation of ships capable of using them, the Alternative Design and Approval process is required for most alternative fuels until mandatory regulations are in place. And this dictates using qualitative risk assessment to document an equivalent level of safety compared with a vessel designed to operate with conventional fuels. Handling an alternative design Existing guidelines, such as MSC.1/Circ.1455 and IACS Rec. 146, remain valuable references to the general process for handling alternative design, independent of technology. With the industry’s expanding adoption of alternative fuels and lessons learned from recent projects, MTF considered that there is a need to make supplement to these documents to cover a wider range of fuels and technologies. HAZID and HAZOP studies The new MTF report provides guidelines for conducting qualitative risk assessments as a core component of the approval process for alternative-fuelled ships. This addresses both HAZID and HAZOP studies, detailing qualification requirements for involved personnel and outlining the procedural steps involved. The guidelines also specify required input documents, reporting requirements and risk criteria. The guidelines support the identification of potential hazardous events and the development of preventive and mitigative safeguards to manage risks associated with the use of alternative fuels. Increase in alternative fuelled vessels The new guidelines were presented at the MTF Seminar on Safe Maritime Decarbonisation held during Europort on 6 November 2025. With the expected increase in alternative fuelled vessels, both newbuilds and retrofits, panel discussions with industry pioneers focused on the relevance of the guidelines and their effective implementation to ensure consistent outcomes providing transparency and trust to the industry stakeholders. Rigorous approaches to HAZIDs and HAZOPs John McDonald, ABS President and Chief Operating Officer, said, “As the industry scales up the use of new fuels, it's essential to establish consistent and rigorous approaches to HAZIDs and HAZOPs. A unified framework is critical for maintaining safety equivalence as the industry adopts alternative fuel technologies.” Safety for novel fuel systems Alf Tore Sørheim, acting Director General, Norwegian Maritime Authority, said, “Consistency across methodologies will also help Administrations take decisions with more confidence. These guidelines are an important contribution, supporting Administrations and industry stakeholders in demonstrating safety for novel fuel systems through an alternative design process, in a more consistent and predictable manner.”

ClassNK has released the 'Part A Guidelines for Ships Using Alternative Fuels (Edition 3.0.1)'. This edition includes supplementary explanations about interpretations of safety requirements for methyl/ethyl alcohol-fuelled ships, as well as compiling key points on required plans and documents, and class survey items specifically for such vessels. Background The 'Guidelines for Ships Using Alternative Fuels' comprehensively describe safety requirements for alternative-fueled ships. It stipulates requirements for installation, controls, safety devices, etc., aiming to minimise the risks to ships, seafarers, and the environment posed by the use of alternative fuels. The Guidelines consist of four parts: Part A (Methyl/Ethyl Alcohol), Part B (LPG), Part C (Ammonia), and Part D (Hydrogen). In response to the increasing number of methyl alcohol-fuelled ships being built both domestically and internationally, ClassNK has issued this revised edition to clarify frequently inquired requirements in Part A and to further support stakeholders involved in such projects. Key features Part A (Edition 3.0.1) added supplementary explanations for key design topics that have attracted particular attention in shipbuilding, through utilising the knowledge and experience gained from design review activities and further clarifying the interpretation of safety requirements for methyl/ethyl alcohol-fuelled ships. In addition, as part of the recent trends in methyl/ethyl alcohol-fueled ships, discussions on the revision of the IMO Interim Guidelines, which form the basis of Part A, are scheduled to take place at the 12th session of the IMO Sub-Committee on Carriage of Cargoes and Containers (CCC 12) in September 2026. ClassNK will closely monitor these discussions and reflect the outcomes in Part A as necessary. As part of the 'ClassNK Transition Support Services' that comprehensively supports the customers' smooth transition to zero-emission, ClassNK will continue to support the introduction of alternative-fuelled ships by issuing such safety requirements and guidance for design. The guidelines are available to download via 'Guidelines' of My Page on ClassNK’s website after registration.

Imagine a vessel in distress, the challenging weather and sea state, the distractions and the anxiety onboard the ship or liferaft. Whether a commercial ship, an offshore supply vessel, or a ferry, any emergency situation is extremely stressful, requiring calm decisions and actions by the captain and crew which could potentially save lives. Reliable electronic safety equipment For decades, with pyrotechnic flares as the accepted standard, a crew member has been expected to fumble for a flare pack, remove the cap, pull the string to ignite the flare while moving hands quickly out of the way, and hold the flare overboard, ensuring it is downwind. The procedure is difficult in a distress situation, with failure to perform these actions correctly possibly resulting in injury or damage to the liferaft keeping survivors afloat. However, today there are alternatives that offer an easier, less dangerous, toxic and outdated solution in an age bristling with reliable electronic safety equipment. Availability and reliability of advanced technology The general pyrotechnic carriage requirements for vessels subject to the SOLAS Convention Commercial vessels are already required to carry EPIRBs, AIS transponders, GMDSS DSC radios, and Search-and-Rescue Transponders (SARTs) – all which will locate the survivors to within less than 110-metre radius. With the availability and reliability of this advanced technology, the persistence of mandatory flare carriage seems illogical. The general pyrotechnic carriage requirements for vessels subject to the SOLAS Convention remain as follows: For ships – 12 rocket parachute flares, at least 2 lifebuoy self-activating smoke signals and 1 line throwing appliance; For lifeboats, liferafts and rescue boats – 4 rocket parachute flares, 6 red hand flares and 2 buoyant smoke signals. Is it not time for regulators to embrace the alternatives and make electronic flares permissible? The problem with pyrotechnics Flares belong to a bygone era, when fire and smoke were the simplest way to attract attention.   Nowadays, safety and environmental factors call for a change. First, the safety issue is critical. Pyrotechnic flares burn at over one thousand degrees Celsius, often emitting molten slag and sparks together with smoke and a flame – all of which can come back at the user in high winds. Many mariners can relate stories of burns, fires, and close calls when trying to deploy them on an already unstable platform. In fact, statistics from several maritime safety bodies suggest that misuse and accidental ignition of flares are responsible for dozens of injuries every year. For a ‘safety’ device, that is a perverse irony. Additionally, flares are one shot devices. There is no way to test them to be sure they work. The user just has to hope that when activated, potentially a few years after purchase, they work as expected. Coastguards and police forces  Coastguards and police forces across Europe and the UK have been dazed by the need for safe flare disposal Toxicity must also be considered. Most red handheld and rocket flares rely on strontium nitrate and similar chemicals that are both toxic and environmentally persistent. These chemicals present a health hazard to users and nearby people. The smoke can be full of fine particulate matter that can be inhaled into the lungs, while also irritating eyes, nose and throat. Disposal is a serious problem. Once expired – usually after three years – they cannot be tossed in the bin or recycled. Instead, they become hazardous waste. Coastguards and police forces across Europe and the UK have been overwhelmed by the demand for safe flare disposal, with many mariners resorting to hoarding old flares in sheds or, worse, illegally dumping them. Every expired flare represents a risk to the environment and anyone who potentially finds dumped flares. Rules and regulations apply to time-expired flares In terms of reliability, the fact is that pyrotechnic flares can fail. They can get damp, be damaged in storage, or simply not ignite when needed, or, worse still, in rare cases, explode when ignited. Flares contain explosives and are therefore classified as Class 1 dangerous goods Even when they function correctly, their window of effectiveness is fleeting, with a red handheld burning for about a minute. A rocket flare launches skyward, blazes for about 40 seconds, and then is gone. If no ship or aircraft happens to be looking in that narrow window, the opportunity is lost. Finally, there is transportation and storage. Flares contain explosives and are therefore classified as Class 1 dangerous goods which means shipping and transportation is difficult and expensive. The same rules and regulations apply to time-expired flares. Flare canisters clutter lockers and demand careful storage away from damp conditions and potential heat sources. The modern toolkit of safety These problems demonstrate the huge contrast with the other equipment already required aboard commercial vessels – some of which is also usually carried on many recreational vessels. Emergency Position Indicating Radio Beacons (EPIRBs) use satellite constellations like Cospas-Sarsat, GPS and Galileo to transmit a vessel’s position to rescue coordination centres anywhere on the globe. Automatic Identification System (AIS) transponders broadcast a message and vessel position to every nearby ship equipped with AIS – effectively turning the entire commercial fleet and many recreational vessels into potential rescuers. GMDSS DSC radios provide voice communication to coastguards and other vessels together with their location, while Survival Craft VHF radios, acting as GMDSS portable radios, although with no locating capability, are designed to be taken from the ship into the liferaft and then used to either call for help on VHF Channel 16 or talk to rescuers.  GMDSS DSC radios provide voice contact to coastguards and other vessels. Brief flicker of a pyrotechnic flare’s flame SARTs (Search and Rescue Transponders) create either a radar or AIS target, allowing searchers to home in precisely on a vessel or liferaft. SARTs create either a radar or AIS target, allowing searchers to home in just on a vessel or liferaft This is a formidable array of technologies, far superior to the brief flicker of a pyrotechnic flare’s flame. They are continuous, reliable, and integrated into a global rescue infrastructure. If one signal is missed, another remains active. They run for hours, sometimes days – not seconds. It seems ironic that regulators have not considered modern alternatives to pyrotechnic flares as a means of providing an alert or a locating signal to nearby vessels. Enter the electronic flare Electronic Visual Distress Signalling Devices (eVDSDs), sometimes called electronic flares, are the logical successor. Compact, waterproof and rugged, these units emit bright strobing LED patterns visible for miles. They can operate continuously for hours, sometimes over an entire night, and many incorporate infrared strobes detectable by night-vision equipment often carried or worn by search and rescue personnel. Unlike pyrotechnics, they can be tested safely, reused, and either be recharged or fitted with new batteries. They do not expire with a three-year shelf life. They do not produce toxic waste. They do not risk setting a liferaft ablaze or potentially injuring the user or other crew. The U.S. Coast Guard has already approved certain eVDSDs as alternatives to handheld flares for recreational vessels. In Europe, the conversation is warming, though regulatory inertia remains. U.S. Coast Guard has approved certain eVDSDs as options to handheld flares Pyrotechnic flares vs electronic flares The evidence is clear – electronic flares work, and they work better. For a casualty vessel, this means a simple, safe, push-button device which can provide a steady beacon that pulses for hours until help arrives, instead of one or two frantic flashes in the night. In all areas – user safety, environmental issues, disposal, transportation and storage – the electronic flare is an improvement over the pyrotechnic flare every time. Essential feature, as there was no other way of signalling a distress apart from a large ship’s radio station Setting operating lifetime aside (tens of seconds for a pyrotechnic flare compared to several hours for an eVDSD), the only other real difference between the two is that a pyrotechnic flare is always going to be brighter than an electronic flare. A hundred years ago, this was an essential feature as there was no other way of signalling a distress apart from a large ship’s radio station. However, with all the other modern alerting and locating systems on ships today, this no longer matters. Electronic flares provide a light that can be seen from several miles away, which is more than sufficient when combined with other systems. Why commercial vessels should lead Some argue that small leisure craft are best suited for electronic flares, while commercial ships should retain pyrotechnics as ‘belt-and-braces’, but it is the other way around. Commercial vessels are the most heavily regulated and already equipped with multiple redundant communication systems. Their flare requirement is no longer for distress alerting – EPIRBs and the GMDSS see to that – but rather it provides a local visual locating signal once searchers are nearby. An electronic flare performs this function better than pyrotechnic flares. Furthermore, commercial operators handle large volumes of flares, multiplying the risk. A ferry or offshore supply vessel may carry dozens of flares in liferafts and bridge lockers, each of which must be monitored for expiry and disposed. This large ongoing burden of hazardous waste is a significant problem compared to a fleet of eFlares, which can be tested annually, recharged, and remains serviceable for years. The economics are persuasive. Though an electronic flare may cost more upfront than a set of pyrotechnic flares, the continual cycle of buying, storing, and disposing of pyrotechnics is eliminated. Over a few years, the balance tips in favour of electronics – not to mention the savings in risk and liability. A culture of tradition vs a culture of safety Why, then, do pyrotechnics persist? The answer lies in tradition and regulatory lag. Maritime rules are written slowly, often in response to major incidents. The maritime world has never hesitated to replace outdated technologies with new innovations Flares have been listed in safety equipment schedules for so long that many authorities see them as sacrosanct. Mariners, too, sometimes cling to the familiar, imagining that a rocket bursting overhead is more dramatic and thus more effective. But drama does not save lives – it is precision, reliability, and safety that make a difference. The maritime world has never hesitated to replace outdated technologies with new innovations – sextants gave way to GPS, spark-gap radios yielded to satellite communications, and wooden lifeboats were replaced with modern inflatable liferafts. Each transition was resisted by traditionalists, and each is now universally accepted. Pyrotechnic flares are the next domino. Regulatory pathways and momentum Encouragingly, the movement is already underway. RTCM (Radio Technical Commission for Maritime Services) has developed a performance standard for eVDSDs. The U.S. Coast Guard’s acceptance of these devices for recreational boats sets an international precedent. Manufacturers in Europe and Asia are pushing for parity, developing multi-colour strobes and AIS-integrated eFlares. For the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA), the task is simple: approve electronic flares as an equivalent carriage option and then consider phasing out pyrotechnics over a defined period. U.S. Coast Guard’s acceptance of these devices for recreational boats. Carriage of modern alternatives to pyrotechnic devices Commercial shipping, with its greater compliance infrastructure, should lead the way. By authorising eFlares on commercial vessels, regulators send a clear message and create the volume of adoption needed to drive prices down for all. Accordingly, it is time to establish an International Standard for eVDSDs that could be adopted by IMO and other maritime agencies, and to expedite changes to international conventions and national regulations that would allow the carriage of modern alternatives to pyrotechnic devices, including eVDSDs, instead of pyrotechnics. A matter of time and of lives To continue mandating pyrotechnic flares in this context is no longer reasonable Maritime safety regulations are not theoretical. They are written in blood, each clause echoing a past disaster. With flares, the disaster is subtler – not a single great catastrophe, but a slow accumulation of injuries, environmental harm and wasted money. The seafaring world should not wait for a tragedy – a crew member maimed by a misfired rocket, or a fire started by a handheld flare in a liferaft – to act. The better technology already exists. The arguments against pyrotechnics are overwhelming. ­­­ Commercial vessels embody the professional side of the maritime world. They are held to higher standards because their operations carry greater responsibility: for passengers, for crew, and for the marine environment. To continue mandating pyrotechnic flares in this context is no longer reasonable. Insisting on asbestos insulation Electronic flares are safer, cleaner, longer-lasting, and already proven in service. With EPIRBs, AIS, GMDSS DSC radios, Survival Craft VHF radios and SARTs already onboard, pyrotechnics no longer provide real benefit. To cling to flares today is akin to insisting on asbestos insulation because “it worked well enough for our grandparents”. We know better now and have a responsibility to do better. The sea will always be dangerous – but our tools for survival do not need to be.

Roughly three percent of the world’s greenhouse gases come from ships, a figure that puts the sector on par with the emissions of entire industrialised nations. Trade volumes keep growing, and if nothing changes, that percentage will climb. The International Maritime Organization has already set a 2050 net-zero target. For operators, shipyards, and ports, the question is not whether change is coming but how fast they can adapt without undermining the economics of global shipping. How the marine industry can reduce carbon emissions? The problem is broad: carbon output is tied to engines, hulls, fuels, port operations, and even day-to-day crew behaviour. Solutions are arriving from many directions at once. Some are technical, others behavioural. All require investment and a willingness to rethink what has been a conservative industry for decades. Danny Peachey, Manager at HTL Group, a pioneering provider of controlled bolting solutions, looks at how the marine industry can reduce carbon emissions through propulsion improvements, alternative fuels, digital optimisation, smarter resource use, and crew training. Propulsion and hull performance Retrofits are attractive for older ships because they buy time before replacement is unavoidable Efficiency gains start where steel meets water. Propeller systems are being re-engineered to reduce drag; air lubrication is now used on several large vessels to create a layer of bubbles under the hull; and specialised coatings keep barnacles and algae from slowing a ship’s passage. Even modest upgrades can trim fuel use by five to ten percent, which translates into both lower operating costs and reduced carbon output. Retrofits are attractive for older ships because they buy time before replacement is unavoidable. For new builds, financiers and regulators increasingly expect these improvements as a baseline, so they are less a competitive edge and more a licence to operate. Alternative fuels Conventional bunker fuel has powered the industry for generations, but its environmental cost is becoming unsustainable. Liquefied natural gas is already in use, offering lower emissions of carbon dioxide and particulates. Beyond that, the sector is experimenting with methanol, ammonia, and hydrogen. Each fuel raises new questions: ammonia is toxic, hydrogen requires complex storage, and methanol demands its own bunkering infrastructure. Yet pilot projects are scaling up.  Maersk’s methanol-fuelled container ship entered service in 2023, and European consortia are testing hydrogen and ammonia on short-sea routes. Adoption will be uneven, but these first movers are building the know-how and supply chains that others will need. Digital operations Studies suggest voyage optimisation alone may cut emissions by up to 15 percent A modern vessel generates huge volumes of data, and using that information effectively is one of the quickest ways to cut emissions. Engine monitoring, weather routeing, and speed optimisation all contribute. Adjusting course to avoid headwinds or moderating speed by a fraction can save tonnes of fuel on a single voyage. Fleet management platforms now merge satellite feeds, predictive analytics, and onboard sensors into a live operational picture. Instead of waiting for post-voyage reports, operators can make real-time decisions that reduce waste immediately. Studies suggest voyage optimisation alone may cut emissions by up to 15 percent. Ports are also digitising cargo handling, which reduces turnaround times and the hours vessels spend idling with auxiliary engines running. Energy use and waste handling Propulsion may dominate the emissions conversation, but it is far from the only factor. Lighting, cooling, and heating all add to the carbon footprint of a vessel. Swapping to LED lighting, installing heat-recovery units, and using more efficient HVAC controls are straightforward measures that reduce overall demand. Waste handling is another area where progress is visible. Ships generate oils, plastics, packaging, and food waste, all of which require careful management. Segregation and recycling prevent unnecessary emissions from disposal, and modern treatment systems reduce pollutants from the waste that cannot be avoided. Ports with adequate reception facilities make compliance with MARPOL Annex V more realistic and less costly. Training and behaviour Carbon reporting frameworks are tightening, and major cargo owners increasingly order emissions Technology is only as effective as the people who use it. Crews that understand fuel-efficient navigation, waste segregation, and energy-saving practices deliver better results than those who do not. Many operators now share performance data directly with crews, turning efficiency into a shared goal rather than a distant corporate target. Carbon reporting frameworks are tightening, and major cargo owners increasingly demand emissions data from carriers. A company’s ability to demonstrate progress is already influencing contracts, which makes sustainability performance a competitive issue as much as a regulatory one. Steering the industry forward The marine sector is not going to eliminate its carbon footprint in a single leap. What matters now is steady progress: smarter propulsion, trials of cleaner fuels, better use of data, tighter energy management, and crews trained to treat efficiency as part of their role. Each step may look modest in isolation, but together they mark the difference between falling behind and staying viable in an industry that is under close scrutiny. The IMO’s 2050 deadline may still feel distant, yet decisions being made today will determine who thrives when it arrives. Companies that invest early in carbon reduction will not only cut costs, but also prove to regulators and customers that they can keep global trade moving without ignoring its environmental cost.

The International Maritime Organization (IMO) is working toward a smooth transition to the next generation of navigation technologies. The standard for Electronic Navigations Charts (ENCs) is transitioning from S-57, an older, static data standard to exchange digital hydrographic data, to the new S-100, a more dynamic framework. While S-57 was limited to just ENCs, the new S-100 framework can handle a variety of data types, such as real-time tides and currents, to improve situational awareness and safety. IHO’s S-100 standard new possibilities The S-57 specification is now frozen, offering stability but limiting any further development As the current International Hydrographic Organization (IHO) standard for ENCs, S-57 enables features like alarms, real-time satellite positioning and route checks. But it is limited by a rigid structure, supporting only chart data. The S-57 specification is now frozen, offering stability but limiting any further development. In contrast, IHO’s S-100 standard offers new possibilities by supporting multiple data layers such as bathymetry (S-102), water levels (S-104) and surface currents (S-111) – which together offer mariners richer situational awareness and improved decision making. For example, dynamic under keel clearance can be visualised in real time alongside navigational data on Electronic Chart Display and Information Systems (ECDIS), supporting safer, more efficient route planning.  Integration of diverse marine data The industry is currently in the testing and validation phase, ensuring the data meets user needs. Full adoption will take time as the ecosystem of systems, standards and workflows evolves. S-100 provides a flexible, interoperable framework that enables the integration of diverse marine data – from bathymetry to weather and buoyage. By using a common framework, it ensures compatibility of product specifications across systems and supports the development of richer, more dynamic digital products. ECDIS Performance Standards  For over 230 years, UKHO has been giving maritime data to help ships guide safely and trade efficiently The IMO is supporting the transition to S-100 by updating (ECDIS) Performance Standards to require S-100 compatibility for all new installations (including retrofits) from January 2029. It has also designated the S-100 framework as the foundation for data exchange within its e-Navigation Maritime Services. Working to support ongoing maritime needs, the United Kingdom’s Hydrographic Office (UKHO) is a world-pioneering centre for hydrography, supporting safe, secure, and thriving oceans through trusted data and marine geospatial insight. For over 230 years, UKHO has been delivering maritime information to help ships navigate safely and trade efficiently. Adoption of marine data standards Today, UKHO sources, processes, and delivers data through the ADMIRALTY portfolio, which is relied upon by over 90% of large ships trading internationally. UKHO works with hydrographic offices, governments, defence, and industry to drive digital data access, to support the adoption of marine data standards like S-100, and to enable mariners, port operators and decision-makers to make safer, smarter choices worldwide.  Innovative maritime navigation solutions UKHO is the UK's official source of marine charts and navigational data, helping ships navigate safely worldwide The UKHO and the French Hydrographic Office (SHOM) are collaborating with four ECDIS manufacturers — Furuno, NAVTOR, OSI and 7Cs — to test S-100 data in live sea trials. “In doing so, we can test the practical use and display of this data in S-100-enabled ECDIS, as well as demonstrating the practical benefits in real-world scenarios,” says Thomas Mellor, UKHO's Head of Technical Partnerships. The UKHO is the UK's official source of marine charts and navigational data, helping ships navigate safely worldwide. The UKHO delivers these quality, innovative maritime navigation solutions via its ADMIRALTY portfolio – made available to customers worldwide through a network of distributors. Navigational solutions for crews and teams NAVTOR is an ADMIRALTY Digital Distributor and an ECDIS manufacturer. As a distribution partner, NAVTOR relies on hydrographic data — like that produced by the UKHO — to deliver navigational solutions to crews and operations teams. Through the IHO Geospatial Information Registry, organisations like the International Organization for Marine Aids to Navigation (IALA) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) can define their own data models. These models can then be used to create S-100-compliant products, which integrate seamlessly into the wider ecosystem alongside official hydrographic data – enhancing situational awareness and decision-making for mariners.  Regulatory and operational needs The two corps work near to align timelines, coordinate updates, and help with global implementation While the IHO develops and maintains the S-100 framework, the IMO ensures these standards meet regulatory and operational needs – particularly under the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) convention.  The two organisations work closely to align timelines, coordinate updates, and support global implementation. Their collaboration ensures that S-100 products and services enhance safety, support mariners, and foster wider digital innovation in navigation. S-421 Route Plan standard S-100 supports the exchange of non-geographic maritime data – such as voyage plans and route information – through the S-421 Route Plan standard. This enables vessels to share planned routes digitally with shore authorities and other ships, improving coordination, safety, and situational awareness. Under the S-100 ECDIS Performance Standard, all systems must be capable of importing and exporting S-421 data. This allows for more efficient reporting, reducing communication overhead, and supporting smarter decision-making at sea. Existing ECDIS systems Wider adoption is expected through 2027 and beyond, as part of the phased S-100 rollout S-421 has been published by the IHO and is available for implementation. Wider adoption is expected through 2027 and beyond, as part of the phased S-100 rollout.  Existing ECDIS systems in service will remain compliant; there are no plans to remove or retire them. However, from January 2029, all new and retrofit ECDIS must be built to support the S-100 Performance Standard — an important step towards long-term standardisation. IHO international trial testbed standards During the transition to S-100, we will see dual-fuel operation, says Mellor. “By this, we mean that systems will need to handle both the old S-57 charts and the new S-101 ENCs – therefore comprehensive testing and collaboration across the industry is key,” he says. To support the transition, the UKHO is running S-100 ECDIS trials with other hydrographic offices, the Royal Navy, defence stakeholders and ferry operators, in accordance with IHO international trial testbed standards. This coordinated approach will help ensure interoperability and minimise disruption.