Content uploaded by Dimitrios Dalaklis
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Dimitrios Dalaklis on Jul 14, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
18
The Journal of Ocean Technology, Vol. 18, No. 2, 2023
Copyright Journal of Ocean Technology 2023
O
c
e
a
n
R
o
b
o
t
i
c
s
i
n
M
o
t
i
o
n
Applying
BUGWRIGHT2
Top-down
Regulatory-model to
the Aquaculture
Sector
b
y
T
a
f
s
i
r
J
o
h
a
n
s
s
o
n
,
A
s
p
a
s
i
a
P
a
s
t
r
a
,
a
n
d
D
i
m
i
t
r
i
o
s
D
a
l
a
k
l
i
s
The Journal of Ocean Technology, Vol. 18, No. 2, 2023
19
ISTOCKPHOTO.COM/MARIUSLTU
Copyright Journal of Ocean Technology 2023
20
The Journal of Ocean Technology, Vol. 18, No. 2, 2023
Copyright Journal of Ocean Technology 2023
Innovation helps transcend human-centric
boundaries. Its applied form found in a gamut
of technologies are sound alternatives (to the
human element) only if there is compliance
with umbrella standards. Regulatory standards
cannot be abrogated. When enforced through
a top-down approach, regulatory standards
do not limit the potential of technologies;
rather, they help avoid major bottlenecks and
complex challenges that may stall progressive
development of a certain branch of technology.
Technological applications involving the use of
robotics – whether ocean observation, vessel
inspection, or aquaculture survey – are still
young. New and hybrid technologies in this
era, often termed as Industry 4.0, will reshape
special sectors that support fundamental
benefits derived from marine ecosystem
services. Drawing on critical findings from
the European Horizon 2020 BUGWRIGHT2
project, this essay documents a sequence of
important strands of influence for consideration
so that remote inspection techniques could
be effectively and efficiently integrated into
aquaculture and its current manual driven
survey and monitoring framework.
Historically, the fishery and associated activities
are moored to the notion of food security.
Evidently, continuing in this anthropocenic
epoch, fishery remains an acknowledged source
of nutrition and is supporting the livelihood
of more than three billion people globally.
The estimates provided by the United Nations
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)
adds credence to the above claim. Numbers
crunched by FAO researchers note that fisheries
and aquaculture production have already
reached a record peak of 214 million tonnes
in the year 2020 with a total of 20.2 kilogram
per capita designated for human consumption.
Unfortunately, fishery resources are plummeting.
Recognizing the invaluable potentials of
aquaculture to the staggeringly increasing
population of the world, invested efforts seek to
achieve sustainability in the fisheries domain.
At the outset, we note that innovation and
sustainable fisheries are conjoined concepts.
A cascade of technological breakthroughs
under the auspices of the fourth industrial
revolution (Industry 4.0) has catalyzed
a paradigm shift in maritime and ocean
operations. Innovation bolsters support in
sustainable movements and approaches – a
concept that applies to natural resources.
Labelled as robotics and autonomous systems
(RAS), a conflux of disruptive technologies,
such as micro aerial vehicles, crawlers, and
remotely operated vehicles (ROVs), has
added meaning to the abstract concept of
sustainability. Central in this innovation-
led environment is the intention to sustain
the ability of the human element. In other
words, integrating RAS and machine learning
systems helps complete monitoring and
inspection tasks that are otherwise dull, risky,
and at times strenuous in nature.
Observably, a plethora of challenges are
associated with manual inspection, especially
when it comes to underwater monitoring that
entails inspecting water salinity, temperature,
and/or potential of hydrogen (pH) level, as
well as oversight in feeding and breeding tasks.
Moreover, real-time observation is required
to contain corollary effects from untreated
effluent discharges with heavy organic load
and fish farming infrastructure development.
Patently, qualitative assessments indicate
that net/fish cages are prone to biofouling
and other sources of stress caused by
waterbody movements that could potentially
lead to net/fish cage deformation. These are
instances where RAS integration could act
as an improved and perhaps safer method
of completing the necessary monitoring and
inspection tasks (Figure 1). The industry, as it
appears, is slowly turning to service suppliers
that are unleashing intervention tools replacing
divers with the simultaneous objective of
saving time and money, and mitigating
environmental concerns.
It is correct to assume that the world of
technology is standard reliant. The technology
industry, similar to its counterparts, is
The Journal of Ocean Technology, Vol. 18, No. 2, 2023
21
Copyright Journal of Ocean Technology 2023
assessed based on performance built on safety
and risk management systems, among other
things. Today, safety and management systems
are being integrated into standards. Systems
and standards are collectively intertwined
into a horizontal topic that necessitates the
interaction between public and non-public
norms. Private and industry developed
standards, as well as corresponding norms
and guidelines, serve as external sources of
the wider regulatory regime. Adherence and
compliance are critical to the economic value
of those industries, while safeguarding public
interests. The latter is deemed as one of the
principal mandates of governmental bodies
that encourage regulators to orchestrate the
use of industrial standards. This is done with
a view to striking a balance between “hard”
and “soft” elements embedded in the subject
specific regulatory regime. Taking advantage
of industry-based standards can help national
regulators maintain a robust regulatory regime
Figure 1: There are instances where
robotics and autonomous systems
integration could act as an improved
and safer method of completing
monitoring and inspection tasks.
ISTOCKPHOTO.COM/ADOKON
22
The Journal of Ocean Technology, Vol. 18, No. 2, 2023
Copyright Journal of Ocean Technology 2023
and navigate in a complex landscape shared
with other stakeholders to keep pace in a
changing technological environment.
Markedly, there is no international regulatory
guidance that underscores the “dosˮ from
the “don’tsˮ with reference to aquaculture
related underwater inspection and monitoring
tasks. Notably, the 2018 FAO publication
titled Guidance on Spatial Technologies for
Disaster Risk Management in Aquaculture
only proffers insights into opportunities
from spatial technologies including remote
sensing, geographical information system, and
information and communication technologies
while highlighting the need for policy support.
Inspection and monitoring technologies remain
outside the scope of the 2018 publication.
Deficits are conspicuous when deploying
remote inspection techniques. Other than
issues emanating from latent defects, usage of
emerging technologies or technologies with
emerging applications may sporadically give
rise to collateral problems that require more
than just rebooting the system to eradicate
technical errors. In fact, one is faced with
challenges for reconciling the tensions
between human and robots simply because
the techno-regulatory landscape is not fully
autonomous despite autonomy being a term
that is in common parlance. We notice a
system that is marked by “human-in-the-loop”
or “human-on-the-loop.”
In the context of human-robot interaction,
BUGWRIGHT2: Autonomous Robotic
Inspection and Maintenance on Ship Hulls and
Storage Tanks (funded by the European Union’s
Horizon 2020 research and innovation program
under grant agreement No. 871260) is a project
that deals with remote technologies applied
in vessel hull inspection and maintenance
that are statutory and classification in scope.
Notably, project BUGWRIGHT2 has proceeded
with the objective to bridge the gaps between
current and desired potentials of selected
remote technologies that are also deployed in
aquaculture inspection and monitoring.
Three years into the project’s life cycle,
academic partner World Maritime University
has produced a state-of-the-art regulatory
blueprint comprised of several strands
of influence. Founded on state-of-the-art
qualitative analysis and 33 interviews with
organization representatives from the United
States, Canada, China, Singapore, Netherlands,
and Norway, the final outcome could serve
as a tangible reference once dialogue and
discussions commence at the International
Maritime Organization (IMO) level pursuant
to previous requests tabled by member states
(MS) for amendments to the Harmonized
System of Survey and Certification and to the
Revised Guidelines on the implementation of
selected IMO instruments.
It is important to note that BUGWRIGHT2
regulatory blueprint mirrors the need for
“harmonization” of international rules and
requirements that come into play taking into
account the 1982 United Nations Convention
on the Law of the Sea’s rule of reference
through which MS could implement generally
accepted international rules and standards.
Cutting a long way short, “harmonization”
requires the existence of several parallel
stand-alone rules and requirements developed
by individual international organizations.
Unfortunately, the aquaculture domain,
apparently, lacks common minimum standards
developed by a specific mandated organization
unlike the vessel survey and inspection regime
where classification societies are seen as
playing a proactive role. A brief overview
of standards developed by the International
Organization for Standardization (ISO) seems
to indicate that ISO/TC 34, ISO/TC 94, and
ISO/TC 207 do not necessarily provide insights
into procedures for technology integration.
What are the noteworthy takeaways from
BUGWRIGHT2 that could be applied to
aquaculture technology? The starting point
could be that the existing vacuum of procedural
requirements should be viewed with a positive
outlook since stakeholders have the opportunity
to reap the benefits of lessons learned from trial
The Journal of Ocean Technology, Vol. 18, No. 2, 2023
23
Copyright Journal of Ocean Technology 2023
and errors from other sectors; move forward in
unison from the start which would inevitably
preclude the need for complex bureaucratic
harmonization process (due to efforts being
duplicated) in the long run; and establish a
top-down platform comprised of organizations/
actors that could collectively reform/amend
standards at any given stage. Opportunities
are many. That being said, top-down efforts
need to concentrate on determining the breadth
and scope of specific provisions that could
altogether serve as the main frame of reference.
When dissecting two primary regulatory
standards, case in point the 1996 Guidelines
for Use of Remote Inspection Techniques
for Surveys and Unified Requirement Z17
titled Procedural Requirements for Service
Suppliers, developed by the International
Association of Classification Societies,
we note elements for a common minimum
standard blueprint. The above documents
prescribe the types of permissible technologies
and areas of application (under the heading
titled general); specific conditions for
technology deployment (under the heading
titled condition); procedures concerning
niche applications (under the heading titled
procedures); and procedures related to the
work of the human element/service suppliers
and the service firm that is approved by the
main company (under the heading titled
procedural requirements for service suppliers).
Subsequently, we turn to the BUGWRIGHT2
strands of influence to take stock of
the dispensable elements that require
consideration for transition from manual
to technology-based solutions, which
would ameliorate and expedite technology
integration into aquaculture inspection and
monitoring activities. Axiomatically, the
first of these strands call for research into
cost-benefit assessments to observe whether
the advantages of technology deployment
outweigh the disadvantages, taking into
account, e.g., duration of inspection, costs
of deploying technology, and operational
downtime. Such assessment could help
companies determine the economic feasibility
of turning to remote inspection techniques and
rationalized through evidence-based research.
The second strand considers the need for
vetted, refined, and up-to-date definitions on
each and every type of remote techniques. In
tandem, there needs to be in place definitions
of important terms, such as autonomy,
robot, service robot, and mobile robot.
Template definitions exist. Examples are
ripe in documents such as ISO 8373:2021;
ISO 19649: 2017; ISO/IEC 17000 (2020);
Guidance Notes on the Use of Remote
Inspection developed by the American
Bureau of Shipping; and Guidelines for Use
of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles developed by
the China Classification Society. Whether
template definitions are adapted or whether
a completely new set of definitions are
developed, it is important to benchmark the
term autonomy through a clear and distinct
overarching definition. Closely connected to
this aspect is a strand that calls for the need
to follow the degree of autonomy thread
that currently guides the state of affairs for
maritime autonomous surface ships (Table 1).
Identifying levels of autonomy and associating
them with different classes of techniques could
help keep track of the autonomy-paradigm
trajectory. Again, the current system is not fully
autonomous (i.e., systems that enable machines
to interact with the environment (through
built-in sensors) and respond/take decisions
accordingly), and requires categorization so as
to help review the extent of involvement of the
human element. This, in turn, has an explicit
nexus to what is known as a well-calibrated
trustworthy ecosystem that requires a form
of constructive balance between the human
agency and autonomous modes. Until the
human stays “in-the-loop” or “on-the-loop,”
carving out the degrees of autonomy is a vital
stepping stone to ascertaining, projecting, and
designing effective and efficient human-robot
teams for the conduct of survey and inspection.
The next strand that would apply to the
aquaculture profile is the need to carve out
24
The Journal of Ocean Technology, Vol. 18, No. 2, 2023
Copyright Journal of Ocean Technology 2023
operational and technical common minimum
standards. Generally speaking, operational
standards emanate from tests and risk
assessments that help narrow down all potential
risks associated with the deployment of each
and individual categories of technologies. Risk
information is relayed (by manufacturers) via
product information notes for consideration
by end users or service suppliers. Different
remote inspection techniques are marked by
operational and technical differences. It is
worth noting that surveys using aerial drones,
unlike crawler and ROVs, can easily be
compromised due to humidity, lighting, and
air turbulence. Furthermore, hybrid techniques
that have the potential to conduct underwater
biofouling cleaning, in addition to survey
operations, require limiting all possible risks
prior to deployment.
Risks on air or underwater tend to range
from dropped object risks to collision risks
(with other remote inspection technologies)
to lost link risks (that originate from network
compromise), which could be an issue once
technologies reach the fourth degree, i.e., full
autonomy. “Stealth technology” is a term often
ascribed to autonomous underwater vehicles
and the likes, and therefore, completion
of tasks without disturbing underwater
ecosystems is highly anticipated. Contingency
plans will, nevertheless, need to be developed
taking into account operational standards
so that solutions could be forged before the
occurrence of environmental damages.
Another important strand of influence
corresponds to a feature innate to technological
devices applied in observational work and is
aptly known as data management. Generally
speaking, data acquisition lies at the heart of
all technological interventions. Stakeholders
involved in this process generally include
non-human actors, e.g., technological tools
and infrastructure, and human actors, i.e.,
service providers and companies (end users).
The latter is coined as “human-in-the-loop”
with supervisors, operators, and surveyors
remaining engaged during data storage and
verification of data collected through remote
inspection technique-based inspections and
surveys. In essence, the technological platform
communicates data to “human-in-the-loop” via
five independent layers: hardware, network,
internet, infrastructure, and application.
The last layer, i.e., application, mirrors
implementation of decision.
Although the BUGWRIGHT2 regulatory
model considers survey and inspection data
as belonging to the asset, i.e., the ship, thus
forming a part of the owner’s proprietary
Table 1: Potential remote inspection techniques (RIT) degree of autonomy. Source: Adapted from IMO Doc. MSC 100/20/
Add. 1, Annex 2
The Journal of Ocean Technology, Vol. 18, No. 2, 2023
25
Copyright Journal of Ocean Technology 2023
rights, this very theory on ownership might
not apply verbatim in the field of aquaculture.
Notwithstanding, the following questions may
still be subject to further consideration from an
aquaculture perspective:
•
Who should retain the copyright of
data gathered from underwater remote
technologies?
•
What are the secured ways through which
data could be shared between end users
and stakeholders?
•
To what extent do provisions on data
control and security apply in the field of
aquaculture survey and inspection?
•
What is the duration of data preservation,
and should there be any mechanisms to
safeguard service providers against third-
party liability?
The final strand is tied to a critical aspect:
in-water environmental consideration.
Depending on the location of aquaculture
method and practice (freshwater, brackish
water, and marine), risk assessments will need
to be conducted at regular intervals to check
for impacts and water conditions, especially
if hybrid remote techniques will be used
to clean pen nets and cages. This begs the
question whether those techniques are properly
equipped with storage systems for storing
debris collected during clean-up operations.
In this regard, the Baltic and International
Maritime Council developed standards
for in-water cleaning that could serve as a
foundation for furthering control over impact
of technology in-water. Although developed
for in-water cleaning of a vessel’s hull and
other niche areas, the ROV cleaning standards
encapsulated in the section titled “operating
requirements of the cleaning system” contains
an important checklist comprised of post-
cleaning inspections (s. 9.3), post-cleaning
safety and environmental requirements (s. 9.4),
and service reports after cleaning (s. 9.5) that
serve as model provisions for consideration by
the industry. The checklist may very well be
pertinent to remote inspection technique-based
operations underwater.
At this juncture, it is essential to ask one final
question: why are the strands of influence
discussed relevant? Technology is a
terraforming practice – one that could
possibly shape and structure the environment.
Yet technology, in parallel, is merely a
product. Products can be defective. Defective
products could give rise to unforeseen
circumstances. Those are the circumstances
that might inhibit end users from untethering
the full potentials of Industry 4.0 byproducts
that are able to add strength in projects
that purport to support sustainable actions.
Standards embedded in previous discussions
are strands that could positively influence
technology deployment in maritime projects.
Strands such as liability and in-water
environmental damage will certainly have
a bearing on the technologies that will be
deployed in aquaculture so that companies
may derive good results from automated
farming practices.
Fragmentation must be avoided should there
be any intention to transfer technology to
other parts of the world, namely developing
and least developed countries where
aquaculture production is relatively higher
than other parts of the world. Despite
current practices, self-regulation does
not always help set robust standards that
determine the strengths and limits of a
certain technology. By the same token, self-
regulation may not be a viable approach
as different industries utilizing the same
type of technology for different purposes
contribute to the development of disparate
standards. If the status quo is not rectified
beforehand, collateral dormant problems will
be transferred with the technology. Whatever
pathways are explored, it is important
to establish standard methodologies for
technological platforms to buttress adherence
and compliance.
u
26
The Journal of Ocean Technology, Vol. 18, No. 2, 2023
Copyright Journal of Ocean Technology 2023
Dr. Tafsir Matin Johansson is an
assistant professor at the World
Maritime University-Sasakawa
Global Ocean Institute (GOI) in
Malmö, Sweden. Dr. Johansson is
a techno-policy analyst with a PhD
in maritime affairs from the World
Maritime University. His duties at the
GOI include ocean governance and
policy research, teaching, and developing innovative policy
models to better assess drivers and indicators relevant to
ocean research agenda. He has published extensively on
maritime and ocean issues including techno-regulatory
dynamic governance, Arctic governance, vessels of concern,
corporate social responsibility, marine pollution, climate
change, conflict management and trust ecosystem, and
Brexit and fisheries. He has worked on or led a number of
multidisciplinary projects, including regulatory development
projects funded by Transport Canada (Government of
Canada) since 2014, as well as those funded under the
Canadian Government’s Oceans Protection Plan covering
numerous topics critical to the maritime and ocean domain.
Currently, Dr. Johansson serves as a CO-PI in a European
Union Horizon 2020 Programme funded project titled
“Overcoming Regulatory Barriers for Service Robotics in an
Ocean Industry Context.”
Dr. Dimitrios Dalaklis joined the
World Maritime University in 2014,
upon completion of a 26-year
distinguished career with the Hellenic
Navy. His expertise revolves around
the interrelated maritime safety and
security domains. He is an associate
fellow of the Nautical Institute
and a member of the International
Association of Maritime Economists. With a bachelor’s
degree from the Hellenic Naval Academy, his postgraduate
studies took place in the Naval Postgraduate School of the
United States (M.Sc. in information technology management,
with distinction, and M.Sc. in defence analysis). He then
conducted his PhD research at the University of the Aegean,
Department of Shipping, Trade, and Transport. He is the
author/co-author of many peer-reviewed articles, books, and
studies in both Greek and English languages, with a strong
research focus on issues related to the implementation of
the SOLAS Convention and especially electronic equipment/
systems supporting the safety of navigation.
Dr. Aspasia Pastra has been
appointed as a post-doc fellow
and maritime policy analyst at
the World Maritime University-
Sasakawa Global Ocean Institute
in Malmö, Sweden. To date, she
has been involved in a number
of state-of-the-art regulatory
projects in maritime policy, ocean
technology, environmental protection, port governance,
and gender diversity in the maritime sector. Dr. Pastra
has published extensively in the field of maritime policy
and governance, maritime robotics and techno-regulatory
advancements, global environmental change, team
dynamics, and leadership. She has been a lecturer in
U.K. institutions in the field of business and maritime
administration. She has extensive experience in
shipping as she worked for many years in large shipping
companies. She has also participated in the Marine
Environment Protection Committee and Maritime Safety
Committee of the International Maritime Organization,
as a member of the Greek Delegation. Dr. Pastra holds a
B.Sc. in public administration from Panteion University
of Social and Political Sciences in Greece, an MBA from
Cardiff University in the U.K., and an M.Sc. in maritime
administration from the World Maritime University. She was
awarded her PhD in the area of corporate governance from
Brunel University in London.