Day 2 - Certification, Technology & the Energy TransitionWednesday, 21 October 2026 - SGT (Singapore Time, GMT+08:00)

The STCW Convention is the professional qualification framework for every seafarer on every commercial vessel — and it is being redesigned while people are still standing on it. Phase 1 identified 22 gap areas: emerging technology, mental health, gender sensitisation, cyber resilience, alternative fuels. Phase 2, now underway following HTW 12 in February 2026, must decide which gaps get addressed first, on what timeline, and to whose standard. That sequencing question sounds technical. It is entirely political. Flag states, shipowner associations and seafarer unions do not share the same priority order — and the work plan agreed to 2029 means the current generation of alternative fuel vessels will be crewed under interim voluntary guidelines for the foreseeable future.

FORMAT: The Steel Man Debate — argue the opposing view first
This session uses the Steel Man format to force intellectual honesty into a debate that institutional positions usually flatten. Each speaker must first argue the case they most oppose — before making their own. Five pressure points structure the discussion: who controls the priority order and why that matters; whether mental health becomes a certifiable competency or a parked guideline; why gender sensitisation has stalled; whether the 2029 timeline is operationally credible; and whether “emerging technology” is a genuine gap area or a political placeholder. The HTW Sub-Committee findings land just weeks before CCG 2026 — this is the first major industry forum to interrogate what they actually

Ships are getting smarter. The seafarers certified to operate them may not be keeping pace — and the training infrastructure quietly underpinning that gap is the simulator. When a Manila academy certifies a seafarer on ammonia handling using instructors who have never been near an ammonia-fuelled vessel and equipment that approximates rather than replicates conditions, the certificate is real. The competence may not be. DNV has warned of a growing safety gap as new technologies outpace existing frameworks; senior officers already report alarm at junior colleagues’ basic navigation skills under GNSS jamming and AIS spoofing. The MASS Code reaches a regulatory inflection point at IMO in May 2026 — but the deeper problem precedes it. We are training seafarers on yesterday’s ships for tomorrow’s voyages, and the cognitive load of that gap falls on the individual standing the watch.

Format: The Premortem
This session assumes it is 2032 and two things have gone badly wrong: a technostress-driven incident has occurred on a vessel whose crew were certified but not genuinely competent, and the simulator industry has lobbied its way to regulatory equivalence without operational validation. Working backwards, the room diagnoses the warning signs — and whether the industry had the tools to act and chose not to. Regulators and training sector respond in the second half.

2026 has been identified as the year AI moves from isolated tools into enterprise-wide systems embedded in onboard workflows, compliance reporting, procurement, and commercial decision-making. AI-powered rostering now analyses fatigue and performance data; ML models flag payroll anomalies; predictive maintenance is becoming operational standard. But as these systems embed into decision chains, the governance and liability questions have become critical: when an AI-generated recommendation contributes to an incident, injury or regulatory breach, who is accountable? Our panel of experts will talk about their company's enterprise-wide AI deployment roadmap and together we will attempt to find potential flaws, blind spots and unintended consequence in real time.

The first crews operating methanol and ammonia vessels are being trained under voluntary interim guidelines, on simulators that approximate rather than replicate conditions, by instructors who may never have encountered the fuel in question. They are, in effect, the beta testers for a technology transition the industry has not yet validated at scale. Behind them, DNV estimates that as many as 800,000 seafarers will require additional training by the mid-2030s — and a 2026 peer-reviewed survey found that more than 87% of seafarers already say they require partial or full training on ammonia, methanol and hydrogen. The baseline training framework is now public and free, released by the MJTTF with full instructor handbooks. What happens next is not a regulatory question. It is a commercial one.

With the baseline established, the race has already begun to build the dominant certification products on top of it — and whoever wins that race will shape the competency standard for a generation of seafarers. This session examines alternative fuels training as a commercial battlefield: who the players are, what they are building, and what market consolidation or fragmentation means for the guinea pig crews already at sea and for seafarers from lower-income supply nations who cannot absorb a tower of competing fuel-specific certificates with no mutual recognition. Two training institutions, a class society, and a seafarer union representative take the floor — with one question structuring the entire session: when something goes wrong on an early ammonia vessel, and it will, who is accountable for the competence of the crew that followed the training they were given?

Decarbonisation is demanding a skills upgrade — but the bill is quietly being passed to the seafarer. Many seafarers face financial stress due to unpredictable income, hidden costs, inadequate shore-based support, and often bearing the financial burden of upskilling for new technologies alone. DNV projects that some 800,000 seafarers will need specialised training in new fuels by the mid-2030s. The IMO's GHG Strategy envisions a "just and equitable transition" — but in practice, the training cost allocation remains opaque and unfair.

FORMAT: Red Team / Blue Team — assigned sides, no defensiveness

The room will be asked to choose their positions: Red Team argues operators and industry bodies are; Blue Team argues the financial burden is being systematically offloaded onto individual seafarers who can least afford it.