Page 8: of Maritime Reporter Magazine (April 2026)

OCIMF

Vessel Hardening Readiness:

The Real Weakness Is

Not What We Think © Wojciech Wrzesien/AdobeStock

A review of more than 450 audit ? ndings shows that vessel hardening failures are driven less by missing equipment and more by weaknesses in planning, control and assurance. While recent efforts have reduced visible gaps, the data indicates that true readiness depends on stronger management systems, consistent veri? cation and practical, vessel-speci? c procedures that crews can rely on in high-risk environments.

By Dave Cudbertson, Programs Director, OCIMF data review of 452 audit ? ndings provides a clear practice. Some vessels had no vessel-speci? c plan on board. picture of how vessel hardening measures are Others lacked essential detail, such as required materials, quan- applied on board. This total comprises 231 ? nd- tities, or how measures should be implemented safely alongside

A ings from OCIMF’s Focused Inspection Cam- operations. Records were also often not maintained, leaving no paign (FIC) on vessel hardening and security preparedness, clear evidence of equipment availability or readiness.

launched in October 2025 within the SIRE 2.0 programme, Without clear and controlled guidance, crews are left to and 221 ? ndings from the preceding nine months. interpret requirements themselves. This is evident where

The campaign focused inspections on hardening arrange- vessel-speci? c hardening plans are missing or lack critical ments, with the aim of building a clearer understanding of implementation detail, forcing crews to rely on ad-hoc con- how consistently these measures are implemented and how ? rmation from shore rather than following a de? ned system. con? dently crews can rely on them in practice. These workarounds highlight that vessel hardening is not be-

The ? ndings point to a consistent outcome. The most signi? - ing governed as a structured system with de? ned standards cant weaknesses are not in equipment or physical arrangements, and veri? able controls.

but in the systems that support them. Across the ? eet, vessel hard- ening is often not managed as a controlled, veri? able process. Knowledge Wthout Assurance

Human Factors reinforce this picture. Knowledge is often

Process Before Equipment present, but not consistently demonstrated or applied. Of? cers

In the pre-FIC period, from January to September 2025, al- may state that they are familiar with procedures, yet routine most half of all ? ndings, 48%, were process-related. Human checks fail to identify missing or defective equipment. Crew

Factors accounted for 35%, while hardware concerns repre- members may have been briefed, but cannot demonstrate how sented 17%. This distribution shows that the primary vulner- measures should be implemented when asked.

abilities lie in planning, governance and control, rather than This points to a weakness in assurance rather than awareness. equipment availability. There is a clear difference between knowledge and veri? cation.

At the centre of these ? ndings is the vessel hardening plan. Without structured familiarisation, documented training, and

In many cases, plans are missing, incomplete, or not usable in routine competency checks, there is no reliable way to con? rm 8 Maritime Reporter & Engineering News • April 2026

MR #4 (1-17).indd 8 MR #4 (1-17).indd 8 4/2/2026 10:20:04 AM4/2/2026 10:20:04 AM