MCA’s Leanne Page backs MASS rules for crewless cargo ships, IMO code lands July 1

Britain’s Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) has put its weight behind a global safety framework for crewless cargo ships, with the International Maritime Organization (IMO set to publish the first non-mandatory International Code of Safety for Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships (MASS Code) on July 1. MCA also says this is the first serious attempt at a worldwide regulatory framework for uncrewed cargo ships, not a patchwork of local experiments and “we’ll figure it out later” policies.

The MCA’s role matters because it is not just watching the tech evolve. It represented the UK’s interests in IMO working groups while the first MASS Code was developed. In that context, MCA assistant director for Future Technical Standards Leanne Page framed the stakes in operational terms: the maritime industry is inherently global, and progress toward a harmonised regulatory framework is needed to support consistency, fairness, and, most importantly, safe operations internationally.

So what is actually being published on July 1, and why should executives care even if their company is not building autonomous ships? The MASS Code is explicitly non-mandatory at first. The IMO’s timeline is built like a ladder. The July 1 code is “the first stab” at a global regulatory framework, then it is followed by a mandatory MASS Code based on reviews of the initial set of regulations. That mandatory version is slated for adoption in 2030 for entry into force on January 1, 2032. Translation for decision-makers: the industry is moving from pilot projects and internal company risk models toward an external, standardized playbook that will eventually become enforceable.

Autonomous vessels are already in the real world. The Register points to Norway’s Yara Birkeland, described as the world’s first fully autonomous and electric zero-emission container ship. It is used to carry chemicals and fertiliser from an industrial plant to the deep-sea container harbor at Brevik, where goods are shipped globally. The ship is relatively small compared with typical cargo giants, about 80 meters (260 ft) long and about 3,200 tonnes, which matters because scale changes risk. But it is still the kind of proof point regulators can study when mapping “what can go wrong” and “who is responsible” in degrees of automation.

The IMO’s scoping exercise that helps inform the regulations identified four degrees of autonomy, drawing inspiration from the way self-driving cars are categorized. Degree one has seafarers on board to operate and control shipboard systems and functions, even though some operations may be automated. Degree two is remotely controlled with crew aboard, able to take control if necessary. Degree three is remotely controlled with no crew. Degree four is fully autonomous. This classification does more than describe capability. It drives regulatory questions about oversight, incident response, and the legal chain of responsibility.

And that is where the MCA says the MASS Code has high-priority policy issues to solve. The IMO identified a number of issues cutting across several instruments that must be addressed at a policy level in future. Among them: developing MASS terminology and definitions, particularly clarification of who is responsible for the ship in Degrees Three and Four. Executives should clock how this affects liability. If you are a shipping operator, a technology vendor, a class society, an insurer, or a port operator, “who is responsible” is not abstract. It determines how claims are handled, how compliance is audited, and how risk is priced.

The second category of issues is about tasks normally performed by crew. The source lists firefighting, cargo stowage and securing, maintenance, watchkeeping, and implications for search and rescue. The last one is a legally binding duty that applies to all vessels, without exception. That detail is crucial because it means autonomy cannot quietly replace obligations. Even if a ship is remote or fully autonomous, the duty to support search and rescue does not disappear, and the MASS Code has to define how those obligations are met in a world with fewer or no people onboard.

Looking ahead, the MCA describes the next step as building a framework for an experience-building phase, intended to inform development of the mandatory MASS Code. Both the MCA and the UK’s Department for Transport plan to continue industry consultations to provide further information and guidance on the new non-mandatory MASS Code. For executives, this is a board-level timing issue as much as a technical one: the window to shape guidance and compliance norms is before the mandatory code crystallizes. Companies that wait until 2030 may still have to comply in 2032, but they will not get the benefit of influencing how regulators translate early autonomy into enforceable safety expectations.

If you are leading in shipping, maritime tech, logistics, insurance, or port operations, the strategic takeaway is simple: the industry is formalizing safety governance for uncrewed cargo ships now. The July 1 publication is just the first rung. The real signal is the direction of travel toward harmonized, internationally consistent rules, anchored by definitions of autonomy degrees and practical duties like search and rescue. Boards that treat this as “future compliance” risk being surprised. The MASS Code is being built to turn autonomy from a demonstration into a regulated operating model.