Porti & ambiente — le notizie raccolte

Due vertici istituzionali si sono svolti questa mattina presso la Sala operativa della Protezione civile del Palazzo di Governo di Napoli, convocati dal prefetto Michele di Bari, per fare il punto sulle criticità legate al bradisismo nell’area dei Campi Flegrei. Al centro degli incontri, da un lato le problematiche infrastrutturali del porto di Pozzuoli e, dall’altro, il monitoraggio degli accumuli di anidride carbonica rilevati all’Istituto Petronio. APPROFONDIMENTI Paura al porto di Pozzuoli: 78enne investito da un camion agli imbarchi per le isole Pozzuoli, catena si sgancia dalla gru, 2 operai feriti: uno è grave Pozzuoli, operaio grave dopo incidente sul lavoro. La mamma: «Vi prego, salvatelo» Nel corso della prima riunione, dedicata al porto di Pozzuoli, hanno partecipato il Commissario straordinario di Governo per l’attuazione degli interventi pubblici nell’area dei Campi Flegrei, il sindaco di Pozzuoli, il direttore generale per la Mobilità della Regione Campania, il direttore generale della Protezione civile regionale e il comandante della Capitaneria di Porto di Pozzuoli. Gas, eolico e fotovoltaico: la sfida delle rinnovabili con il patto pubblico-privato L’incontro è servito ad aggiornare lo stato delle opere relative all’installazione del pontone galleggiante, intervento ritenuto strategico per migliorare le operazioni di imbarco e sbarco di passeggeri e veicoli diretti verso le isole del Golfo. I lavori erano stati sospesi dopo il grave incidente sul lavoro avvenuto lo scorso 25 marzo. La Regione Campania ha riferito che, a seguito del dissequestro temporaneo dell’area interessata, è in corso la messa in sicurezza dell’opera e delle attrezzature di cantiere, passaggio necessario per consentire la ripresa e il completamento dei lavori. L’installazione del pontone dovrebbe contribuire a ridurre le criticità registrate nei giorni del ponte del Primo Maggio, quando il sovraffollamento in banchina aveva creato notevoli disagi ai viaggiatori. Una situazione che, secondo quanto emerso nel corso del vertice, sarà ulteriormente alleggerita dall’incremento delle corse marittime previsto per l’imminente stagione estiva. Il Commissario straordinario ha assicurato la massima attenzione della struttura commissariale, in stretto raccordo con la Regione Campania, per accelerare le procedure di messa in sicurezza e concludere rapidamente l’intervento. Terremoto di magnitudo 1.9 ai Campi Flegrei: lieve scossa nella notte a Pozzuoli Successivamente, sempre presso il Palazzo di Governo, si è tenuto un secondo incontro dedicato al monitoraggio degli accumuli anomali di CO₂ rilevati all’interno dell’Istituto Petronio di Pozzuoli, fenomeno anch’esso collegato all’attività bradisismica in corso nell’area flegrea. Alla riunione hanno preso parte il sindaco di Pozzuoli, il direttore della Protezione civile della Regione Campania, la direttrice dell’INGV, il dirigente del comparto edifici scolastici della Città Metropolitana di Napoli, il referente sanitario regionale, il comandante dei Vigili del Fuoco e le Forze di Polizia. Nel corso dell’incontro è stato deciso di proseguire le attività di monitoraggio all’interno dell’istituto scolastico da parte dei Vigili del Fuoco, con il supporto del personale specializzato dell’INGV. Per rafforzare il sistema di controllo, l’Istituto nazionale di geofisica e vulcanologia installerà una nuova stazione fissa di rilevamento all’esterno della scuola, mentre la Città Metropolitana di Napoli, proprietaria dell’edificio, provvederà all’installazione di ulteriori centraline automatiche per il rilevamento dei gas e di sistemi di ventilazione meccanica dei locali interni. Campi Flegrei, il bollettino conferma rallentamento della deformazione del suolo Al termine delle riunioni, il prefetto Michele di Bari ha espresso apprezzamento per il lavoro svolto dai Vigili del Fuoco nelle attività di monitoraggio e per l’impegno assicurato dall’INGV, dalla Città Metropolitana e da tutti gli enti coinvolti nel sistema di protezione civile per fronteggiare le criticità connesse al fenomeno bradisismico nei Campi Flegrei.

BRUXELLES (ITALPRESS) – Il Presidente di Assarmatori, Stefano Messina, ha messo in evidenza le gravi conseguenze della tassa sulle emissioni promossa dall’Unione Europea. Secondo Messina, questa tassa sta colpendo in modo severo i segmenti più vulnerabili e cruciali del trasporto marittimo, paragonabili a crisi internazionali come l’aumento dei costi energetici derivante dal blocco dello Stretto di Hormuz. La differenza principale è che l’ETS rappresenta una tassazione strutturale, destinata a influire in modo permanente sulla competitività e sostenibilità delle rotte marittime con le isole, delle Autostrade del Mare e del transhipment di contenitori. Criticità dell’ETS nel Settore Marittimo Messina non si è sottratto a una valutazione franca durante la missione annuale del Consiglio Direttivo dell’Associazione a Bruxelles, caratterizzata da incontri di alto profilo tra martedì e mercoledì. “Nei mesi recenti abbiamo accolto positivamente l’inclusione di diverse priorità legate all’armamento nazionale nelle strategie marittime europee”, ha affermato, “ma la questione cruciale rimane la loro traduzione in misure operative.” L’attuale regime dell’ETS è considerato ingiusto e non selettivo, applicato uniformemente senza tenere conto delle specificità dei vari settori. Messina ha sottolineato che, sebbene ci sia una crescente consapevolezza delle criticità, le informazioni riguardanti i correttivi necessari restano insoddisfacenti. Inoltre, l’associazione guarda con particolare attenzione alla “Strategia europea per le isole”, in fase di elaborazione sotto la supervisione del Vicepresidente Esecutivo Raffaele Fitto. Nel corso degli incontri, Messina ha illustrato le priorità relative ai collegamenti marittimi con le isole, evidenziando come la tassazione climatica inadeguata possa compromettere la stabilità del settore. “L’imposizione di tasse climatiche sproporzionate, che non ritornano al comparto marittimo sotto forma di investimenti, mette a rischio l’equilibrio esistente”, ha affermato. Richiesta di Revisione Coraggiosa Messina ha osservato che la risposta della tecnocrazia europea alle richieste di miglioramento delle politiche attuali risulta spesso rigida. “Chiediamo che la revisione prevista per luglio sia audace e permetta al nostro settore di rimanere competitivo in un contesto globale particolarmente sfidante,” ha affermato, mettendo in risalto le esigenze del comparto industriale. Tra gli eventi di questa due giorni di Assarmatori a Bruxelles, un incontro significativo è stato quello con il Vicepresidente Esecutivo della Commissione europea, Raffaele Fitto, presso Palazzo Berlaymont. È seguito un ricevimento per i rappresentanti delle istituzioni europee e della comunità internazionale alla Residenza dell’Ambasciatore d’Italia presso il Regno del Belgio. Durante l’evento hanno preso la parola l’Ambasciatore Federica Favi, il Rappresentante Permanente Aggiunto dell’Italia presso l’UE Marco Canaparo, e l’Ammiraglio Giuseppe Cavo Dragone, Presidente del Comitato Militare della NATO. L’agenda ha incluso anche un incontro con Giovanni Cremonini, Vice Capo Divisione per la Sicurezza Marittima del Servizio Europeo per l’Azione Esterna. Durante questo appuntamento, sono stati discussi i temi legati alle missioni Aspides e Atalanta, evidenziando la cooperazione fra le forze militari italiane e quelle europee. Inoltre, si è svolta una riunione approfondita con funzionari della DG MOVE e della DG CLIMA, rafforzando le discussioni sulla gestione dell’ETS e sui suoi effetti sul settore marittimo. Secondo quanto riportato da fonti ufficiali come l’Associazione Assarmatori, l’impiego di un più incisivo approccio normativo potrebbe contribuire a garantire un futuro più sostenibile e competitivo per il settore marittimo. Le istituzioni europee sono ora chiamate a rispondere alle sfide poste da una tassazione che, se non gestita con attenzione, potrebbe compromettere la capacità operativa degli armatori, favorendo così una discussione più ampia sulla sostenibilità e la competitività nel settore dei trasporti. (ITALPRESS) Non perderti tutte le notizie sull’ambiente su Blog.it

Attivisti contestano il convegno sulla salute a bordo della MSC Divina, denunciando l'impatto ambientale e il trasporto di armi Napoli Mentre a bordo della MSC Divina, ammiraglia della flotta MSC, si discuteva di prevenzione medica, un gruppo di residenti e attivisti ha interrotto i lavori del convegno per denunciare quello che definiscono un "paradosso inaccettabile". Il convegno, organizzato da un'importante Onlus dedicata alla cultura della prevenzione e da una federazione di medici e odontoiatri, mirava a promuovere stili di vita sani. Tuttavia, la presenza della nave in banchina con i motori accesi e le emissioni chiaramente visibili sopra il cielo della città ha innescato la reazione dei movimenti locali. "È un controsenso parlare di salute a bordo di un colosso che inquina l'aria che respiriamo ogni giorno," hanno dichiarato i manifestanti durante il blitz, esponendo striscioni e distribuendo volantini ai partecipanti. Le accuse: impatto ambientale e "economia di guerra" La contestazione dei Movimenti Sulla Costa non si è limitata alla sola questione ambientale. Il comunicato diffuso dagli attivisti punta il dito contro il monopolio della multinazionale nel porto di Napoli, dove MSC controllerebbe circa il 90% dei flussi commerciali e turistici. Le critiche sollevate riguardano tre fronti principali:l'inquinamento atmosferico e marino prodotto dalle grandi navi da crociera, lo sfruttamento delle risorse umane e naturali legato al turismo di massa ma l'accusa più grave riguarda il trasporto di materiale bellico. Secondo i manifestanti, i cargo della compagnia alimenterebbero l'industria della morte, trasportando armi utilizzate nel conflitto a Gaza. Verso l'assemblea pubblica La protesta di oggi è solo il primo passo di una mobilitazione più ampia. Gli attivisti criticano il modello delle "crociere di lusso" che, a loro dire, trasforma la città a uso e consumo dei turisti, ignorando le necessità e la salute dei residenti. La mobilitazione si è spostata questo pomeriggio in Piazza Municipio.

Cetaceans face a multitude of well-recognised anthropogenic threats, many of which can be attributed to the activities of marine vessels that are increasing in number throughout the world’s oceans. This study applies a systematic map methodology to better understand the current state of knowledge on vessel impacts to cetaceans, and to identify data gaps relating to specific geographies, vessel types and species. Literature searches were undertaken in January 2023 using three databases (Scopus, Web of Science, ProQuest), yielding 28,452 results. After duplicate removal and title, abstract and full-text screening, 568 documents were included in this review, resulting in 661 records of empirical evidence being extracted for further analysis. These records highlighted a focus on certain species (bottlenose dolphins (n = 133) and humpback whales (n = 89)) and vessel types (e.g., eco-tourism boats (n = 145)), and the majority of records were from North American waters (n = 274). There was also limited evidence demonstrating impacts of vessels for entire groups of species including porpoises (n = 21) and beaked whales (n = 22). Given the global distribution of marine mammals and vessels, there were few published records available for African waters and international waters. However, for 41.4% of the records it was not possible to classify the type(s) of vessels represented. Therefore, greater clarity and recognition of the heterogeneity of vessels and their associated impacts would both help improve our understanding of potential knowledge gaps and, importantly, help refine our ability to holistically evaluate and assess the risk(s) maritime traffic poses to cetaceans. Citation:Ferrari V, Hague E, Sciberras M, Alexander KA, O’Hara PD, McWhinnie L (2026) Exploring the evidence of direct threats to cetaceans from maritime vessels: A systematic map. PLoS One 21(5): e0348502. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0348502 Editor:Vitor Hugo Rodrigues Paiva, MARE – Marine and Environmental Sciences Centre, PORTUGAL Received:November 6, 2025;Accepted:April 16, 2026;Published:May 7, 2026 Copyright:© 2026 Ferrari et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of theCreative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Data Availability:All relevant data are within the paper and itsSupporting Informationfiles. Funding:The author(s) received no specific funding for this work. Competing interests:The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. Maritime vessel traffic is now recognised as a pervasive and intensifying source of anthropogenic stressors across the world’s oceans [1]. For the past few decades, marine transportation has undergone continuous increasing growth in terms of the number of vessels at sea, but also in relation to the size of vessels and their propulsion capabilities [2–4]. The International Chamber of Shipping documented that commercial shipping (at least 100 gross tons) now accounts for 105,500 vessels, amounting to around 85% of trade occurring globally [2]. This number is projected to increase in the future [2] as globalisation and demands for international trade continue to grow and more proposals for new shipping routes are being discussed [5,6]. Non-commercial traffic in coastal areas has also increased significantly in recent decades driven in part by coastal developments, maritime industries (e.g., fishing) and an increase in recreational boating and tourism [7,8]. Many coastal zones have undergone rapid economic expansion due to Blue Growth policies, resulting in a surge in vessel activity ranging from larger commercial cruise ships, to industrial operations and maintenance vessels, to small private boats [9–11]. This growth in maritime activity has also resulted in an increased awareness of the resultant pressures vessels can place on marine environments including various forms of noise, air and water pollution, as well as collision with marine megafauna [12–23]. The widespread and diverse nature of vessel activities means that these potential impacts are not just confined to inshore industrial regions but also extend to remote, vulnerable and/or protected areas. And this is only likely to increase further as Blue Economy industries move offshore. Furthermore, the potential environmental impacts of vessel traffic may be exacerbated by other phenomena such as climate change and biodiversity loss, or amplified due to cumulative or co-occurring stressors, leading to complex and often poorly understood ecological consequences [24–27]. Although often considered to be a more cost-efficient, safe and ‘greener’ form of travel and transportation [28,29], vessel activity can result in notable environmental impacts, such as increased noise, chemical and air pollution, introduction of non-native species, disturbance to seabeds and benthic communities, collision with marine megafauna (including penguins, turtles, pinnipeds, sharks, sirenians and cetaceans) [30–32]. Indeed, many pressures now recognised in marine and coastal habitats can either be directly or indirectly attributed to vessels [33,34]. A broad range of threats have been connected to maritime traffic, and subsequently documented for many marine species but cetaceans as a group have been identified as being particularly vulnerable to direct threats from the vessels themselves such as: underwater noise [13,35–44], discharges and contaminants [17,45,46], and vessel strikes [14–16,18,20–22,47–55]. In addition, there is a large body of evidence showing that activities associated with different vessel types such as pile driving, seismic surveys, sonar, dredging and fishing gear can also have a negative impact on cetaceans (e.g., displacements from core habitats, changes in vocalization, masking and entanglement) [35,56–64]. These ‘secondary’ impacts are often considered in environmental assessments, while impacts that are directly related to the vessels themselves can sometimes be overlooked as a contributing stressor [65–70]. While direct interaction between cetaceans and vessels may be localized, the wider ecological impacts are often experienced and measured elsewhere. For example, although vessel strikes occur at the specific location of the vessel [71], demographic changes, declines in population and ecosystem consequences are manifested and detected far from the site of collision [72–75]. And other vessel-related threats (like underwater noise generated by vessels) have a much broader spatial footprint, with the potential to affect cetaceans over greater distances, with the magnitude of responses depending on species sensitivity, habitat characteristics, and source levels [76–78]. For example, humpback whales reduced the number of vocalizations when vessel traffic passed within 1.2 km away from the animal [79], Blainville’s beaked whales (Mesoplodont densirostris) altered their feeding behaviour in response to vessel noise up to distances of 5 km [35], and harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) showed avoidance responses up to 4 km away from construction-related vessels [80]. These behavioural changes in response to increased noise levels have also been documented for repeated or prolonged periods of vessel exposure [81,82]. Individuals that are disturbed or have interactions with vessels will potentially alter their behaviour or have a physiological response to the encounter. Behavioural responses generally include changes in behavioural state (e.g., from resting or foraging to travelling; [83–87]), in swimming patterns (e.g., more “erratic” travelling direction, increased speed, changes in breathing intervals and diving behaviour; [88–95]) and in group cohesion [96,97]. Vessel noise has also been shown to result in changes in vocal behaviour including modification of the frequency range used and the rate of vocalization, with instances where animals even stopped vocalising altogether [39,98–104]. Introduction of vessel noise also has the potential to result in acoustic masking for some species that vocalise in similar frequency ranges as the vessels, which can affect their ability to communicate and navigate effectively [105–110]. Vessels can also have direct physical impacts: physiological responses have been documented during exposure to noise and disturbance [65,111–115], and a number of vessel types have been evidenced to cause both lethal and sub-lethal injuries to cetaceans as a result of vessel strikes [15,47,51,54,74,116–120]. Evaluating the potential severity of vessel impacts or risk they pose to cetaceans is complex. Cetaceans spend much of their time submerged, while many research approaches gather evidence of impacts from visible changes in above-water physical behaviour [12] or injuries [121], and tend to focus on acute, short-term effects that are generally more readily observed. Therefore we have less of a grasp of the long-term chronic impacts resulting from vessels [12]. Similarly, while there is increasing evidence of the impacts of vessels on individual cetaceans, the potential population-level implications are less well understood [122,123], though vessels have now been documented to contribute to declines in population size, changes in distribution, and even long-term displacement from key habitats for some species [32,100,124–133]. Growth in marine traffic has fundamentally led to an increase in the spatial and temporal overlap, or co-occurrence, between vessels and cetaceans, and consequently resulted in conservation challenges for several populations [134,135]. Those species that inhabit productive coastal areas and shelf seas would appear to be particularly vulnerable as they coincide with some of the world’s busiest shipping corridors, fisheries, energy infrastructure and tourist areas [136–140]. However, the potential for chronic or acute impacts will vary depending on the stressor being considered, i.e., vessel noise can affect the recipient over different distances while strike risk is dependent on direct co-occurrence. The length of exposure to the stressor will also elevate the risk of impact and its potential severity, for example responses such as habitat displacement [141,142], behavioural change [60,143] and temporary (or permanent) threshold shifts [144] have all been shown to be influenced by the frequency and duration of exposure. Recent advances in technologies such as passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) and remote sensing (Automatic Identification Systems (AIS) data) have advanced our understanding and ability to evaluate and in some cases mitigate the threats posed by vessels [15]. For many species and sea areas, improved data capture capabilities have increased our capacity to assess the risks posed by vessels, e.g., through calculating listening space reductions [145] or identifying areas of heightened collision risk [21,146]. This has given rise to many studies that model and predict vessel impacts, which can be used to support empirical studies or management and mitigation efforts. Previous reviews have focussed on describing the effects of specific type of impact [147] or quantifying evidence available for a particular species or group of recipient species [12], vessel type or activity [12,32], or defined geographic areas [148]. Few, however, have taken a holistic approach, assessing global literature on marine vessel impacts across all vessel types and cetacean species. This study aims to, for the first time, synthesise the currently available evidence for all marine cetaceans, all vessel types and all geographies, allowing for a fuller understanding of this issue. Given the large and highly varied body of literature on this topic, a systematic map was used, over a more extensive literature review, in order to better highlight knowledge gaps and quantify the spatial distribution of the evidence. In particular, with this study, we asked the following questions: This study adopted a systematic map protocol, summarised below and guided by the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence Guidelines and Standards for Evidence Synthesis [149] and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) protocol [150]. Search terms were chosen to target marine cetacean species and different types of maritime vessels, and were combined into search strings, using appropriate database-specific syntax. Searches were conducted on 31stJanuary 2023 in the following bibliographic databases: Scopus and Web of Science for peer-reviewed publications, and ProQuest for peer-reviewed and grey literature (search strings and number of documents found per database are provided in S1 Table inS1 Appendix). Only documents in English were included. Eligibility criteria were developed based on the PICO/PECO elements described below: In addition, only studies presenting new data were included (either empirical studies or reviews of previous data with new evidence provided). Both field-based observations or experiments (e.g., controlled exposure experiments) and modelled or simulated responses were considered eligible as long as an impact was assessed. Studies where spatial overlap between cetacean and vessel distribution is reported but no measure of impact is presented were excluded. Results from all the bibliographic database searches were imported into the systematic review application “Rayyan” [151] for the screening process. The initial search resulted in a total of 28,452 documents (Fig 1). The “Duplicate Detection” function in Rayyan was used to identify duplicate records, which were then manually inspected for confirmation, resulting in a final 13,729 reports that underwent the screening process. Documents were first screened by title and abstract only, following the aforementioned eligibility criteria; uncertain documents were also forwarded to allow decision at the full-text screening stage. 999 documents were accepted for title-abstract screening. Of these, 110 could not be accessed or located, a further 2 were identified as duplicates and 319 were excluded after reading the full-text. This resulted in a final number of 568 documents included in this systematic map (Fig 1). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0348502.g001 To test the clarity of the eligibility criteria, one reviewer screened all 13,729 abstracts, while a second reviewer screened only a subset (2,125, or 15%). The two processes were carried out independently and decisions were compared afterwards. There was a high rate of agreement between the two reviewers, with only 0.6% (n = 12) of conflicting decisions. All 568 included documents were manually processed by the main reviewer to compile the relevant information into a single Excel database. This included: World continent and EEZ layers obtained under CC BY 4.0 license from Natural Earth [152] and MarineRegions.org [153]. World continent and EEZ layers obtained under CC BY 4.0 license from Natural Earth [152] and MarineRegions.org [153]. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0348502.g002 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0348502.t001 For the purpose of this review, the publications that were screened (peer-reviewed paper, thesis, report, etc.) are hereafter referred to as “documents”. From each document, a new “record” was extracted for each species-stressor-country combination addressed, meaning that a single document often resulted in multiple records. From the 568 included documents, 919 records were extracted and summarized in this systematic map. The majority of the evidence identified by this systematic map involved empirical records (n = 661, or 71.9%) rather than predictive studies (n = 258, or 28.1%), and this was the case for all species groupings and vessel categories with the exception of commercial cargo and passenger vessels, for which only 41% of the records were of empirical nature (S1 Fig inS1 Appendix). The majority of all the records (87.8%) also reported one (or more) response(s) to the impacts from marine vessels (S2 Fig inS1 Appendix). The results hereafter will only present empirical records, the data for predictive records can be reviewed in the Supplementary Material (S7-9 Tables and S1,2,4,5 Figs inS1 Appendix). These are presented separately as they represent different types of evidence: empirical observations of a response as opposed to speculated, modelled outcomes. Most (552 out of 661) empirical records analysed were sourced from peer-reviewed publications (Fig 3). The remaining 109 records comprised of Master’s or PhD thesis (n = 63), technical reports (n = 26) and conference proceedings (n = 19). There was also a single magazine article that contributed to the evidence synthesised. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0348502.g003 The earliest online record was published in 1981, however it should be noted that the availability of digital documents was notably low until the early 2000s, with an average of only 3–4 records per year before 2000, rising to about 15 per year in the following decade, and exceeding 30 annually after 2010 (Fig 3). In terms of the spatial distribution of these records, the majority were documented within the Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) of North American countries (n = 274), followed by countries of the European continent (n = 113), Oceania (n = 81), Asia (n = 67), South America (n = 60), Africa (n = 29) and Antarctica (n = 4) (Fig 4). There were relatively few records that took place within international waters (n = 10). For the remaining 23 (3.4%) records, the exact location of the study could not be attributed to a particular geographic area. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0348502.g004 Empirical records of vessel impact(s) were found for all Balaenidae (4), Eschrichtiidae (1). Neobalaenidae (1), Monodontidae (2), Physeteridae (1) and Kogidae (2) species and the majority of Delphinidae (28 out of 36) and Balaenopteridae (8 out of 10) species. However, less than half of porpoises (Phocoenidae; 3 out of 7) and beaked whales (Ziphiidae; 7 out of 24) had any reported empirical evidence of vessel impacts, and no records were found for the Franciscana dolphin (family Pontoporidae) (S3 Fig inS1 Appendix). The majority (46.4%) of records documenting vessel impacts involved species from the Delphinidae family (n = 307), followed by Balaenopteridae (n = 175), while much fewer records were found for the other families (less than 50 each) (S1a Fig inS1 Appendix). Only 1% (n = 8) of the records were more broadly classified as “cetaceans” due to the lack of further taxonomic details. Within each family, records were not evenly distributed between species (S3 Table inS1 Appendix). For the Balaenidae and Balaenopteridae families most records of vessel impacts involved, respectively, Northern Atlantic (Eubalaena glacialis; 17 out of 46) and Southern Right whales (E. australis; 18 out of 46), and humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae; 89 out of 175), while for Delphinidae the majority of records were attributed to bottlenose dolphins (Tursiopssp., 133 out of 307) and killer whales (Orcinus orca; 24 out of 307). For the family Monodontidae, records on beluga (Delphinapterus leucas; 15 out of 18) were 5 times more abundant than on narwhals (Monodon monoceros; 3 out of 18), and similarly, for the Kogiidae, pygmy sperm whales (Kogia breviceps; 6 out of 8) held triple the number of records than dwarf sperm whales (K. sima). Porpoise (Phocoenidae) records were dominated by a single species: harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena; 18 out of 21). Beaked whale (Ziphiidae) records on vessel impacts were limited, with the most evidence obtained for goose-beaked whales (Ziphius cavirostris; 9 out of 22) and only 1 or 2 for the other six species for which records were found. The number of records attributed to different families over time reflects the same publication trends shown inFig 3, with fewer online documents prior to 2000 and a notable increase after 2010 (S4a Table inS1 Appendix). By contrast, the number of species studied showed a more gradual increase for most families (S4c Table inS1 Appendix). Spatial trends in records are more challenging to interpret, for reasons discussed later. However, it is possible to discern that evidence of vessel impacts on baleen whales (Balaenidae, Balaenopteridae, Eschrichtiidae, Neobalaenidae), delphinids (Delphinidae and Monodontidae) and Physeteridae has been documented in all (or most) marine areas covered by the distribution ranges of those species. Records for Kogiidae was available only for Europe, North America and Asia, while there were no records of empirical evidence of vessel impacts on porpoises (Phocoenidae) and beaked whales (Ziphiidae) from South America, Oceania, Africa, Antarctica and international waters (S4b Table inS1 Appendix). Almost half (317 out of 661) did not specify the vessel type involved. For the remaining 344 records, recreational vessels were most abundant (n = 209), followed by support survey and government (SSG) vessels (n = 55), commercial cargo and passenger (C&P) vessels (n = 41) and fishing vessels (n = 39) (S1b Fig inS1 Appendix). Records indicating impacts from unspecified vessel types were found from all decades and steadily increased after 2000, to the point of taking up 59% of empirical records in the period between 2020 and 2023 (S5a Table inS1 Appendix). Records with unspecified vessel types are distributed across all continents, particularly in North America (152 out of 274) and Europe (68 out of 120) (S5b Table inS1 Appendix). For 220 of the records where no vessel type was specified, no assumption could be made about the size of the vessel involved, due to the data being related to stranding events or scarring on the animals’ body (n = 152), or from being obtained from locations where vessels of various sizes and types were likely to have been operating (n = 68). Of the remaining evidence, the majority involved large vessels (n = 61) as opposed to small ones (n = 36). Records from large unspecified ships and other unclassified vessels focused mainly on impacts to Balaenopteridae species (n = 27 and 66, respectively) and those from small unspecified vessels were mostly related to Delphinidae species (n = 28), while comparatively few documented impacts on Physeteridae and Kogiidae sperm whales, beaked whales and porpoises (respectively n = 17, 7, 14 and 11 across all unspecified vessel categories) (Fig 5). In terms of species specifics, the records predominantly involved humpback whales (n = 44), bottlenose dolphins (n = 42), and sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus, n = 17) (S6 Table inS1 Appendix). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0348502.g005 A substantial number of records related to recreational vessels were published after 2010, with a minimal number (n = 9) published before 2000 (S5a Table inS1 Appendix). Among these records, 69.4% (n = 145) corresponded to eco-tourism vessels, 24.8% (n = 52) to motorboats, 4.8% (n = 10) to sailing vessels, and only 1% (n = 2) to jet skis (Fig 6). Impacts from motorboats and eco-tourism vessels have been documented in all marine areas except Antarctica. Conversely, records focusing specifically on jet ski impacts have been found only in North America and Oceania (S5b Table inS1 Appendix). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0348502.g006 Overall, recreational vessels have been primarily studied in relation to Delphinidae (n = 125) and Balaenopteridae (n = 47) species, while much less evidence was available for Phocoenidae, Kogiidae and Ziphiidae (two records each family) (Fig 6). However, the distribution of records varies across different vessel types (S6 Table inS1 Appendix). Eco-tourism vessels were associated with all cetacean families except porpoises and Neobalaenidae, but in particular bottlenose dolphins (n = 40) and humpback whales (n = 30). By contrast, impacts from recreational motorboats have only been recorded for baleen whales (Balaenidae, Balaenopteridae and Eschrichtiidae), delphinids (Delphinidae and Monodontidae), and porpoises (Phocoenidae), and sailing vessels only for Balaenopteridae, Eschrichtiidae, Delphinidae and Physeteridae. Published records evidencing impacts from jet-ski were limited (n = 2): a collision event with a common dolphin (Delphinus delphis) [154] and avoidance responses from bottlenose dolphins [155] (S6 Table inS1 Appendix). The temporal distribution of records varies across SSG vessel types: for most, evidence of impacts only begins to emerge from the year 2000 onwards, with the exception of icebreaker vessels, whose records are concentrated in the 1980s and 1990s (S5a Table inS1 Appendix). Impacts from cetacean research vessels have been studied in most sea areas, however evidence for other SSG vessel types was typically limited to only one or two regions, with a notable absence of records from African waters (S5b Table inS1 Appendix). 61.8% (34 out of 55) of SSG records involved cetacean research vessels, while a far smaller proportion provided evidence from seismic and icebreaker vessels (n = 7 each), supply vessels (n = 6), and tugs (n = 1) (Fig 7). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0348502.g007 Impacts attributed to SSG vessels have predominantly been documented for Delphinidae species (n = 25), with far fewer records for the other families (less than 10 each) (Fig 7). Despite the notable diversity of vessel types included in this category, there were relatively few records (n = 55) that reported interactions between SSG vessels and cetaceans. Often there was only one record evidencing impacts from a specific vessel type within this category on a singular species (e.g., effects of supply vessels on harbour porpoises), with some notable exceptions (S6 Table inS1 Appendix): - disturbance from seismic vessels on bowhead (Balaena mysticetus; n = 3 [156–158]) and humpback whales (n = 4 [159–162]); - effects on noise from icebreakers on beluga (n = 3 [163,164]); - disturbance from cetacean survey vessels on bottlenose dolphins (4 [165–168]) and sperm whale (n = 6 [165,169–172]). Evidence of cetacean impacts from commercial cargo and passenger vessels is greatest between 2010–2019, with only four records published before 2000 (S5a Table inS1 Appendix). Records for vessels specifically identified as commercial goods vessels and ferries could be found across most sea areas, while evidence of impacts for tankers and cruise ships was restricted to Europe and North and South America (S5b Table inS1 Appendix). It is important to note that some of these vessels were likely captured as part of the “large unspecified” and “other unspecified” vessels (mentioned in section 3.3.1.). 63.4% (26 out of 41) of the C&P vessels records referred to cargo traffic (in particular goods vessels, n = 16), while the remaining 36.6% (15 out of 41) was passenger traffic (notably ferries, n = 11) (Fig 8). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0348502.g008 Most records involving C&P vessels considered their impacts on Balaenopteridae species (n = 16), followed by the Delphinidae (n = 15) (Fig 8), and these records were dominated by three species: bottlenose dolphins (n = 7), blue whales (Balaenoptera musculus; n = 5) and humpback whales (n = 4) (S6 Table inS1 Appendix). This review identified no specific records of C&P vessels directly impacting sperm whales (Physeteridae and Kogiidae) and only four records for beaked whales (Ziphiidae) and porpoises (Phocoenidae) (Fig 8). The only beaked whale record evidences a collision between a ferry (hydrofoil) and a Stejneger’s beaked whale (Mesoplodon stejnegeri) in Japan [173], while the three porpoise records all involved harbour porpoises responding to noise or disturbance from commercial cargo vessels or ferries [174–176] (S6 Table inS1 Appendix). Before 2000, there were no records related to the impacts of fishing vessels (S5a Table inS1 Appendix). Evidence of impacts is available for all marine areas except Antarctica, with most records originating from North America (n = 12), Europe (n = 9), and Asia (n = 7) (S5b Table inS1 Appendix). Most records (25 out of 39) associated with fishing vessels involved almost exclusively Delphinidae species, particularly bottlenose dolphins (Fig 9; S6 Table inS1 Appendix). Only 7 records were found for baleen whales (3 for humpback, 2 for southern right, 1 for minke whales (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) and 1 for an unidentified baleen species), while minimal evidence was available for porpoises (2 records on harbour porpoise) and beaked whales (2 records on goose-beaked whale and 2 for an unidentified beaked whale species). No impacts involving fishing vessels were reported for Physeteridae or Kogiidae species. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0348502.g009 This systematic map highlights that, despite a significant volume of publications that consider maritime vessels and cetaceans, a comparatively smaller proportion (50%) of the literature reports on the direct impacts (e.g., vessel strike or disturbance associated with vessel presence or approach) that different vessel types can have on different groups of cetaceans. Importantly, the published knowledge identified in this review is unevenly distributed across species and vessel type(s). Despite this, a number of important findings have been identified. The results show an increasing amount of published evidence over the decades, in particular after 2000. This is likely due to a growing interest in charismatic megafauna and awareness of the potential effects that anthropogenic activities as a whole can have on the environment [177], as well as higher availability of online digital documents and reduced barriers in the publication process [178,179]. Spatial trends are more difficult to infer. Larger regions may hold a higher number of records partly because of their size, and not necessarily only because of differences in research effort. Similarly, vessels may be unevenly distributed between marine regions, but accurate estimates on the number and types of vessels operating in each area are lacking, as the current reporting system appears to focus more on the country of registration rather than place of operation [2]. However, information on cetacean presence is more readily available and numbers are indeed comparable between the marine regions as defined for this systematic map (45-54 species, [180]). The results can therefore help shed light on possible geographical disparities in the research effort on vessel impacts, with most of the evidence being gathered in North American or European waters and far fewer records documenting impacts in international waters or other marine areas. This could be partially explained by the fact that this study reviewed only documents written in English: certain document types (like technical reports, thesis or grey literature) will likely be published in the country’s main language and not always translated into English, which may have resulted in records from non-English speaking areas being under-represented in the results. Other factors that may have played a role in the geographical differences in the evidence base include the dominance of the Western scientific paradigm in research, funding availability, policy and conservation obligations, as well as challenges associated with surveying expansive or remote areas [181]. The observed variability in research outputs could also reflect a global disparity in monitoring capacity [182]. Countries with greater access to information gathering technologies (e.g., dense/accessible AIS coverage, established Passive Acoustic Monitoring (PAM) networks, repositories of satellite imagery or the capacity to task satellite time, and long-term, funded, research programmes) are better equipped to generate empirical evidence, whereas regions with limited resources or a lack of established research infrastructure may struggle to implement comprehensive monitoring programs, leading to significant knowledge gaps concerning local cetacean populations and the potential impacts of maritime vessels [183–185]. Areas with greater evidence (e.g., North American/European waters) are also where management tools, such as those implemented by the International Maritime Organization (IMO), including traffic separation schemes and areas to be avoided, or by local port and harbour authorities, such as seasonal or dynamic vessel speed regulations, and emissions/noise controls, are most frequently trialled or implemented [186–188]. In addition, the presence of regulatory frameworks in high‑income countries (such as EU Habitats and Birds Directives, the Natura 2000 network or the U.S. Marine Mammal Protection Act) have directly stimulated investment in cetacean monitoring and research [189–192], whereas in regions of the global South, weaker implementation capacity and competing development priorities have limited sustained cetacean research despite legal protections [193]. All these differences could create a feedback loop where management policies and regulatory frameworks reflect monitoring capacity rather than true need based on impact risk, underscoring the importance of international cooperation for targeted capacity building and technology transfer [194–196]. Lastly, there may be other safety obstacles (such as piracy) that could hinder research and possibly affect the number of other maritime vessels on the water, especially in the global South [197,198]. It’s finally important to note that in this systematic map a “central location” was chosen to indicate where the research has been conducted, as often the information on the full extent of the study area was missing or unclear, and it could vary the different types of impacts being studied. While this standardised approach allowed to place a study within the respective marine region, it does not allow to discern finer scale patterns within these regions or where the exact study locations are in relation to high vessel traffic areas. The disparity in records between groups and individual species may be explained by a variety of factors including but not limited to: the number of species associated with each group, their geographic range and habitat preferences, their ecology, their sensitivity to particular vessel threats and their overall conservation status. To start, species with a cosmopolitan distribution (e.g., humpback whales, bottlenose dolphins) are more likely to be the subject of multiple studies on similar topics across their whole range, as opposed to species found in unique areas (e.g., finless porpoises) [199,200]. Species exhibiting preferences for coastal habitats and/or shallower waters are generally easier and less costly to study than those in offshore waters [201]. As a result, they are more likely to generate a higher number of records, a trend that may be further amplified by the typically high levels of vessel traffic in these areas, particularly near port and harbour entrances. Several species that inhabit heavy traffic coastal areas have impacts from vessels recognized as a primary threat to their conservation status, like in the case of North Atlantic Right whales [202], St. Lawrence Estuary belugas [203], Southern Resident killer whales [204], Atlantic humpback dolphins [205] or Hector’s dolphins [206]. In addition to species’ geographical distribution and/or migratory behaviour, vertical movement can also influence the amount of available evidence. Species with deep-diving habits, often coupled with cryptic behaviour such as avoiding boats and spending minimal time at the surface, are generally harder to encounter and study, as exemplified by beaked whales [207]. Conservation status will also likely influence the amount of effort dedicated to understanding a species’ or population’s threats and its survival, though it appears that charisma and accessibility are stronger driving factors [208]. For many species (especially porpoises and beaked whales) the main threats identified in the IUCN Red List are either noise-related, which is often studied through predictive approaches, or fall outside the inclusion criteria of this systematic map because they are associated with human activities rather than vessels themselves (e.g., coastal development, bycatch, plastic ingestion, or noise from active sonar; [209–214]). Lastly, it is important to acknowledge that, in using record counts as a measure of research effort, the values presented could be influenced by long-term studies or establishment of research programmes which can result in multiple publications/records being generated. While the size of the marine regions used to collate records in this systematic map does not allow us to evaluate the extent of fine-scale spatial patterns in research efforts, some of the geographical differences that were, identified for individual species may be, at least in part, also related to the presence of such long-term studies or established research programmes. For example, nearly half (15/32) of the European studies on Atlantic bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) were documented within UK waters. Similarly, virtually all of the identified records for killer whales (22/24) were collected in North American waters, there were no records available for Antarctic, African, European and Asian waters, despite this species having a global range. Of these North American records, majority focus on Southern Resident killer whales (e.g., [215–218]), while less research has focused on other populations, such as Northern Resident or transient killer whales (e.g., [219,220]). This suggests that research effort may not be evenly distributed between populations, not just species, as highlighted by another study that considered evidence of vessel impacts for specific species subpopulations in the Arctic [71]. Because cetacean populations differ in distribution, habitat use, demography, and baseline status, the same vessel pressure may present very different risk(s) across sub‑populations [221,222]. Spatially averaged or species‑wide assessments ignore local hotspots of high overlap, place‑specific sensitivities (e.g., small, closed, or breeding populations), demographic differences in response, and variation in traffic type and seasonality [222–227]. As such, these findings suggest that just because there appears to be a relatively high volume of available evidence for a species, this shouldn’t be misinterpreted, or preclude from further efforts to investigate possible variability in exposure and responses at the population or sub-population level. This map has shown that whilst interaction with commercial cargo ships and passenger vessels is recognised as a potential threat related to cetacean conservation [134,228], there is less empirical evidence than expected documenting their impacts [71], with only 41 out of 100 records providing empirical evidence. This gap is especially critical from a management perspective, as these are the target vessel categories of many regulatory frameworks, from the international IMO guidelines to national regulations, such as traffic separation schemes, speed-reduction measures and routeing changes [32,229]. For other vessel types, the relatively fewer records may reflect the fact that the focus of the study has been on the activity being performed, rather than on interactions between cetaceans and the vessels themselves. For instance, while fishing gear and of entanglement are widely recognised as main threats to cetaceans and much effort has been put into understanding and mitigating their impacts [230–232], this review identified fishing boats as some of the least represented vessel types. This however does not automatically translate in a lower risk associated with fishing boats, as the available records provide evidence of collisions with cetaceans as well as behavioural responses and changes in vocalizations [233–235]. Similarly, there is also limited available evidence regarding the potential impacts of motorized sailing boats (only one document, [236]). While this could be attributed to the fact that they operate mostly in coastal areas, many cetaceans (across most, if not all, families) also inhabit the same waters, making these vessels a potential source of impact. Instead, the number may be explained by differences in classification: as many sailing vessels use engine propulsion for large portions of their operational time [237], they may have been reported as “motorboats” in some of the analysed documents. It may also be possible that majority of the reports of the impacts of sailing vessels (and sailing competitions) may exist in other forms of grey literature (e.g., blog posts, videos) that were not included in this systematic map. This type of evidence can be imperfect and is generally not included in scientific reviews. However, it is still valuable and should be considered when it makes up the majority (if not all) of the available information. The wide physical, operational, and geographical variability of maritime vessels complicates their classification, influencing both the type and severity of potential impacts on cetaceans and the availability of data [238,239]. Consequently, categorising vessels in this review involves important caveats that should be considered when interpreting the results. In particular, it is important to note that, for this systematic map, vessels were classified mainly based on their speed, size, distance to shore and whether they directly target cetaceans (e.g., eco-tourism boats) or are more likely to encounter them incidentally (e.g., fishing vessels). Therefore, some of the types (e.g., eco-tourism, cetacean research or fishing vessels, ferries) include vessels of a wide range of size and therefore a variety of potential impacts, that differ either in type or intensity [75]. Even seemingly straightforward terms such as “AIS vessels” or “AIS data” actually refer to a wide variety of vessel types, with categorization also being subject to user error as category is programme by the vessel operators instead of automatically assigned. In addition, geographical area can affect which vessel types are represented in AIS data. For example, in international waters, these likely include only class A vessels (those obligated to operate an AIS transponder under the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) Regulation V/19 of 2004), whose data is also given priority on the satellite AIS receivers. In national waters however such assumptions cannot be made. While priority might still be given to class A vessels, the percentage of class B vessels is likely higher than in international waters and, since requirements for class B are set by the individual countries and can differ between EEZs (e.g., mandatory for commercial fishing vessels in USA but not Canada; [240,241]), generalizations in national waters cannot be made. In addition, vessels were assigned to a category other than “unspecified” only if the vessel type was explicitly stated in the publication. As such, when terms like “shipping” were found, records were considered as indicating “large unspecified vessels” since the term, while widely used to refer to commercial cargo traffic, does not inherently define a precise vessel type. One of the notable challenges with this review was classifying the records into different vessel types, as very often (in almost 40% of cases) studies did not include specific details on the vessels included in the research. In many studies authors often referred to the stressor as simply “vessels” and no further information on vessel characteristics could be inferred from the text. This was most common for those studies considering the effects of underwater noise, when the source vessel was not specifically identified or cumulative noise exposure was being evaluated. Similarly, reports of stranding events or injuries on the animals were rarely able to explicitly state the size and type of vessel involved, because it was often unknown. There were cases, however, where the terminology used or the location of the study area allowed us to make informed decisions about the size of these “unspecified vessels”. For example, documents referring to “commercial traffic” or “shipping traffic”, or those evaluating noise inside shipping lanes were categorised as “likely-large unspecified vessels”, as they would likely target large cargo or passenger vessels but didn’t explicitly state so. Similarly, studies conducted in coastal waters (3–5 nautical miles from the coast) and away from main ports were assigned to the “likely-small unspecified vessels” category, as they probably referred to smaller recreational boats. While these decisions were discussed between the authors in an effort to ensure consistency, we acknowledge that the use of expert judgement introduces a level of subjectivity in the classification and that many of these studies including “unspecified vessels” could still refer to vessels of various sizes and types. Inaccurate classification of vessel types limits our understanding of the threats they pose, potentially leading to over- or underestimation of impacts. Without a holistic view of how impacts vary by vessel type, informed decisions on management and risk mitigation are difficult. Therefore, it is essential to report vessel characteristics in detail whenever possible to achieve a comprehensive and nuanced understanding of their potential effects. Despite the challenges in identifying and categorising vessel types involved in some records, this review can highlight specific knowledge patterns. In contrast to the lack of empirical evidence on fishing, sailing and commercial cargo and passenger vessels, there are records to suggest the presence of potential impacts associated with cetacean research activity itself, though effort appears to have focused mostly of dolphin species (Delphinidae and Monodontidae). While the recent years have seen a rapid growth in the use of remote sensing and autonomous technologies to quantify and mitigate vessel impacts on cetaceans [242–244], as long as boat-based research will be conducted it would still be valuable to assess the potential impact of the research platform itself, especially on those species groups for which evidence is currently lacking. It is also true that unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), autonomous surface and underwater vehicles, and satellite remote sensing are increasingly being combined with PAM and biologging to map cetacean distribution, behaviour, and exposure to shipping noise and collision risk, with higher resolution and at lower cost than traditional ship‑based surveys, thereby providing an emerging technological toolbox for evidence‑based vessel‑impact assessment and mitigation [245–247]. For example, passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) has moved beyond traditional moored recorders to include cabled observatories, seafloor telecommunication cables, and mobile platforms (such as underwater gliders, wave gliders, and other unmanned surface vehicles), greatly expanding spatial and temporal coverage of ship noise and whale occurrence [247,248]. These mobile PAM systems are also now being utilised in dynamic management schemes, where near‑real‑time detections of endangered North Atlantic right whales from gliders trigger mandatory vessel slow‑downs and other risk‑reduction measures over large regions and across seasons [249,250]. In parallel, satellite‑linked telemetry of whales is increasingly combined with terrestrial and satellite AIS data on vessel movements to quantify spatial overlap, identify critical habitats and migratory corridors that intersect high‑traffic routes, and evaluate ship‑strike risk at regional and basin scales [244,251,252]. Lastly, it is important to note that the type of impacts considered in relation to each vessel type requires further scrutiny. Research effort might not be equally distributed across impacts, and indeed we noted that, for example, effects of behavioural disturbance from recreational motorboats appear to be more studied [253–257] than those of noise [145,258]. Importantly, this systematic map does not analyse or consider different types of impacts separately or based on their severity, and as such, record frequency cannot, and should not be interpreted as a proxy for the scale or severity of the threat that a vessel type might pose to a particular species. Beyond individual impacts there is a growing body of evidence pointing to the necessity of considering the cumulative impacts that vessels may have on cetaceans, when investigating the conservation concerns that these stressors may have [259–262]. Approaches that attempt to take a more holistic view of impacts, such as Cumulative Impact Assessments (CIAs) and Ecosystem-Based Models (EBMs), can provide a more inclusive framework for trying to evaluate the combined effects of diverse maritime activities on marine mammal populations [263,264]. However, attempting to evaluate multiple stressors and their interactions over space and time to provide a more realistic understanding of anthropogenic pressures is something that is widely pointed to as being one of the biggest challenges when managing marine systems [265,266]. This comprehensive perspective is essential for informing policy development and it underscores the urgent need for standardized methodologies in impact assessment and monitoring [261,267]. Indeed, few of the documents identified from this review attempted to consider multiple vessel types (e.g., [51,257,268,269]) and none explicitly assessed the cumulative impacts from all those vessels. Similarly, studies that do attempt to evaluate cumulative exposure tend to focus on a single type of stressor (e.g., noise) and often examine different sources in addition to vessels, rather than multiple vessel types [270–272], while impacts from different stressors are understudied and empirical evidence is especially lacking [273]. The volume of evidence analysed in this systematic map supports our understanding that vessels, regardless of their type, pose a range of ubiquitous threats to all cetaceans. Yet in order to design effective measures to ensure that vessels do not pose a conservation risk, more empirical evidence on the threats associated with different vessel types is required. Therefore vessel types and their attributes should be clearly documented in every study to ensure that management tools (such as speed-reduction zones, shipping lane adjustments, dynamic management areas, noise management [32,229,274,275]) are appropriate and proportionate to effectively mitigate the potential impacts of vessels while minimising unnecessary disruption to maritime traffic where possible. Recognizing the differences in species-specific responses and vessel characteristics is critical for tailoring conservation policies and monitoring strategies effectively. Different cetacean species exhibit varied sensitivities to vessel disturbances [256,276,277], and vessel types differ substantially in their size, speed, noise frequency, and operational patterns, which may result in different impacts [278,279]. This heterogeneity necessitates conservation approaches that are nuanced and adaptive, ensuring that mitigation measures are both species-appropriate and vessel-specific. As such, future field studies should be dedicated to those under-represented species (like most porpoise and all beaked whale species) and vessel types (such as fishing, sailing or seismic vessels), making sure to include, where possible, clearer details about the vessels that are being considered, like information on engine size, overall length, speed and hull type. Efforts should also focus on Asian, African, South American, international and polar waters, where evidence is still lacking. With the increase in maritime activities and the expansion to newer, previously inaccessible parts of the ocean, it is also important to extend research efforts to offshore areas and remote regions like the Arctic and Antarctic, where populations have been less subjected (and therefore more sensitive) to anthropogenic pressures [41,280,281]. While these regions are inherently more challenging to survey, coordinated international effort should employ recent technological innovations (such as PAM, high-resolution satellite imagery, or unoccupied aerial systems) to expand data coverage to now provide the opportunity to capture evidence even in such remote areas and cryptic species [243,282]. These technological advances also provide opportunities for continuous, non-invasive, long-term monitoring data that was previously unattainable, for cetaceans and vessels alike. It is however important for this new research to follow more standardised protocols. The heterogeneity in methodologies identified across studies highlights the need for greater standardisation in data collection, reporting and vessel classification. While for some stressors (e.g., noise) vessel types have been well characterised and responses to different vessel types are well studied [283], such level of detail may not be available for other stressors. Only recently, risk of lethal collision with large whales has been described for vessels of different sizes, while previously it was solely based on vessel speed [238]. And for other impacts, like behavioural disturbance due to vessel presence, variation in responses to different vessel types have not been analysed yet and the vessel categorization systems used for noise (by type and operational characteristic) and collision (by size) may not be suitable to assess this impact as a variable relating to activity might need to be incorporated to account for those vessels that are more likely to encounter cetaceans due to their operations (e.g., whale-watching and fishing vessels) or those that have the ability to actively pursue the animals (e.g., whale-watching or recreational boats, as opposed to commercial vessels with stricter routes and schedules). Despite these challenges, developing shared protocols for describing vessel characteristics and defining vessel categories according to size and activity, and developing consistent monitoring approaches would enhance comparability across studies and regions, improve the transferability of results to management contexts, and facilitate the integration of evidence into policy and regulatory frameworks. In addition to guiding new empirical research, this systematic map can also guide future systematic evidence analysis. Firstly, future synthesis should account for different responses from the animals, with clear distinctions between behavioural, social or physiological responses, vocalization changes, and lethal or sublethal injuries, as well as short- or long-term consequences. Secondly, future reviews should explore seasonal patterns in the available evidence and the possible lack of data during months where survey conditions are commonly unfavourable (like boreal winter, austral summer, monsoon seasons). High-resolution spatial patterns should also be investigated to assess possible biases at a local scale and between inshore and offshore waters, which necessitates recording the full extent of the study area rather than a central location. Thirdly, with the emergence of new technologies, future synthesis could include information of the data sources used for both cetaceans (e.g., land- or ship-based studies, visual or acoustic, eDNA) and vessels (e.g., land- or boat-based surveys, AIS data), with particular interest on temporal and spatial patterns. It will also be important to compare distribution of empirical and predictive evidence, as that is likely to differ between vessel types, species (or species groups) and response types. For example, research using AIS data might be more predictive in nature, and studies on elusive species might rely more strongly on modelling due to the lack of observational records. At a smaller scale, future systematic literature reviews should focus on assessing potential knowledge gaps at the population and sub-population level for those apparently better-studied species, like humpback whales, bottlenose dolphins, killer whales and sperm whales. For this to happen, a higher spatial resolution than the one used in the current study is needed. In particular, extracting information of the size on the study area (rather than the centre location) would allow to better evaluate overlap with both high vessel traffic zones and protected areas, to assess whether cetaceans are being studied and protected where they are actually more vulnerable. In addition to systematic literature reviews, future studies focusing on data-deficient species or vessel types should also attempt to collate information for any types of documentation and media (including generally disregarded sources like blog posts or videos) as well as conducting interviews with marine users, like has been done to document entanglement and bycatch for example [284–288]. Lastly, while this systematic map cannot result in direct suggestions on managing vessel traffic, it provides an established, user-friendly evidence base that is easier to interrogate, as opposed to reading each singular document identified in this review. As such, policy makers and managers, both at the local and international level, now have the means to explore the collated resources and form the basis for developing evidence-based guidance and regulations regarding the impacts on vessels. The outcomes of this systematic map can also support international mitigation efforts that emphasise data acquisition and analysis, potentially securing targeted funding toward understudied species, regions, or vessel types. Additionally, it highlights the need for harmonised reporting, which could promote international coordination and compliance and the formulation of industry bodies’ best-practice guidelines. In a world of increasing maritime activity, in particular in the form of vessel traffic, this systematic map summarises the distribution of available empirical studies on the impacts of maritime vessels on cetacean species. It highlights that our current understanding is built on the responses of few species in specific parts of the world. Future research should therefore seek to build an understanding related to the currently data-deficient species or species groups (such as porpoises and beaked whales) and marine regions (such as African, polar and international waters). Similarly, not all vessel types have received equal research attention, and for some vessel types the evidence remains predominantly of predictive rather than empirical nature. In addition, the ambiguity on vessel characteristics due to the quality of information provided in the document can lead to further uncertainty. Effort should be made to strive for more detailed records of the vessels involved in the studies and to assess the impacts of different vessels on different species, both singularly and cumulatively. Finally, recognizing and addressing the global disparities in monitoring capacity through capacity-building initiatives, technology transfer, and collaborative research networks is essential for equitable conservation outcomes. By fostering partnerships among developed and developing regions, sharing expertise, and promoting access to cutting-edge monitoring technologies, the global community can work towards a more unified and effective approach to marine mammal conservation. This comprehensive, multi-faceted strategy is vital for safeguarding marine biodiversity in an era marked by escalating maritime pressures and rapid environmental change. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0348502.s001 (DOCX) https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0348502.s002 (XLSX) We would like to thank Chris Reilly for their contribution as secondary reviewer during title-and-abstract screening stage of this systematic map.

Una revisione profonda e coraggiosa del sistema ETS applicato al trasporto marittimo. È la richiesta lanciata dal Presidente di Assarmatori, Stefano Messina, al termine della missione annuale del Consiglio Direttivo dell’associazione a Bruxelles, caratterizzata da una fitta agenda di incontri istituzionali di alto livello. “Gli effetti della tassa sulle emissioni voluta dall’Unione europea stanno producendo conseguenze negative sui segmenti più esposti e strategici del trasporto marittimo, paragonabili a quelle generate dalle grandi crisi internazionali, come l’aumento dei prezzi dell’energia legato al blocco dello Stretto di Hormuz”, ha dichiarato Messina. “La differenza è che Hormuz rappresenta uno shock congiunturale, mentre l’ETS è una tassazione strutturale destinata a incidere in modo permanente sulla competitività e sulla sostenibilità dei collegamenti con le isole, delle Autostrade del Mare e del transhipment di contenitori”. Secondo Assarmatori, nei mesi scorsi l’Unione europea ha mostrato attenzione verso alcune priorità strategiche del comparto marittimo italiano, inserendole nelle politiche europee dedicate al settore. Tuttavia, per l’associazione, il punto cruciale resta il passaggio dalle dichiarazioni alle misure concrete. “Nel caso dell’ETS – ha proseguito Messina – siamo di fronte a una tassazione ingiusta perché non selettiva, applicata in maniera orizzontale senza tenere conto delle specificità dei singoli comparti. Oggi esiste ormai una diffusa consapevolezza delle criticità dell’attuale impianto normativo, ma permane ancora poca chiarezza sugli strumenti correttivi che verranno adottati”. Particolare attenzione viene rivolta alla futura “Strategia europea per le isole”, in fase di elaborazione sotto la guida del Vicepresidente Esecutivo della Commissione europea Raffaele Fitto. “Abbiamo rappresentato con forza le nostre priorità sui collegamenti marittimi con le isole”, ha spiegato il Presidente di Assarmatori. “L’imposizione di una tassazione climatica sproporzionata su questi servizi, che peraltro non ritorna al comparto sotto forma di investimenti per una reale transizione ambientale, rischia di compromettere un equilibrio già fragile”. Messina ha infine sottolineato la necessità di un cambio di approccio da parte delle istituzioni europee: “La sensazione è che la tecnocrazia europea resti ancora troppo rigida rispetto all’esigenza di migliorare in modo significativo queste politiche. Noi chiediamo invece che la revisione prevista per luglio sia davvero coraggiosa, così da consentire al nostro comparto industriale di restare competitivo in uno scenario globale sempre più complesso”. Nel corso della due giorni a Bruxelles, la delegazione di Assarmatori ha incontrato il Vicepresidente Esecutivo della Commissione europea Raffaele Fitto presso Palazzo Berlaymont. Si è inoltre svolto un ricevimento alla Residenza dell’Ambasciatore d’Italia presso il Regno del Belgio, alla presenza di rappresentanti delle istituzioni europee e della comunità internazionale di Bruxelles. Sono intervenuti, tra gli altri, l’Ambasciatore Federica Favi, l’Ambasciatore Marco Canaparo, Rappresentante Permanente Aggiunto d’Italia presso la UE, l’Ammiraglio Giuseppe Cavo Dragone, Presidente del Comitato Militare della NATO, e il Ministro plenipotenziario Catherine Flumiani, Inviato speciale del Ministero degli Affari Esteri e della Cooperazione Internazionale per la Dimensione internazionale del Mare. L’agenda ha incluso anche un confronto con Giovanni Cremonini, Vice Capo Divisione per la Sicurezza Marittima del Servizio Europeo per l’Azione Esterna (SEAE/EEAS), con il coinvolgimento dei referenti delle missioni Aspides e Atalanta, oltre a un incontro con una rappresentanza degli europarlamentari italiani. Approfondito anche il confronto tecnico con i funzionari della DG MOVE e della DG CLIMA sui temi legati all’applicazione del regime ETS. Per restare sempre aggiornati sulle principali notizie sulla Liguria seguiteci sul canale Telenord, su Whatsapp, su Instagram, su Youtube e su Facebook.

Gli effetti della tassa sulle emissioni voluta dall’Unione Europea stanno producendo conseguenze negative sui segmenti più esposti e strategici del trasporto marittimo, paragonabili a quelle generate dalle grandi crisi internazionali, come l’aumento dei prezzi dell’energia causato dalle tensioni nello Stretto di Hormuz. Con una differenza sostanziale: Hormuz rappresenta uno shock temporaneo, mentre l’ETS è una tassazione strutturale destinata a incidere in maniera permanente sulla competitività e sulla sostenibilità dei collegamenti con le isole, delle Autostrade del Mare e del transhipment dei container”. Il presidente diAssarmatori,Stefano Messina, interviene con toni netti al termine della missione annuale del Consiglio Direttivo dell’associazione aBruxelles, caratterizzata da una serie di incontri istituzionali di alto livello tra martedì e mercoledì. “Nei mesi scorsi abbiamo accolto positivamente l’inserimento di alcune priorità dell’armamento italiano nelle strategie europee dedicate al settore marittimo – prosegue Messina – ma il nodo centrale resta la traduzione concreta di questi principi in misure operative. Sul tema ETS, una tassazione che riteniamo ingiusta perché applicata in modo orizzontale e non selettivo, senza distinguere tra i diversi comparti, oggi esiste ormai una consapevolezza diffusa delle criticità dell’attuale impianto normativo. Rimane però poca chiarezza sugli strumenti correttivi che verranno adottati”. Particolare attenzione, sottolinea Assarmatori, è rivolta alla futura “Strategia europea per le isole”, in fase di elaborazione sotto la guida del vicepresidente esecutivo della Commissione europeaRaffaele Fitto. “Abbiamo rappresentato le nostre priorità sui collegamenti marittimi con le isole – spiega Messina – perché imporre a questi servizi una tassazione climatica sproporzionata, senza che le risorse tornino al comparto sotto forma di investimenti per la sostenibilità ambientale, rischia di compromettere un equilibrio già fragile”. Secondo il presidente di Assarmatori, “la sensazione è che la tecnocrazia europea resti ancora troppo rigida rispetto alla necessità di migliorare in modo significativo queste politiche. Per questo chiediamo che la revisione prevista a luglio sia coraggiosa, così da permettere al nostro comparto industriale di restare competitivo in uno scenario internazionale sempre più complesso”. Tra gli appuntamenti della missione a Bruxelles figurano l’incontro con Fitto a Palazzo Berlaymont, un ricevimento alla residenza dell’ambasciatore d’Italia in Belgio con la partecipazione di rappresentanti istituzionali italiani ed europei, oltre a confronti dedicati alla sicurezza marittima e ai temi legati all’applicazione del regime ETS con funzionari della DG MOVE e della DG CLIMA. Iscriviti ai canali di Primocanale suWhatsApp,FacebookeTelegram. Resta aggiornato sulle notizie da Genova e dalla Liguria anche sul profiloInstagrame sulla paginaFacebook

Energia Dopo l’assegnazione alla danese Topsoe del contratto FEED, il progetto per la realizzazione di un impianto di produzione di ammoniaca verde nel porto di Aqaba, in Giordania, compie un nuovo passo avanti, questa volta sul fronte autorizzativo. Il Consiglio dei ministri del Regno hascemita, infatti, ha dato il via libera all’intesa tra il Ministero dell’Energia e delle Risorse Minerarie e Jordan Green Ammonia (la joint venture costituita da Hynfra, azienda polacca attiva nello sviluppo di progetti legati all’idrogeno e ai combustibili sintetici, insieme al gruppo giordano Fidelity Group) per lo sviluppo dell’iniziativa. Come ricorda Hynfra in un post pubblicato su LinkedIn, il valore dell’investimento è stimato in circa 1 miliardo di dollari. A regime, l’impianto dovrebbe generare circa 100.000 tonnellate annue di ammoniaca green, partendo da idrogeno rinnovabile prodotto nel sito. L’energia necessaria alla produzione arriverà da un impianto fotovoltaico dedicato, per una potenza complessiva prevista di circa 550 MW, affiancato da un sistema di batterie con una capacità di accumulo di 500 MWh. In questo modo il sito potrà funzionare in modalità off-grid, senza dipendere dalla rete elettrica nazionale. Secondo la tabella di marcia indicata dai promotori, il pacchetto finanziario a sostegno dell’investimento dovrebbe essere definito entro settembre 2027, passaggio che aprirebbe la fase realizzativa, mentre l’impianto dovrebbe entrare in esercizio nel novembre 2030. L’iniziativa si inserisce nella strategia giordana per lo sviluppo di una filiera industriale a basse emissioni e punta a rafforzare il ruolo di Aqaba come piattaforma regionale per la produzione e l’esportazione di ammoniaca green e altri derivati dell’idrogeno rinnovabile. Il primo sbocco resta quello dei fertilizzanti, ma l’ammoniaca è guardata con crescente interesse anche dal trasporto marittimo, uno dei comparti nei quali la transizione energetica resta più complessa.

BRUXELLES – In occasione della missione annuale del Consiglio Direttivo di Assarmatori a Bruxelles, l’associazione degli armatori ha posto l’attenzione sulla penalizzazione strutturale che la tassa europea sulle emissioni (ETS) sta causando al trasporto marittimo, con effetti destinati a incidere a lungo sulla competitività dei collegamenti marittimi e del transhipment. La missione ha visto un’agenda fitta di incontri di alto livello fra martedì e mercoledì. Il presidente di Assarmatori, Stefano Messina, ha denunciato: “Gli effetti della tassa sulle emissioni voluta dall’Unione europea stanno producendo conseguenze negative sui segmenti più esposti e strategici del trasporto marittimo paragonabili a quelle delle grandi crisi internazionali, come l’aumento dei prezzi dell’energia legato al blocco dello Stretto di Hormuz. La differenza è che Hormuz è uno shock congiunturale, mentre l’ETS è una tassazione strutturale, destinata a incidere in modo permanente sulla competitività e sostenibilità dei collegamenti con le isole, delle Autostrade del Mare e del transhipment di contenitori”. Ha proseguito il presidente Messina: “Nei mesi scorsi abbiamo accolto con favore l’inclusione di alcune priorità dell’armamento nazionale nelle strategie europee dedicate al settore marittimo. Tuttavia, il nodo decisivo era e resta la loro traduzione in misure concrete. Nel caso dell’ETS, tassazione ingiusta perché non selettiva in quanto applicata in maniera orizzontale, senza considerare le specificità dei singoli settori, è ormai conclamata la consapevolezza delle criticità dell’attuale assetto normativo, ma resta insufficiente la chiarezza sugli strumenti correttivi che saranno adottati. In questo quadro guardiamo con particolare attenzione alla futura ‘Strategia europea per le isole’, in corso di elaborazione sotto la guida del vicepresidente esecutivo Raffaele Fitto, al quale abbiamo rappresentato le nostre priorità sui collegamenti marittimi con le isole. L’imposizione su questi servizi di una tassazione climatica sproporzionata e che, per di più, non torna al comparto marittimo sotto forma di investimenti nell’ottica di una reale sostenibilità ambientale ne mette a rischio il fragile equilibrio”. “La sensazione è che la tecnocrazia europea rimanga inflessibile rispetto all’esigenza di un miglioramento significativo di queste politiche. Invece noi chiediamo che la revisione di luglio sia coraggiosa, per permettere al nostro comparto industriale di rimanere competitivo in uno scenario globale particolarmente difficile”, conclude Messina. Fra gli appuntamenti della due giorni di Assarmatori a Bruxelles, l’incontro con il Vicepresidente Esecutivo della Commissione europea, Raffaele Fitto, presso Palazzo Berlaymont; un ricevimento dedicato ai rappresentanti delle Istituzioni europee e alla comunità internazionale di Bruxelles alla Residenza dell’Ambasciatore d’Italia presso il Regno del Belgio, con interventi dell’Ambasciatore Federica Favi, dell’Ambasciatore Marco Canaparo, Rappresentante Permanente Aggiunto d’Italia presso la UE, dell’Ammiraglio Giuseppe Cavo Dragone, Presidente del Comitato Militare della NATO e del Ministro plenipotenziario Catherine Flumiani, Inviato speciale del Ministero degli Affari Esteri e della Cooperazione Internazionale per la Dimensione internazionale del Mare. L’agenda ha visto anche un vertice con Giovanni Cremonini, Vice Capo Divisione per la Sicurezza Marittima del Servizio Europeo per l’Azione Esterna (SEAE/EEAS), con in collegamento i referenti delle missioni Aspides e Atalanta, e un incontro con una rappresentanza degli Europarlamentari italiani. Durante la presenza a Bruxelles si è svolta anche una lunga e approfondita riunione con i funzionari della DG MOVE e della DG CLIMA, durante la quale sono stati affrontati i vari temi legati all’applicazione del regime ETS.

E se la pensione significasse soste intermedie, tramonti sull'oceano e valigie sempre pronte? Questa è la scelta di Lanette e Johan Canen, una coppia sulla cinquantina che ha deciso di scambiare la propria vita quotidiana alle Hawaii con una vita a bordo di una nave da crociera residenziale. Un'avventura che incuriosisce e ispira sogni. Una casa galleggiante per i prossimi 15 anni Lanette e Johan ora vivono a bordo della Villa Vie Odyssey, una nave progettata per circumnavigare il globo per diversi anni. La loro cabina è garantita per 15 anni, trasformando l'imbarcazione in una vera e propria casa galleggiante. L'itinerario della nave è impressionante: 425 porti di scalo in 147 paesi, distribuiti su circa tre anni e mezzo. Una vita ricca di soste, scoperte e paesaggi in continua evoluzione. A bordo, la coppia gode anche di una routine quotidiana molto strutturata. Pasti, bevande, Wi-Fi, pulizie e servizio lavanderia sono tutti inclusi nel pacchetto. Questa soluzione permette loro di viaggiare riducendo al minimo le spese materiali. "La gente pensa che siamo ricchi." L'aspetto più sorprendente della loro storia è quello finanziario. Prima di questa nuova vita, Lanette e Johan vivevano alle Hawaii, un luogo noto per il costo della vita particolarmente elevato. Secondo loro, vivere su questa barca sarebbe costato loro meno rispetto alla loro precedente vita sulla terraferma. Johan riassume la loro scelta con una frase che ha fatto molto parlare di sé sui social media: molti pensano che si debba essere milionari per vivere stabilmente su una nave da crociera, mentre a loro avviso questa soluzione è meno costosa del precedente affitto e delle spese quotidiane. La coppia spiega inoltre di aver venduto la propria attività di autonoleggio prima di intraprendere questa nuova avventura. Una vita più leggera e meno ingombra Al di là del viaggio in sé, Lanette e Johan affermano di aver desiderato soprattutto semplificare la loro vita quotidiana. Basta accumulare oggetti, occuparsi della casa o sobbarcarsi responsabilità che ritenevano eccessive. La loro nuova vita si basa più sulle esperienze che sui beni materiali. Dicono di apprezzare la possibilità di esplorare diversi paesi senza dover rifare le valigie a ogni tappa. Dalla loro partenza, hanno già esplorato destinazioni come Spagna, Portogallo, Gibilterra e le Isole Galapagos. Per alcuni, quest'idea di libertà totale rappresenta quasi una fantasia moderna: vedere il mondo mantenendo una "casa" mobile. Uno stile di vita che affascina… ma divide La loro vita quotidiana genera numerose reazioni sui social media. Alcuni utenti di internet sognano un'avventura del genere e immaginano volentieri di lasciare tutto alle spalle per vivere in mare. Altri sono più scettici. La mancanza di spazio, la distanza dalla famiglia, l'assistenza medica e lo stile di vita ristretto destano preoccupazione. Le critiche si estendono anche all'impatto ambientale delle crociere. Da anni le associazioni ambientaliste denunciano il grave inquinamento generato dalle navi da crociera, considerandole tra le imbarcazioni più inquinanti al mondo. In media, una singola nave da crociera emette circa 20.000 tonnellate di CO2 all'anno, equivalenti alle emissioni annuali di 10.000 automobili. Anche quando sono ormeggiate, queste navi continuano a produrre un inquinamento significativo: una nave da crociera ferma per un'ora emette tanto quanto circa 30.000 veicoli che viaggiano a bassa velocità. Questi dati alimentano regolarmente il dibattito su questo tipo di turismo, sempre più criticato per il suo impatto ambientale. In definitiva, nonostante le critiche, Lanette e Johan affermano di non rimpiangere la loro scelta. Per loro, questa crociera permanente rappresenta soprattutto un modo diverso di vivere e di godersi il tempo. Una cosa è certa: vivere in mare per anni non lascia indifferenti.

La Superyacht Eco Association SEA Index arriva in Giappone. Si tratta della prima alleanza istituzionale nella regione Asia-Pacifico attraverso una nuova partnership strategica con la Japan Marina & Beach Association (JMBA) e apre un nuovo capitolo nella diffusione globale di standard di sostenibilità nel settore dello yachting, misurabili e verificati da terze parti. Lo strumento, originariamente fondato dallo Yacht Club de Monaco in partnership con Credit Suisse (oggi parte di UBS Group), consente a armatori, comandanti, cantieri navali, porti turistici e istituzioni finanziarie di passare dalle intenzioni a prestazioni ambientali misurabili, comparabili e concrete. Si concentra sulle emissioni di CO2 – certificate da Lloyd’s Register – oltre che sulla qualità dell’aria (NOx e particolato) e sul rumore irradiato sott’acqua. Le discussioni sono iniziate nel 2025, quando una delegazione JMBA ha visitato lo Yacht Club de Monaco, individuando una forte convergenza con l’approccio SEA Index. Tale allineamento è stato formalizzato durante una cerimonia di firma tenutasi il 15 aprile 2026 a Monaco. Con questa nuova adesione, l’Associazione supera la soglia dei 100 porti turistici, avvicinando la rete a un punto di svolta in cui standard condivisi e verificabili, insieme a dati trasparenti, iniziano a ridefinire le prassi del settore e ad accelerare la transizione verso pratiche più sostenibili nello yachting. In qualità di membro istituzionale, JMBA apporta il proprio portafoglio di 87 porti turistici all’ecosistema SEA Index dei superyacht, che comprende già 25 tra i principali porti e marine dedicate ai superyacht. La partnership unisce inoltre l’esperienza riconosciuta di Monaco nella misurazione ambientale e nelle strategie di decarbonizzazione con l’eccellenza operativa del Giappone nella gestione dei porti turistici, creando un ponte concreto tra due importanti culture marittime. “Ancorato alla nostra iniziativa collettiva ‘Monaco, Capital of Advanced Yachting’, SEA Index è stato concepito come uno strumento pratico per portare chiarezza e credibilità alle prestazioni ambientali nel settore dello yachting. Accogliere la Japan Marina & Beach Association nella nostra rete conferma che questo approccio risuona ben oltre Monaco e il Mediterraneo. Ciò che conta non è dove uno yacht naviga, ma quanto responsabilmente lo fa. Questa partnership dimostra che metriche condivise possono unire culture marittime molto diverse attorno allo stesso obiettivo: un progresso misurabile”, ha dichiarato Bernard d’Alessandri, Presidente di SEA Index e segretario generale dello Yacht Club de Monaco. “Fino ad oggi, i porti turistici e la cultura dello yachting in Giappone si sono sviluppati principalmente come luoghi per godere del mare. Oggi, tuttavia, siamo chiamati a passare alla fase successiva – quella che ci chiede come possiamo coesistere con il mare. I parametri chiari e condivisibili a livello internazionale presentati dal SEA Index rappresentano uno strumento essenziale che porta la sostenibilità ambientale dalla sfera dei principi a quella dell’azione concreta. Questa partnership dimostra che due culture marittime distinte, Giappone e Monaco, si sono unite attraverso valori condivisi e standard misurabili. Ritengo che rappresenti un importante passo avanti nell’evoluzione della gestione sostenibile dei porti turistici e della cultura nautica in Giappone. In futuro, ci impegniamo a integrare i principi del SEA Index nelle pratiche operative in tutto il Giappone e a promuovere un ambiente marino e una cultura dello yachting di cui le future generazioni possano essere orgogliose”, ha aggiunto Kiichiro Kumazawa, presidente di KMC Corporation e Presidente della Japan Marina & Beach Association.

Sistema iMSPO di igus installato al terminal crociere di Cruise Port Rotterdam: le catene portacavi e-chain guidano i cavi di alimentazione elettrica da terra lungo i binari a pavimento. Nelle aree dei terminal portuali, l’aria può contenere oltre 400.000 particelle per metro cubo: un carico di emissioni fino a 80 volte superiore a quello registrato sulle principali arterie urbane, secondo le misurazioni della NABU, l’Associazione tedesca per la tutela della natura. È su questa criticità ambientale che si è concentrata la giuria della decima edizione del concorso vector di igus, che quest’anno ha ricevuto 424 candidature da 36 Paesi, un record assoluto. Il premio più ambito, il vector d’oro 2026, è andato a Cruise Port Rotterdam per il suo sistema di Cold Ironing destinato alle navi da crociera. Il Cold Ironing – l’alimentazione elettrica da terra durante la sosta in porto – consente di spegnere i motori delle navi eliminando le emissioni in loco. La sfida progettuale è che ogni nave ha dimensioni e posizione di ormeggio diverse, il che rendeva impraticabili le soluzioni fisse. Cruise Port Rotterdam ha risolto il problema con la presa di alimentazione mobile igus iMSPO: un sistema su binari in cui un carrello trasporta i cavi all’interno di catene portacavi e-chain in plastica ad alte prestazioni, scorrendo all’interno di canali coperti, incassati nel pavimento della banchina. L’integrazione nell’infrastruttura esistente è discreta e non interferisce con le operazioni portuali. Il vector d’argento, la cleanroom e la produzione di microchip Per la produzione di microchip destinati a smartphone, veicoli elettrici e dispositivi diagnostici ospedalieri, i sistemi di posizionamento devono raggiungere una ripetibilità di ±0,1 µm - una misura 700 volte inferiore al diametro di un capello umano - con accelerazioni fino a 100 m/s². È in questo contesto che opera Jenaer Antriebstechnik GmbH, che ha ricevuto il vector d’argento 2026 per i suoi sistemi pick & place ad ultra-precisione. Il punto critico era la gestione dei cavi: i sistemi di guida tradizionali generavano vibrazioni incompatibili con tali tolleranze e producevano particelle di usura non ammissibili in camera bianca. La soluzione adottata è il sistema igus e-skin flat, sviluppato specificamente per ambienti cleanroom, abbinato a cavi chainflex che minimizzano le forze di disturbo e gli effetti dell’attrito. Il risultato è un sistema multiasse che mantiene la precisione nel tempo anche in condizioni di movimento dinamico. Come funzionano le catene portacavi igus in applicazioni a corsa estesa Il principio alla base delle soluzioni premiate al vector è lo stesso in tutti i settori: guidare i cavi lungo tratti estesi, con movimenti ripetuti, proteggendoli da sollecitazioni meccaniche, contaminanti e usura. Nelle applicazioni a corsa estesa – come il terminal portuale di Rotterdam o la torre scenica di Londra – la geometria di guida diventa critica: un orientamento a zig-zag o a zig-zag inverso distribuisce i carichi in modo uniforme, prevenendo la flessione anomala. Nei contesti di ultra-precisione, invece, la sfida è eliminare ogni fonte di attrito e vibrazione trasmessa al componente in movimento. Vector di bronzo al sistema portacavi di una torre scenica di 37 m Sopra il palcoscenico del Royal Ballet and Opera di Londra si erge una torre scenica alta 37 m, in grado di calare due scenografie complete, compresi i tralicci di illuminazione. Con circa 250 spettacoli all’anno, l’impianto lavora in condizioni di sollecitazione continua. Già nel 2000 i progettisti avevano scelto igus per gestire le centinaia di cavi che seguono il movimento dei tralicci: una soluzione rimasta in servizio senza guasti per oltre 25 anni. Nel 2025 la conversione alla tecnologia LED ha richiesto un aggiornamento: il progetto rinnovato impiega 20 sistemi portacavi preassemblati della serie E4.56 con cavi chainflex e una disposizione a zig-zag inverso. Il peso delle scatole di guida è sceso da 200 kg a 150 kg grazie all’alluminio; le vecchie catene sono state avviate al riciclo tramite il programma Chainge di igus. Dalla porta alla camera bianca: quattro settori e un filo comune Il vector green 2026 è andato a Membion GmbH per un bioreattore a membrana con pori abbastanza piccoli da bloccare batteri e microplastiche, particelle che mettono in crisi gli impianti di trattamento convenzionali. La produzione automatizzata delle membrane richiede cavi esposti continuamente all’umidità e operanti in spazi ristretti: igus ha fornito sistemi di guida cavi della serie E2 con cavi chainflex a raggi di curvatura ridotti, adatti all’installazione in geometrie compatte. Quattro premi, quattro settori diversi: la decima edizione del concorso vector documenta come la gestione del cavo sia diventata un fattore tecnico trasversale, dal porto al teatro, dalla camera bianca alla depurazione dell’acqua. Il sistema portacavi igus serie E4.56 con cavi chainflex installato nella torre scenica da 37 m del Royal Ballet and Opera di Londra, con disposizione a zig-zag inverso.

Prosegue il cronoprogramma di Explora Journeys, brand di lusso della Divisione Crociere del Gruppo Msc, con il varo odierno, avvenuto presso lo stabilimento Fincantieri di Palermo, del troncone di prua di Explora V, la quinta delle sei navi ordinate al cantiere italiano. Dopo il primo allestimento in Sicilia, la sezione sarà trasferita via mare al cantiere di Sestri Ponente, a Genova, dove avverrà l’assemblaggio finale e il completamento dello scafo. Explora V fa parte di un piano di investimento di oltre 3,5 miliardi di euro della Divisione Crociere di Msc nella sola flotta Explora. Con Fincantieri infatti, il gruppo ginevrino per il marchio Msc Crociere, ha investito complessivamente circa 7 miliardi di euro, producendo una significativa ricaduta occupazionale. Per la costruzione di ogni singola nave sono infatti necessarie oltre sette milioni di ore di lavoro, e un impegno medio di 2.500 persone per circa tre anni. Come già emerso nelle fasi di definizione del progetto nel 2023, Explora V (insieme alla gemella Explora VI, attesa nel 2028) è al vertice tecnologico della flotta in termini di tecnologia sostenibile. Diversamente dalle prime navi realizzate per questa serie, le navi in costruzione dal 2026 (a partire da Explora III) utilizzeranno il Gas Naturale Liquefatto, combustibile in grado di ridurre fortemente le emissioni di ossidi di zolfo e azoto. Su Explora V e VI, inoltre, l’impegno verso la decarbonizzazione sarà ancora più importante: le navi saranno dotate di celle a combustibile alimentate a idrogeno: una soluzione che permetterà di gestire le operazioni alberghiere durante la sosta nei porti a motori spenti, eliminando totalmente le emissioni locali durante le ore di ormeggio. Lo stato dell’arte della flotta vede attualmente i lavori su Explora V che entrano nella fase di allestimento ligure in vista del debutto nel 2027, mentre Explora I e II sono già in servizio, con la prima unità operativa dall’agosto 2023; Explora III si trova in fase di ultimazione, con la consegna prevista per luglio 2026 e con itinerari già programmati tra Mediterraneo, Nord Europa e Groenlandia – come dichiarato in occasione del varo da Anna Nash, presidente di Explora Journeys – ed infine, Explora IV e VI sono inserite nel piano di consegne che si completerà nel 2028, tutte alimentate a Gnl. ISCRIVITI ALLA NEWSLETTER QUOTIDIANA GRATUITA DI SHIPPING ITALY SHIPPING ITALY E’ ANCHE SU WHATSAPP: BASTA CLICCARE QUI PER ISCRIVERSI AL CANALE ED ESSERE SEMPRE AGGIORNATI

La LR2 tanker Monza , equipaggiata con due WindWings® da 37,5 m e motorizzazione dual-fuel LNG, è stata consegnata a Union Maritime . È la terza unità di una serie che adotta le ali rigide, un segnale del passaggio della tecnologia da installazioni isolate a soluzioni ripetibili su larga scala, mentre il quadro regolatorio internazionale resta ancora indefinito. Il profilo metallico delle due ali rigide si staglia contro il cielo di Jiangsu: non un vezzo estetico ma la traccia visibile di un cambiamento operativo. La LR2 tanker Monza è stata consegnata il 7 maggio 2026 a Union Maritime con due WindWings® da 37,5 metri sviluppate da BAR Technologies. L'installazione, realizzata durante la costruzione presso Yangzijiang Shipbuilding con strutture fornite da CMET, è la terza unità della serie newbuild dotata di ali rigide. L'adozione di WindWings su una LR2 come la Monza sposta l'attenzione dalle prove puntuali alla gestione seriale: processi ripetibili in cantiere, procedure di classificazione adottabili su più nuove costruzioni e routine operative che entrano a far parte del manuale di bordo. Il risultato è una soluzione integrata che combina propulsione LNG e assistenza eolica su grandi tonnellaggi. Dettagli tecnici della Monza La Monza è una LR2/Aframax con lunghezza fuori tutto tra 248,8 e 249 metri, baglio di 44,0 metri e portata di carico (DWT) di 113.346 tonnellate. La stazza lorda è compresa tra 64.350 e 64.431 GT; il pescaggio estivo è di 15,0 metri e la profondità di scafo raggiunge i 21,5 metri. La propulsione principale è affidata a un MAN B&W 6G60ME-C10-HPSCR a 2 tempi, con potenza di 8.910 kW e velocità di servizio dichiarata di 14 nodi. Le WindWings® sono state integrate mantenendo le caratteristiche di progetto e le procedure di classificazione previste da Lloyd's Register. La nave è registrata sotto bandiera Marshall Islands. L'accoppiamento tra motorizzazione dual-fuel LNG e ali rigide rimane centrale per la flessibilità operativa della nave: il sistema eolico è stato pensato come supporto alla propulsione principale, non come sua sostituzione. Perché installare WindWings su LR2 ora La scelta di Union Maritime trova giustificazione pratica nell'esigenza di ridurre consumi e emissioni durante le rotte commerciali senza dipendere unicamente dalla disponibilità o dai prezzi dei combustibili alternativi. Le ali rigide sfruttano energia del vento, diretta e gratuita, mentre la propulsione LNG conserva la possibilità di adottare altri vettori in futuro. Questo approccio mantiene opzioni tecniche aperte nel lungo periodo e introduce risparmi misurabili nelle operazioni quotidiane. Le prestazioni delle WindWings® sono già osservabili su precedenti installazioni commerciali e su altre unità della stessa serie: i dati di progetto e le verifiche in mare hanno guidato l'adozione su scala ripetitiva. L'integrazione su nuove costruzioni permette di ottimizzare posizioni sul ponte, rinforzi strutturali e gestione degli ingombri, riducendo l'impatto sulle routine di carico e sulle operazioni in porto rispetto a retrofit applicati a navi in servizio. Impatto operativo e industriale L'installazione delle ali rigide su una LR2 comporta scelte progettuali che toccano ponte, stabilità, accessi e sicurezza. Le WindWings® sulla Monza adottano un design a tre elementi che aumenta la portanza rispetto a soluzioni a singolo elemento e si regola automaticamente per ottimizzare il rendimento con venti variabili. Questo sistema di regolazione riduce il carico decisionale dell'equipaggio e agevola l'integrazione con i sistemi di navigazione e gestione del carburante. Dal punto di vista industriale, la serializzazione implica un livello di coordinamento esteso: progettisti, cantiere, fornitori di componenti, società di classificazione e amministrazione di bandiera lavorano con procedure comuni. Processo e documentazione standardizzati riducono tempi e costi unitari rispetto a interventi una tantum, facilitando la replica tecnica su altre nuove costruzioni con specifiche analoghe. Osservazioni economiche e normative La valutazione economica si basa su riduzioni misurabili del consumo di combustibile e sui modelli di prezzo dei carburanti alternativi. Per l'armatore, la combinazione di motorizzazione LNG e assistenza eolica conserva margini di flessibilità: il sistema WindWings contribuisce a contenere il consumo in molte tratte commerciali senza precludere l'adozione di altri vettori in futuro. La disponibilità di procedure di classificazione condivise favorisce l'adozione perché riduce l'incertezza tecnica e facilita la pianificazione della manutenzione. Sul piano normativo, la discussione internazionale su strumenti come FuelEU Maritime e gli obiettivi di efficienza IMO continua a orientare scelte e investimenti: la tecnologia è già applicabile e viene adottata mentre si definiscono regole e meccanismi di mercato. Prospettive e scala di adozione Con la terza consegna di una serie equipaggiata con WindWings®, la pratica costruttiva evolve: non si tratta più di singole sperimentazioni ma di processi replicabili, con contratti e specifiche che possono essere standardizzati. La replicabilità su grandi tonnellaggi sarà influenzata dalla convergenza di tecniche di progettazione, prassi di cantiere e procedure di classificazione; la Monza funge da esempio operativo di questa concatenazione. Restano questioni pratiche da risolvere sul piano operativo, come l'ottimizzazione delle rotte per massimizzare il beneficio e la formazione degli equipaggi alla gestione di sistemi misti. Ogni nuova consegna aggiunge esperienza e dati che servono per definire procedure, checklist di manutenzione e benchmark di performance che saranno utili sia agli armatori sia ai costruttori nella fase successiva di diffusione. La Monza mette sul tavolo dettagli concreti: specifiche di progetto, un pacchetto di installazione ripetibile e la dimostrazione che ali rigide e propulsione LNG possono coesistere in un programma di nuove costruzioni. Quel che segue sarà il consolidamento di pratiche tecniche, logistiche e formative che tradurranno i benefici attesi in routine operative standard.

Declares Dividend of $0.35 per Share for Q1 2026, Marking 133% Increase Year-Over-Year and 27thConsecutive Quarterly Dividend Expects Significantly Higher Q2 2026 Dividend High Specification Scrubber-Fitted Capesize Vessel Expected to Deliver in Q2 2026, Further Enhancing Earnings Power and Dividend Capacity NEW YORK, May 06, 2026 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Genco Shipping & Trading Limited (NYSE:GNK) (“Genco” or the “Company”), the largest U.S. headquartered drybulk shipowner focused on the global transportation of commodities, today reported its financial results for the three months ended March 31, 2026. First Quarter 2026 and Year-to-Date Highlights John C. Wobensmith, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, commented, “Following a strong end to 2025, we are pleased to have continued our positive momentum in 2026. The first quarter marked another period of strong execution of our Comprehensive Value Strategy and significant progress increasing our earnings power and dividend capacity. During a seasonally softer period, we generated strong cash flows and declared a $0.35 per share dividend, representing a year-over-year increase of 133%. This also marked our 27thconsecutive quarterly dividend, the longest uninterrupted period of dividends in our drybulk peer group. Including the Q1 payment, total dividends to shareholders over the past seven years will increase to $340 million, or $7.915 per share. Based on our significant operating leverage in a strengthening market, firm fixtures to date and assuming the current FFA curve, projections show a Q2 dividend of $0.70 per share, a 367% increase year-over-year.” Mr. Wobensmith added, “Consistent with our well-defined capital allocation strategy, we have continued to renew and grow our fleet with a focus on high specification, premium earning assets. We recently sold two older, non-core vessels at levels above broker estimates and plan to redeploy a portion of the proceeds into a modern, fuel-efficient Capesize vessel. We anticipate this vessel will earn a premium to benchmark indices in the spot market following its expected delivery next month. Building on our successful investments in our fleet totaling approximately $557 million since 2021 inclusive of this latest acquisition, we intend to draw on our industry-leading balance sheet and significant undrawn revolver availability to continue to capitalize on attractive growth opportunities ahead.” Mr. Wobensmith concluded, “Freight rates have continued to strengthen in 2026, reflected in our Q2 TCE to date, which is 24% higher than Q1 levels. We are confident that our premium earning assets, leading commercial operating platform, advantageous spot-focused commercial strategy, and sizeable operating leverage in a strengthening drybulk market put Genco in an ideal position to continue generating superior returns for shareholders in 2026 and beyond. Our business is strong, and we look forward to continuing to advance our low leverage high dividend payout model, while maintaining industry-leading governance standards.” 1Genco share price as of May 5, 2026.2We believe the non-GAAP measure presented provides investors with a means of better evaluating and understanding the Company’s operating performance. Please see Summary Consolidated Financial and Other Data below for further reconciliation. Regarding Q2 2026 TCE, this estimate is based on both period and current spot fixtures, actual results will vary from current estimates. Net revenue is defined as voyage revenues minus voyage expenses, charter hire expenses and realized gains or losses on fuel hedges. Q2 2026 projected dividend shown is based on fixtures to date, assuming the current FFA curve for the balance of the quarter and estimated expense levels and utilization as described in the appendix to our Q1 2026 earnings presentation posted on our website under “Investors – Events and Presentations.” Given freight market volatility, the FFA curve is subject to change. Comprehensive Value Strategy Genco’s consistent comprehensive value strategy is centered on three pillars: Key characteristics of our strategy include: 3Represents the principal amount of our credit facility debt outstanding less our cash and cash equivalents as of March 31, 2026 divided by estimates of the market value of our fleet based on the average of broker valuations received from two independent third-party firms as of April 15, 2026, shown for illustrative purposes only. The actual market value of our vessels may vary. Fleet Renewal and Growth We took delivery of two 2020-built 208,000 dwt scrubber-fitted Newcastlemax vessels, the Genco Stars and Stripes and the Genco Valkyrie, on March 5, 2026 and March 24, 2026, respectively. The Company has agreed to acquire a 2019 Imabari built 182,000 dwt scrubber-fitted Capesize vessel with prompt delivery expected in June 2026. Additionally, we sold two 2005-built Supramaxes, the two oldest and smallest vessels in our fleet. The Genco Picardy and the Genco Predator were delivered to their third-party buyers on March 30, 2026 and April 15, 2026, respectively. The purchase price of the 2019 Imabari built scrubber-fitted Capesize vessel, to be renamed the Genco Volunteer, is $65.0 million while the gross sales price for the two 2005-built Supramaxes is $10.6 million each or $21.2 million in aggregate. We reported a gain on sale of the Genco Picardy of $2.1 million in Q1 2026 and expect to record a gain of a similar level in Q2 2026 relating to the sale of the Genco Predator. Dividend Policy Genco declared a cash dividend of $0.35 per sharefor the first quarter of 2026. The Q1 2026 dividend is payable on or about May 26, 2026 to all shareholders of record as of May 18, 2026. Quarterly dividend policy:100% of quarterly operating cash flow less a voluntary reserve. Under the quarterly dividend policy adopted by our Board of Directors, the amount available for quarterly dividends is to be calculated based on the formula in the table below. The table includes the calculation of the actual Q1 2026 dividend: Operating cash flowis defined as net revenue (consisting of voyage revenue less voyage expenses, charter hire expenses, and realized gains or losses on fuel hedges), less operating expenses (consisting of vessel operating expenses, general and administrative expenses other than non-cash restricted stock expenses, technical management expenses, and interest expense other than non-cash deferred financing costs), for purposes of the foregoing calculation. The voluntary quarterly reserve for the second quarter of 2026under the Company’s dividend formula is targeted at $19.5 million, which remains fully within our discretion. A key component of Genco’s value strategy is maintaining a voluntary quarterly reserve, as well as the optionality for the use of the reserve as Genco seeks to pay sizeable dividends across the cyclicality of the drybulk market while continuing to invest in our fleet. Subject to the development of freight rates for the remainder of the second quarter and our assessment of our liquidity and forward outlook, we maintain flexibility to reduce the quarterly reserve to pay dividends or increase the amount of dividends otherwise payable under our formula. The reserve is set by our Board of Directors at its discretion, and our Board has generally allotted an amount for anticipated debt prepayments plus an additional amount. We plan to set the voluntary reserve on a quarterly basis for the subsequent quarter. Anticipated uses for the voluntary reserve include, but are not limited to: The Board expects to reassess the payment of dividends as appropriate from time to time. Our quarterly dividend policy and declaration and payment of dividends are subject to legally available funds, compliance with applicable law and contractual obligations (including our credit facility) and the Board of Directors’ determination that each declaration and payment is at the time in the best interests of the Company and its shareholders after its review of our financial performance. Peter Allen, Chief Financial Officer, commented, “Our strong first quarter performance was a direct result of the strategic capital allocation actions we have taken to enhance our premium earning asset base, combined with our spot-focused revenue generation strategy. Notably, Q1 2026 TCE increased by 63% year-over-year, led by strong performance in the Capesize sector, which saw TCE increase by 104% to nearly $27,000 per day highlighting the operating leverage of the sector. Complementing our strong performance, we more than doubled our Q1 2026 dividend on a year-over-year basis and expect a significantly higher dividend in Q2 2026, as compared to both Q2 2025 and Q1 2026. We also continue to make strong progress renewing and growing our fleet, having entered into recent sale and purchase transactions that were immediately accretive to cash flow and net asset value. With significant balance sheet strength, Genco maintains the financial flexibility to capitalize on attractive growth opportunities that continue to expand our earnings power and dividend capacity in a strengthening drybulk market.” Genco’s Active Commercial Operating Platform and Fleet Deployment Strategy We utilize a portfolio approachtowards revenue generation through a combination of: Our fleet deployment strategy currently remains weighted towards short-term fixtures, which provide us with optionality on our sizeable fleet. Based on current fixtures to date, our estimated TCE to date for the second quarter of 2026 on a load-to-discharge basis is presented below. Actual rates for the second quarter will vary based upon future fixtures. These estimates are based on time charter contracts entered by the Company as well as current spot fixtures on the load-to-discharge method, whereby revenue is recognized ratably over the voyage from the commencement of loading to the completion of discharge. The actual TCE rates to be earned will depend on the number of contracted days and the number of ballast days at the end of the period. According to the load-to-discharge accounting method, the Company does not recognize revenue for any ballast days or uncontracted days at the end of the second quarter of 2026. At the same time, expenses for uncontracted days will be recognized as incurred. Financial Review: 2026 First Quarter The Company recorded net income for the first quarter of 2026 of $9.3 million, or $0.21 basic and diluted earnings per share. Adjusted net income of $11.3 million or basic and diluted earnings per share of $0.26, excluding a gain on sale of vessels of $2.1 million, impairment of vessel assets of $0.5 million, other operating expense of $3.8 million and unrealized gain on fuel hedges of $0.2 million. Comparatively, for the three months ended March 31, 2025, the Company recorded a net loss of $11.9 million, or $0.28 basic and diluted net loss per share. Revenue / TCEThe Company’s revenues increased to $114.4 million for the three months ended March 31, 2026 as compared to $71.3 million recorded for the three months ended March 31, 2025, primarily due to higher rates earned by our major and minor bulk vessels, the operation of a larger fleet, as well as less drydocking days during the first quarter of 2026 as compared to the first quarter of 2025. The average daily time charter equivalent, or TCE, rates obtained by the Company’s fleet was $19,346 per day for the three months ended March 31, 2026 as compared to $11,884 per day for the three months ended March 31, 2025. Voyage expensesVoyage expenses increased to $36.3 million for the three months ended March 31, 2026 from $27.4 million during the prior year period. Vessel operating expensesVessel operating expenses increased to $26.6 million for the three months ended March 31, 2026 from $24.9 million for the three months ended March 31, 2025. Daily vessel operating expenses, or DVOE, amounted to $6,805 per vessel per day for the first quarter of 2026 compared to $6,592 per vessel per day for the first quarter of 2025. The increase in DVOE was primarily due to higher crew costs partially offset by the timing of the purchase of spares. We believe daily vessel operating expenses are best measured for comparative purposes over a 12-month period in order to take into account all of the expenses that each vessel in our fleet will incur over a full year of operation. Based on current estimates, our DVOE budget for Q2 2026 is $6,750 per vessel per day on a fleet-wide basis. General and administrative expensesGeneral and administrative expenses increased to $8.1 million for the first quarter of 2026 compared to $7.5 million for the first quarter of 2025. Depreciation and amortization expensesDepreciation and amortization expenses increased to $21.0 million for the three months ended March 31, 2026 from $17.7 million for the three months ended March 31, 2025 primarily due to an increase in drydocking amortization expense for certain vessels in our fleet, as well as an increase in vessel depreciation expenses for vessels delivered during the fourth quarter of 2025 and the first quarter of 2026. EBITDAEBITDA for the three months ended March 31, 2026 amounted to $34.2 million compared to $7.9 million during the prior year period. During the three months of 2026 and 2025, EBITDA included a gain on sale of vessels, impairment of vessel assets, other operating expenses, as well as unrealized gains on fuel hedges. Excluding these items, our adjusted EBITDA amounted to $36.2 million and $7.9 million, for the respective periods. Liquidity and Capital Resources Cash Flow Net cash provided by operating activitiesfor the three months ended March 31, 2026 and 2025 was $15.7 million and $2.9 million, respectively. This increase in cash provided by operating activities was primarily due to higher rates earned by our major and minor bulk vessels, as well as changes in working capital. Additionally, there was a decrease in drydocking costs incurred during the three months ended March 31, 2026 as compared to the three months ended March 31, 2025. Net cash used in investing activitiesfor the three months ended March 31, 2026 and 2025 was $123.3 million and $2.9 million, respectively. This fluctuation was primarily a result of a $131.0 million increase in the purchase of vessel assets due to the purchase of the Genco Stars and Stripes and the Genco Valkyrie which were delivered on March 5, 2026 and on March 24, 2026, respectively. This increase in net cash used in investing activities was partially offset by $10.9 million net proceeds from the sale of the Genco Picardy on March 30, 2026. Net cash provided by (used in) financing activitiesduring the three months ended March 31, 2026 and 2025 was $106.9 million and ($13.4) million, respectively. On February 27, 2026, the $600 Million Revolver was refinanced with the $680 Million Revolver. As part of the debt modification, $4.3 million was settled net among the lenders of the $600 Million Revolver and $680 Million Revolver. The fluctuation is primarily due to drawdowns totaling $130.0 million on the $600 Million Revolver and the $680 Million Revolver made by the Company during the three months ended March 31, 2026. This increase in cash provided by financing activities was partially offset by a $9.2 million increase in the payment of dividends and a $0.5 million increase in the payment of deferred financing costs related to the $680 Million Revolver during the first quarter of 2026 as compared to the first quarter of 2025. Capital Expenditures Genco’s current fleet consists of 43 vessels with an average age of 12.6 years and an aggregate capacity of approximately 4,935,000 dwt: In addition to acquisitions that we may undertake, we will incur additional capital expenditures due to special surveys and drydockings. Furthermore, we plan to upgrade a portion of our fleet with energy saving devices and apply high performance paint systems to our vessels in order to reduce fuel consumption and emissions. We estimate our capital expenditures related to drydocking, including capitalized costs incurred during drydocking related to vessel assets and vessel equipment, ballast water treatment system costs, fuel efficiency upgrades and scheduled off-hire days for our fleet for the balance of 2026 to be: Summary Consolidated Financial and Other Data The following table summarizes Genco Shipping & Trading Limited’s selected consolidated financial and other data for the periods indicated below. About Genco Shipping & Trading Limited Genco Shipping & Trading Limited is a U.S. based drybulk ship owning company focused on the seaborne transportation of commodities globally. We transport key cargoes such as iron ore, coal, grain, steel products, bauxite, cement, nickel ore among other commodities along worldwide shipping routes. Our wholly owned high quality, modern fleet of dry cargo vessels consists of the larger Newcastlemax and Capesize vessels (major bulk) and the medium-sized Ultramax and Supramax vessels (minor bulk), enabling us to carry a wide range of cargoes. Genco’s fleet consists of 43 vessels with an average age of 12.6 years and an aggregate capacity of approximately 4,935,000 dwt: Conference Call Announcement Genco Shipping & Trading Limited will hold a conference call on Thursday, May 7, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. Eastern Time to discuss its 2026 first quarter financial results. The conference call and a presentation will be simultaneously webcast and will be available on the Company’s website, www.GencoShipping.com. To access the call by phone, please register via the live call registration link,https://events.q4inc.com/analyst/719392054?pwd=NnY9JEdY, and you will be provided with dial-in instructions and details. Please dial in at least 10 minutes prior to 8:30 a.m. Eastern Time to ensure a prompt start to the call. The conference call will be broadcast live and available for replay on the Company’s website:http://www.gencoshipping.com. Website Information We intend to use our website, www.GencoShipping.com, as a means of disclosing material non-public information and for complying with our disclosure obligations under Regulation FD. Such disclosures will be included in our website’s Investor Relations section. Accordingly, investors should monitor the Investor Relations portion of our website, in addition to following our press releases, SEC filings, public conference calls, and webcasts. To subscribe to our e-mail alert service, please click the “Receive E-mail Alerts” link in the Investor Relations section of our website and submit your email address. The information contained in, or that may be accessed through, our website is not incorporated by reference into or a part of this document or any other report or document we file with or furnish to the SEC, and any references to our website are intended to be inactive textual references only. "Safe Harbor" Statement under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 This release contains forward-looking statements made pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Such forward-looking statements use words such as “anticipate,” “budget,” “estimate,” “expect,” “project,” “intend,” “plan,” “believe,” and other words and terms of similar meaning in connection with a discussion of potential future events, circumstances or future operating or financial performance. These forward-looking statements are based on our management’s current expectations and observations. Included among the factors that, in our view, could cause actual results to differ materially from the forward looking statements contained in this release are the following: (i) declines or sustained weakness in demand in the drybulk shipping industry; (ii) weakness or declines in drybulk shipping rates; (iii) changes in the supply of or demand for drybulk products, generally or in particular regions; (iv) changes in the supply of drybulk carriers including newbuilding of vessels or lower than anticipated scrapping of older vessels; (v) changes in rules and regulations applicable to the cargo industry, including, without limitation, legislation adopted by international organizations or by individual countries and actions taken by regulatory authorities; (vi) increases in costs and expenses including but not limited to: crew wages, insurance, provisions, lube oil, bunkers, repairs, maintenance, general and administrative expenses, and management expenses; (vii) whether our insurance arrangements are adequate; (viii) changes in general domestic and international political conditions; (ix) military actions, terrorism, or piracy, including without limitation the ongoing conflicts in Ukraine and Iran, attacks on vessels in the Red Sea, and other conflicts in the Middle East and Venezuela; (x) changes in the condition of the Company’s vessels or applicable maintenance or regulatory standards (which may affect, among other things, our anticipated drydocking or maintenance and repair costs) and unanticipated drydock expenditures; (xi) the Company’s acquisition or disposition of vessels; (xii) the amount of offhire time needed to complete maintenance, repairs, and installation of equipment to comply with applicable regulations on vessels and the timing and amount of any reimbursement by our insurance carriers for insurance claims, including offhire days; (xiii) the completion of definitive documentation with respect to charters; (xiv) charterers’ compliance with the terms of their charters in the current market environment; (xv) the extent to which our operating results are affected by weakness in market conditions and freight and charter rates; (xvi) our ability to maintain contracts that are critical to our operation, to obtain and maintain acceptable terms with our vendors, customers and service providers and to retain key executives, managers and employees; (xvii) completion of documentation for vessel transactions and the performance of the terms thereof by buyers or sellers of vessels and us; (xviii) the relative cost and availability of low sulfur and high sulfur fuel, worldwide compliance with sulfur emissions regulations that took effect on January 1, 2020 and our ability to realize the economic benefits or recover the cost of the scrubbers we have installed; (xix) our financial results for the year ending December 31, 2025 and other factors relating to determination of the tax treatment of dividends we have declared; (xx) the financial results we achieve for each quarter that apply to the formula under our new dividend policy, including without limitation the actual amounts earned by our vessels and the amounts of various expenses we incur, as a significant decrease in such earnings or a significant increase in such expenses may affect our ability to carry out our new value strategy; (xxi) the exercise of the discretion of our Board regarding the declaration of dividends, including without limitation the amount that our Board determines to set aside for reserves under our dividend policy; (xxii) outbreaks of disease such as the COVID-19 pandemic; (xxiii) trade conflicts, the imposition or modification of port fees, tariffs and other import restrictions, and the effectiveness and cost of any measures the Company may adopt to avoid or mitigate the impact of the foregoing, including alternate trade routes and repositioning vessels; and (xxiv) other factors listed from time to time in our filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including, without limitation, our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2025 and subsequent reports on Form 8-K and Form 10-Q). Our ability to pay dividends in any period will depend upon various factors, including the limitations under any credit agreements to which we may be a party, applicable provisions of Marshall Islands law and the final determination by the Board of Directors each quarter after its review of our financial performance, market developments, and the best interests of the Company and its shareholders. The timing and amount of dividends, if any, could also be affected by factors affecting cash flows, results of operations, required capital expenditures, or reserves. As a result, the amount of dividends actually paid may vary. Our Q2 2026 estimated dividend range is based on TCE estimates to date and estimated expense levels as detailed above under “Genco’s Active Commercial Operating Platform and Fleet Deployment Strategy” and “Dividend Policy” and in the appendix to our Q1 2026 earnings presentation to posted on our website on May 6, 2026 under “Investors – Events and Presentations.” We do not undertake any obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise. CONTACT:Peter AllenChief Financial OfficerGenco Shipping & Trading Limited(646) 443-8550

By Leanne Wong Topic:Asthma Sylvia's son has developed asthma since moving to the western suburbs.(ABC News: Maren Preuss) There are renewed calls for government action after a study found children in Melbourne's inner west continue to have more hospital visits for asthma than any other area of Victoria. The study, led by Deakin University, found children emergency departments visits were 26 to 53 per cent higher in the Maribyrnong, Hobsons Bay and Brimbank council areas. A residents' group is calling for urgent government action, including more truck bans and the phasing out of older, high-emission trucks.

ByXANTHA LEATHAM, EXECUTIVE SCIENCE EDITOR Published:16:15 BST, 6 May 2026|Updated:15:05 BST, 7 May 2026 They're billed as a stress–free, all–inclusive holiday at sea – but cruise ships are especially prone to disease outbreaks, an expert has warned. Vikram Niranjan, an assistant professor in public health at the University of Limerick, has revealed that the 'floating cities' make it easy for infections to spread in ways that are 'hard to stop'. It comes as three passengers on theDutchcruise ship MV Hondius have died from a rare strain of hantavirus after it set sail from Argentina around a month ago. Another three people with symptoms have been evacuated from the ship to receive care in the Netherlands, theWorld Health Organisationsaid. Around 150 people remain on–board, confined to their cabins while disinfection and 'other public health measures are carried out' as the ship is anchored off Cape Verde. Dr Niranjan said buffet–style dining, the ship's design and ventilation all contribute to the rapid spread of diseases such as Covid, norovirus and legionnaires. 'The basic structure of cruise travel still creates the same challenge: many people sharing the same meals, the same air, the same water systems and the same common spaces,' he wrote onThe Conversation. 'That is why outbreaks keep returning, and why cruise ships remain a useful reminder that public health is shaped as much by design as by germs.' A researcher has revealed that the 'floating cities' make it easy for infections to spread in ways that are 'hard to stop'. Pictured: MV Hondius The outbreak of the rare, rat–borne illness that has a 40 per cent mortality rate has left three people dead and several others seriously ill Dr Niranjan referenced the 2020Diamond Princess outbreak– in which 619 passengers and crew tested positive for Covid – as a well–known example. Researchers found the ship's conditions made the coronavirus spread more easily. Meanwhile, the so–called vomiting bug norovirus is the infection most closely linked to cruise ships. In a review of previously published studies, scientists found 127 reports of norovirus outbreaks on cruise ships with many linked to contaminated food, contaminated surfaces and person–to–person spread. 'Food service plays a big part in this risk,' Dr Niranjan explained. 'Buffet–style dining, shared utensils and many people touching the same surfaces can make it easier for stomach bugs to spread. 'If someone is infected but does not yet feel sick, they may still contaminate food or surfaces before they realise they are unwell.' The way these ships are designed also exacerbates the issue, as people spend a lot of time together in dining areas, bars, lifts, corridors, theatres and spas. Crew members also live and work in the same environment, often in shared accommodation. Health workers in protective gear arrive to evacuate patients from the MV Hondius cruise ship at a port in Cape Verde He added: 'Ventilation also plays a crucial role. Cruise ships are not closed boxes, but they do rely heavily on indoor spaces where people spend long periods together. Covid and flu:Enclosed air and crowds Stomach bugs:Through food, hands and shared surfaces Norovirus:Buffets and surfaces Legionnaire's:Water systems Hantavirus:Enclosed air 'Studies into cruise ship air quality have shown that illness can spread more easily in crowded, enclosed spaces, like cabins, restaurants and entertainment venues, if the ventilation system is not up to scratch.' Age plays a role, as cruise holidays are especially popular with older adults. Many passengers have long–term health conditions that make infections more serious, Dr Niranjan added. While cruise ships do have medical facilities, these are limited compared to land–based hospitals. They are not designed to handle a fast–moving outbreak, he said, and instead are built to give first aid, basic treatment and short–term care. He explained that legionnaire's – a serious lung disease caused by bacteria – can easily be spread among passengers through contaminated water systems. A well–knownoutbreakhas previously been linked to a whirlpool spa. 'Hantavirus – a severe respiratory illness spread by rodents – outbreaks on ships are rare,' he said. 'However, as recent news of the deaths on the MV Hondius attests, germs in close quarters find it much easier to spread.' When it comes to limiting risk, the best protection starts before boarding, Dr Niranjan said. This includes making sure routine vaccines are up to date and ensuring travel insurance covers illness–related disruptions. 'Once on board, washing your hands with soap and water is the most useful step for preventing stomach bugs like norovirus,' he advised. 'Hand sanitiser can help, but it does not replace soap and water. If you start to feel unwell, the safest move is to avoid buffets and crowded shared spaces and report symptoms early rather than trying to carry on as normal.' Early symptoms Late symptoms (four to 10 days after the initial phase) Potential complications Haemorrhagic fever with renal syndrome (HFRS)– can cause intense headaches, back and abdominal pain, fever/chills, nausea and blurred vision. Flushing of the face, inflammation or redness of the eyes, or a rash. Later symptoms can include low blood pressure, lack of blood flow, internal bleeding and acute kidney failure, which can cause severe fluid overload. Usually survivable. Hantavirus pulmonary syndrome (HPS)– can cause significant shortness of breath, coughing, and low blood pressure due to fluid filling the lungs. Often fatal. Dyson Supersonic Travel hair dryer review: Finally, a Dyson hairdryer that works abroad! Enter: the mini version of the brand's best-selling hair tool - but is it just as powerful?

3 minuti di lettura Nel mondo della nautica le dichiarazioni ambientali sono sempre più diffuse. Tuttavia, ciò che spesso manca è la qualità delle evidenze che le sostengono. È proprio su questa distinzione che nasce Blue Wake, il framework sviluppato dal Monaco Yacht Show in collaborazione con la Water Revolution Foundation, con l’obiettivo di introdurre un nuovo standard di validazione delle soluzioni sostenibili. Non si tratta, infatti, di premiare intenzioni o promesse, ma di verificare ciò che è realmente operativo, misurabile e dimostrabile. In altre parole, un sistema costruito per distinguere tra innovazione concreta e semplice comunicazione “green”. Quattro dimensioni per valutare l’impatto reale Alla base del modello Blue Wake c’è una valutazione tecnica strutturata su quattro aree chiave, pensate per analizzare l’impatto ambientale in modo completo e non parziale. In primo luogo, la riduzione delle emissioni viene esaminata lungo l’intero ciclo di vita della soluzione, includendo non solo i gas serra (GHG), ma anche NOx, SOx e particolato, superando così l’analisi limitata alla fase di utilizzo. A questa si affianca la circolarità dei materiali, che prende in considerazione aspetti come il contenuto rinnovabile, la possibilità di riparazione e le strategie di fine vita, come il recupero o il riciclo. Un terzo elemento riguarda l’eco-design e l’innovazione, valutando se la sostenibilità sia stata integrata fin dalle prime fasi progettuali o introdotta solo successivamente. Infine, particolare attenzione viene dedicata alla protezione degli ecosistemi marini, includendo parametri spesso trascurati come l’utilizzo di rivestimenti non tossici o la riduzione del rumore subacqueo, fattori fondamentali per la tutela dell’ambiente. Nel loro insieme, questi quattro pilastri impediscono approcci selettivi e garantiscono una lettura completa dell’impatto reale di ogni soluzione. Soglie calibrate per favorire l’innovazione concreta Uno degli aspetti più interessanti del framework 2026 è l’introduzione di criteri differenziati in base alla tipologia di tecnologia. Le soluzioni ad alto impatto, come i sistemi di propulsione, beneficiano di soglie di accesso più flessibili, con l’obiettivo di non penalizzare innovazioni complesse ma potenzialmente rivoluzionarie. Al contrario, prodotti appartenenti a categorie meno impattanti o con maggiore rischio di greenwashing sono sottoposti a requisiti più stringenti. Una scelta progettuale precisa, che mira a accelerare l’innovazione credibile, evitando di premiare soluzioni che si limitano a miglioramenti marginali o comunicativi. La centralità della prova: dati, documenti e verifiche Elemento distintivo di Blue Wake è il principio della prova documentata. “Blue Wake – sottolinea Leah Werner, Executive Director della Water Revolution Foundation – si basa su dati e trasparenza: non accettiamo dichiarazioni di marketing senza evidenze quantificabili. I partecipanti devono fornire documentazione verificabile, dalle valutazioni YETI o TS23099 agli studi di ciclo di vita ISO 14040/44, fino a dati reali raccolti in condizioni operative.” Si tratta quindi di un approccio rigoroso, che introduce nel settore nautico strumenti tipici della ricerca scientifica e dell’ingegneria ambientale, elevando il livello di affidabilità delle informazioni disponibili. Trasparenza come valore competitivo Il valore del framework Blue Wake non risiede soltanto nel riconoscimento finale, ma soprattutto nella trasparenza che rende leggibili i dati. In un mercato in cui armatori, charterer, investitori e regolatori sono sempre più attenti alla sostenibilità, la capacità di distinguere tra affermazioni verificate e non verificate diventa un elemento strategico. Proprio per questo, sistemi come Blue Wake assumono un ruolo sempre più centrale: non come semplice etichetta, ma come strumento di verifica indipendente, basato su metodologia chiara, evidenze tracciabili e criteri condivisi. In definitiva, un modello che segna un passaggio importante per l’intero settore: dalla sostenibilità dichiarata alla sostenibilità dimostrata.

Getty Images/iStockphoto AI needs data centers, but many residents don't want them. Developers are building data centers across the country to support growing cloud demand and AI infrastructure needs. What started as mundane industrial development has snowballed into a charged public debate, raising questions about how data center development affects the communities around them. Through town hall shouting matches, ballot petitions, rallies and sometimes even violent altercations, communities are coming together to oppose development. According to arecent reportfrom Data Center Watch, local, bipartisan opposition blocked or delayed $64 billion worth of data center projects between March 2024 and March 2025. As of March 2025, at least 142 activist organizations existed across 24 states -- and experts have suggested that number has grown in the past year as data center opposition gathers even more traction. "Community groups are not going away," said Jessica Sharp, a Wilmington, Ohio, resident who's organizing efforts to oppose the proposed $4 billion AWS data center campus in her city. "You're not just going to steamroll us. We've built too much momentum by working together … and we're not giving up the fight and our way of life." Many residents feel they're owed more than what operators are offering in exchange for accepting data centers in their towns and cities. Others feel that data center development should be halted or significantly reduced. And many more say that, above all else, the system for data center development is broken, as new developers too often ignore stakeholder concerns to bullishly push their builds forward. As more businesses adopt and deploy AI, they will increasingly depend on these data centers. Business leaders consequently need to consider how concerns about data center development can affect their own AI strategies -- from delayed or canceled projects to escalated costs to reputational backlash. Businesses have a role to play in advocating for input, transparency, participation and collaboration from all affected parties, especially residents, to help move the needle on the issues surrounding AI data center development today. Burgeoning interest in AI has led to the proliferation of new data centers in recent years. They house the servers, networking equipment and other IT infrastructure that power AI. While similar to traditional data centers, the current crop ofdata centers supporting the AI boomhas unique needs, such as specialized hardware and vast computing power. Recent McKinsey & Company researchestimatedthatAI data centerswill require $5.2 trillion in Capex by 2030 to meet global demand for AI. Many companies are already making the necessary investment; S&P Globalsaid at the end of 2025that data center M&A and investment hit over $61 billion worldwide, with the U.S. leading the way in data center growth. Much of that growth comes from massive cloud service providers such as AWS and Google. Often called hyperscalers, these companies operate specialized data centers for extreme scale. A hyperscale data centercan housemore than 5,000 servers and use upward of 100 megawatts (MW) of power, covering 10,000 or more square feet and requiring massive energy and cooling systems. "We need more data centers because AI is taking off," said Darrell West, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution's Center for Technology Innovation. "AI is being deployed virtually in every area … and it requires very high computational power, so data centers provide that type of computer processing." To build these data centers, developers are turning to rural areas with less advanced technology. Large land masses in states like Virginia, Texas and Ohio are prime targets. As of April 2026, according to Data Center Map,Virginia alonehas 598 data centers, many of which make up what's called the Data Center Alley in Ashburn, Va. Texas sits at 439, and Ohio has 203. Data center locations usually depend on the availability of land, electricity, water and other resources, as well as the incentives and other unique advantages a community or state might offer, West said. For example, Virginia offers proximity to federal government agencies, which are increasingly using AI, especially for defense, along with the state's land and energy resources, he said. Community leaders often pursue and partner with data center operators, welcoming development of these facilities for their potential benefits, such as job growth and tax revenue. An AI data center can create hundreds of jobs, said Douglas Swain, president of Logistix Property Group, a land development company specializing in data center land entitlement. What's more important is the quality of jobs, he added, noting that jobs at these facilities typically pay 50% more than a state's average wage. They're tech jobs in a growing tech industry. Data centers particularly promote job growth during construction, said Dan Diorio, vice president of state policy at the Data Center Coalition. For example, from May 2023 to May 2024, the U.S. Census Bureaumeasuredthat data center construction spending increased by 69%, he said. And in 2023 alone, the U.S. data center industry contributed over four million jobs and $400 billion in labor income, according to the Data Center Coalition's2025 study, "Economic contributions of data centers in the United States." "[Workers] make careers out of these short-term jobs," Diorio said. These jobs give them the experience and education they need to move on to more projects. For campus data centers -- which are particularly large and often hyperscaler-funded -- community benefit is even more fruitful, Swain added. Those projects take longer and involve multiple buildings and long-term vendors, so the jobs are more sustainable. That, in turn, can lead to more demand and investment in nearby housing and other infrastructure. "There's a lot of spin-off benefits in terms of eating, living and spending money within the community," he said. Data centers also sometimes offer a cleaner alternative to existing industrial infrastructure. For example, adata center projectin Jay, Maine, is on the site of a former paper mill. The data center would use less water than the paper mill did, and developers plan to replace the on-site gas-fired power plant with a solar field. Because the state anticipated the project to be significantly beneficial to the town, Gov. Janet Mills sought to exempt it from a bill proposing a temporary moratorium on data center development in March 2026; Gov. Mills subsequently vetoed that bill in April, and the state legislature wasunable to override that veto. Another benefit that spurs community involvement is property tax revenue. Operators can pay massive property taxes back to the cities and towns, money that these communities can use for infrastructure and other needs, West said. This is already happening in certain areas. For example, Covington, Ga.,plans to eliminateresidential property taxes entirely due to the revenue it expects to receive from an AWS data center under construction there, Diorio said. In exchange for the tax revenue AI data centers promise and to compete with offers from other municipalities, community leaders have historically offered operators tax abatements or other incentives. These can include sales tax exemptions, tax incremental financing (TIF) agreements and payments in lieu of taxes (PILOTs). These financial incentives ensure that AI data centers return predictable, long-term revenue. However, some residents said tax incentives aren't always in the community's best interest. Quintin Kroger Kidd, a Wilmington resident, is part of active protests against the AWS data center campus, which is in the initial stages of development. AWS sought a 30-year, 100% property tax abatement for the data center. Under theproposed TIF agreement, the city and various city organizations, such as the Wilmington City Schools, would receive a PILOT that amounts to only about 30% of the property tax AWS would have to pay without the abatement, Kidd explained. Many residents, including Kidd, view these tax breaks as a free handout to billionaire developers. And sentiment against tax abatement is prevalent in other areas where data centers are going in. "These big tech companies think that they have their choice of the land, and they have these small rural towns, whose officials don't know better, tripping over themselves to hand out things like tax abatements," Sharp said. "It stems from misunderstandings and also data center lobbyist groups acting like this is a clean industry and no public health impacts, which couldn't be further from the truth." Prior to the AI boom, data center development often facilitated a symbiotic relationship between developers and communities. However, given rising concerns about the negative effects that hyperscale data centers can potentially have on communities, residents are realizing they have more bargaining power with data center developers than they might have originally thought, Brookings' West said. For that reason, tax abatements are becoming less common than they were even six months ago. "Instead of paying the companies by offering tax incentives, [communities] are now demanding that companies pay them -- that they pay their full taxes and also provide other financial benefits in the community to quell the public concerns that have developed about data centers," West said. Despite the allure of economic growth, many residents are concerned about living near an AI data center. There's often a fundamental ideological difference between community members and what a data center represents, West said. In rural areas, residents particularly enjoy the rugged landscape; they would much rather look out their window at farmland instead of a large data center. Aside from data centers being an eyesore, residents cite a range of concerns, starting with their utility bills. Because AI data centers require massive amounts of electricity, residents worry they'll drive up regional electricity demand, causing bills to skyrocket. Another fear is that increased demand could cause grid overload that leads to supply issues, especially in hot summer months. "On social media, you see a lot of posts about people complaining about their utility bills," Kidd said. These facilities can sometimesuse more energythan large cities. That, coupled with the rapid growth of data centers in concentrated areas, could cause bills to rise -- either because of distributed increases in utility infrastructure costs or because demand is rising faster than energy supply. Data center operators often disclose plans to bear the cost of new infrastructure or demand, but verifying these commitments and operator compliance can be difficult due to confidential contracts. "We had an [electricity] rate increase last year, and AEP Ohio just announced there's another 40% interest increase coming this year," said Nikki Gerber, a resident of Adams County, Ohio. "We don't even have a data center here yet -- we are paying for the demand needed up at the ones in Columbus and New Albany," two other Ohio cities with data center development. There's also growing concern over water use. AI data centers often consume up tofive million gallonsof water per day for cooling. Many residents anticipate that water will primarily come from surrounding freshwater sources, leading to increased strain and even shortages. For Gerber, water is a particular concern. She has repeatedly asked officials and developers what damage the proposed data center in Adams County will cause the town's aquifer and has suggested they conduct impact studies. She said she hasn't received a response. Water use has also raised red flags for environmental conservationists. For example, a proposed data center in Urbana, Ohio, is two miles from Cedar Bog Nature Preserve, a protected wetlands area. Many residents, along with the Cedar Bog Association, haveopposed the development, citing concerns over how groundwater disruption could affect Cedar Bog. The Urbana city councilrecently passeda 12-month moratorium on data center development to study its potential impact. The proposed AWS data center in Wilmington has sparked similar concerns about its effects on wildlife. TheOhio Environmental Protection Agencyis currently deciding whether to permit data centers to release untreated wastewater and stormwater into Ohio rivers and streams.Data center water pollutantsinclude biocides, corrosion inhibitors and heavy metals, such as lead. Many people are anxious about how introducing these pollutants into the water systems will affect wildlife and potable water in Wilmington and across the state, Kidd said. Living close to a hyperscale data center can also cause adverse health effects from air pollution, noise and other sources,according to a recent studyof Virginia's Data Center Alley. Effects range from steady light pollution that keeps residents awake at night to long-term health outcomes like respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. Data Center Coalition's Diorio questioned the methodology of that study, noting how it, and much of the rhetoric on health effects, overestimated the time data center generators are on. Those generators operate only during emergencies and short testing and maintenance periods, he said, citing Virginia's Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission (VJLARC)2024 studythat found generators in the Data Center Alley area were used at most twice a year and only for a few hours each time. Diesel generators are a "relatively small contributor to regional air pollution," the study said. At the AWS data center in Wilmington, Ohio, the plans include 252 generators that will be used for backup power. Each generator is expected to run for about ten hours per year for testing, maintenance and emergencies, said John Werkman, economic development manager with Amazon, at arecent special town meeting. That's higher use than the VJLARC study found. Sharp's backyard faces the proposed Wilmington AWS data center. She said one of her top concerns is how the long construction period will affect her family. "That's going to be a huge burden, especially felt by the families in the closest proximity," she said. Data centers often emit low-frequency noise pollution, Sharp said. "In the air-cooled facilities like AWS uses, the fans are extremely noisy and create a lot of low-frequency noise," she said. "With ambient noise being so quiet in a rural community, that's going to be really pervasive and irritating." Sharp is also concerned about air pollution, noting that the hyperscale facility could negatively affect air quality compared to the current open field at the proposed data center location. "My husband has asthma, so I worry about him and our kids having disproportionate health impacts," she said. For some residents, lackluster job growth and housing are also issues. The jobs promised by data center developers either aren't enough to justify the development or are given to outsiders more often than to locals. "On some of the new data centers that are being developed, we found in our research that they typically might generate 500 construction jobs over a period of several years, and then once the data center is up and running, it may require just 100 jobs to operate," West said. Fluctuating job growth leaves residents weary. A 2025Business Insider analysisfound that, on average, even the largest U.S. data centers employ fewer than 150 permanent workers. Moreover, many residents worry that, because there's no mandate to hire from within the community, outsiders will move into the area seeking jobs, raising rents and reducing housing availability -- as was the case in Abilene, Texas, where Stargate's data center expansioncaused a serious housing crisislast year. In more rural areas, community members cite home value depreciation from the moment a data center is announced. "There are 'For Sale' signs all over my neighborhood," Sharp said. "I've seen houses on the market since December with no movement -- and this is in what was once a desirable area in Wilmington. It's not normal here to see a house on the market for five to six months, and some of these are brand new homes." For residents, the top worry about data center development often isn't housing issues, rising utility bills or even adverse environmental impacts. Their main concern is that they're too often left out of the conversation entirely. In the initial stages of data center development, agreements between operators and local governments are typically confidential. Local officials and groups sometimes sign nondisclosure agreements, or NDAs, that bar them from discussing proposed developments. The rationale for these agreements is that developers need them to protect competitive advantages and proprietary data, and to ease the flow of information between local officials and infrastructure providers, Diorio said. Some states are even enshrining this sort of confidentiality in law: The recently passedOhio House Bill 184included a confidentiality clause, Sec. 9.66(D), which stated that any business information submitted to a political subdivision for economic development assistance is confidential and can't be disclosed to the public, whether anonymized or not. This clause was particularly upsetting, Kidd said. HB 184 concerned an unrelated issue -- limitations on intercollegiate athlete contracts -- and the inclusion of the confidentiality clause caught residents off guard. In the context of data center development, it means that deals between operators and local government entities remain secret. Many feel this goes against the intention of Ohio's Sunshine Laws. Sharp shared a similar sentiment about the closed-door nature of data center development in Wilmington. The Clinton County Port Authority rushed the process under NDAs, and the data center deal was basically complete before it was public knowledge, she said. This involved changing zoning codes to allow for data center development in light industrial zones and then rezoning a parcel of land for light industrial use -- all without community knowledge. Gerber dealt with similar transparency issues. She spent the past three years working on rerouting the Buckeye Trail -- a famous, more than 1,400-mile trail loop in Ohio -- to make Manchester, Ohio, a trail junction village where hikers could resupply, boosting the local economy. She received approval for the project in January 2026 and was surprised a week later when the village announced that a data center would be built on the land, and her reroute couldn't proceed. It was like having the rug ripped out from under her, she said. "They just completely obliterated everything I was working on," she added. The polarizing nature of massive data center development and the secrecy surrounding some of the deals have left many residents feeling like the status quo must change. "They've taken away our seat at the table to decide what we want for our communities," Sharp said. "From a PR standpoint, they're failing … and completely missing the point of what it means to be a good neighbor in a community." Residents opposed to data center development are making their thoughts known in town halls across the country. The National Conference of State Legislatureslists 14 statesthat are considering some form of a data center development ban. Port Washington, Wis., passed the country's first anti-data centerreferendumlast month. Public opposition is no doubt putting pressure on officials to act. Some residents are taking matters into their own hands. Take Gerber, whose name is on a proposed Ohio constitutional amendment to ban the development of data centers larger than 25 MW in the state. The Ohio Residents for Responsible Development, a grassroots group of concerned citizens, is leading this initiative to amend the state constitution. "We have 72 counties covered out of 88 counties in the state … with county leads taking signatures," she said of the effort to get the more than 400,000 signatures needed to put the amendment on the November state ballot. Sharp is another Ohio citizen fighting data center development. She's the lead organizer for the Wilmington Residents for Responsible Development group. She recentlyfiled a lawsuitagainst Wilmington for its lack of transparency regarding the proposed AWS data center. The complaint alleges the city didn't follow required notice procedures when rezoning the development site -- which is next to residential homes, including Sharp's -- for data center development. The suit also raises other concerns, such as a request for damages to be awarded to the plaintiffs should the rezoning go through, and it calls for more explicit communication and transparency moving forward. Sharp's group also secured enough signatures to get a referendum on the upcoming November ballot so residents can vote on whether to rezone 500 acres for industrial data center development. Joseph Miller, director of PauseAI UK, the British arm of the PauseAI nonprofit that coordinates local groups to mitigate AI risks, said informing people of the risks and local organization are key to getting the attention of governments and decision-makers. One of PauseAI's biggest achievements, Miller said, was organizing the largest AI safety protest in London, drawing 300 people. The U.S. is seeing similar protests, though on a smaller scale. In March 2026,demonstrators in San Franciscocalled on AI companies to halt development, citing existential threats the technology could bring. In a few cases, growing resentment toward data centers and AI technology in general has led to violence. In April 2026, an Indianapoliscity council memberwoke up to find 13 bullet holes in his home and a note on his front door reading "No Data Centers." A few days later, someone targeted the home of Sam Altman, OpenAI's CEO, with aMolotov cocktail. Many community members aren't going to such extremes, however. For some, like Gerber and Sharp, the goal isn't to stop data center development entirely but to force officials to be more transparent about it. Neither Gerber nor Sharp is opposed to AI itself but rather to the communication tactics of data center developers, operators and local officials. This is an opinion many data center developers and advocacy groups actually share -- more communication and collaboration are needed between local communities and developers. Bruno Berti, senior vice president of global product management at NTT Global Data Centers, a data center operator, said engagement with residents and prioritization of sustainable practices are the secret ingredients in his company's latest data center development projects. An NTT data center project in Gainesville, Va., was ultimately approved for construction after NTT representatives attended local meetings and spoke with residents, Berti said. "It's becoming a lot more prevalent that we have to answer these questions," he said. "Community engagement is going to be bigger for us." Community engagement provides NTT with an opportunity to "demystify narratives" about data centers that are most concerning to residents, Berti added. Take, for example, potential concerns about the rising cost of electricity driven by data center consumption. While studies show that AI data centers can put a massive strain on power grids, that doesn't mean they're always the only culprits behind electricity rate increases. Increases in electric rates can stem from other factors, such as inflation and President Trump's tariffs, but people often attribute them to data center development, Brookings' West said. "The public is connecting data centers to electric rate increases, either fairly or unfairly, and blaming the data center developers for that." The Data Center Coalition's Diorio said grid capacity and electric rates typically are the responsibility of utility providers and depend on the grid infrastructure. Because of outdated systems and providers that haven't invested in their utility infrastructure, some communities can face negative consequences from hosting data centers. There are communities where data centers don't fit residents' needs, Diorio added. Generally, it's the responsibility of developers and operators to ensure they build in areas where they can operate without negatively affecting the people who live there. Practicing this foresight and respecting local communities' interests can demonstrate a commitment to sustainable and responsible development and improve public sentiment. NTT Global and other data center developers are working to engage with residents on their concerns about grid load and electricity rates, Berti said. This includes implementing peak shaving, in which data centers use backup power generation when the community's power load reaches a certain level. This enables data centers to continue operating without drawing excess energy from the grid, preventing brownouts and higher electricity costs for residents and businesses in the area. Increased generator use circles back to concerns about air pollution. Many data centers use diesel generators for backup power, which can harm the surrounding environment. However, some developers are turning to innovative, green technologies, such as fuel cells and renewable energy, Berti said. Fuel cells produce electricity without expelling harmful emissions because they rely on electrochemical reactions rather than combustion. Diorio mentioned that more data centers are using solar, wind and geothermal sources of energy to power operations. Operators are also exploring nuclear power as small modular reactors are being developed in the U.S. According to S&P Global Energy, hyperscalersoutpacedother industries in clean energy procurement in 2024 and 2025; however, they're unlikely to meet the decarbonization goals set for their data centers. While many data centers place substantial strain on water systems, others have managed tocut freshwater useby as much as 70% with more sustainable closed-loop cooling systems, according to the Florida Water and Pollution Control Operators Association. Closed-loop systems consume water once and then reuse it to cool their systems, reducing runoff that drains into local ecosystems or contaminates groundwater. However, closed-loop systems still use chemicals and aren't necessarily a silver bullet. And developers' arguments don't always hold sway with residents. For example, Prologis, which is building a data center in Trenton, Ohio,told the local communitythat increased industrial utility revenue from its data center could offset any residential rate increases; however, its explanations haven't done much to quell residents' concerns. Not all data center development is created equal, and developers that are trying to use sustainable practices have an imperative to communicate that more effectively to the communities involved. Even with these nuances, however, much of today's hyperscale data center development forgoes renewables and isn't as transparent as it could be, leaving residents in the dark about any semblance of benefits or valuable trade-offs. Business leaders have a role to play in the future of data center development with their wallets and their advocacy. As workloads continue to scale and demand more data center resources, businesses must assess which data center operators they want to invest in and what they expect from them in terms of transparent, ethical development. Companies face the potential for disruption if they don't take data center controversies seriously. For example, if a business uses a facility that becomes a target of a local protest, it could experience delayed AI model training or deployment, performance issues due to restricted energy or water use, or higher operational costs as data center operators navigate permit modifications, regulatory compliance and litigation defense. Equally worrisome is the potential for reputational damage. If the data center an enterprise is using becomes the target of negative publicity, it could find itself also targeted by proxy. Businesses can mitigate these risks by partnering with responsible data center operators. These operators prioritize community engagement; use sustainable approaches to energy production and cooling; commit to bolstering community benefits and mitigating harm; and step away from NDAs and confidentiality to increase much-needed transparency. NTT's Berti suggested that NDAs might no longer be necessary for developers. "Part of the secrecy was trying to make sure that people didn't know where the data centers are located. I don't think that's an option anymore. Everybody knows where data centers are," he said. "The other reason we used to do it was we didn't want our competitors to know where we were building a data center." NDAs provided competitive advantages, Berti said, such as preventing competitors from buying up land and negotiating power agreements with local utility companies. However, many of those reasons aren't valid anymore, he added. "If you really look at the industry … there's enough capacity for all of us to be successful," he said. "I think working together is actually more important." While Diorio still sees security and competitive advantage as legitimate justification for data center developers' secrecy, he said he agrees that community engagement pushes the industry forward. Unfortunately, newer developers and operators entering the marketplace are using resources and engaging with community stakeholders irresponsibly, he said. There's no single right answer for how to engage with data center development. For better or worse, data centers are an economic and technology necessity -- not only for AI, but for cloud computing, data storage and everyday devices. However, a divide is quickly emerging in the industry between developers that seek to work with communities and those that develop regardless of community wishes and well-being. It's up to businesses and business leaders to push for the former over the latter, financially incentivizing operators to champion sustainable, transparent strategies, and constructively communicate and collaborate with local communities. To do this, companies can incorporate responsible data center procurement into theirwider ethical AIand green AI initiatives, both of which are increasingly important as responsible AI practices become a must-have in the enterprise. Everett Bishop is an associate site editor for Informa TechTarget's AI & Emerging Tech group, covering AI, quantum computing and other emerging technologies. He graduated from the University of New Haven in 2019. Olivia Wisbey is a site editor for Informa TechTarget's AI & Emerging Tech group. She has experience covering AI, machine learning and other emerging technologies. Decarbonizing data centers: Turning sustainability into strategy How do data centers use and manage water? Modern data center sustainability: Best practices to consider How to choose a data center for AI workloads Understanding the impact of data center noise pollution

La decisione (Ue) del Consiglio 27 aprile 2026, n. 2026/1029 è stata pubblicata sulla G.U.U.E. L del 6 maggio 2026 Inquinamento da navi: pubblicata la decisione (Ue) del Consiglio 27 aprile 2026, n. 2026/1029, relativa alla posizione da adottare a nome dell’Unione europea in sede di comitato per la protezione dell’ambiente marino dell’organizzazione marittima internazionale. In particolare, viene richiamata la necessità di concordare l'adozione di misure relative: al controllo delle emissioni; all’accessibilità della banca dati dell’Imo sul consumo di combustibile delle navi; alla clausola di revisione della misura a breve termine di riduzione dei gas a effetto serra. Richiamate anche disposizioni a sostegno della sicurezza a bordo delle navi e della salvaguardia della vita in mare. Di seguito il testo della decisione (Ue) del Consiglio 27 aprile 2026, n. 2026/1029. Decisione (UE) 2026/1029 del Consiglio, del 27 aprile 2026, relativa alla posizione da adottare a nome dell’Unione europea in sede di comitato per la protezione dell’ambiente marino dell’Organizzazione marittima internazionale nell’84a sessione in merito all’adozione di modifiche della convenzione internazionale per la prevenzione dell’inquinamento causato da navi (convenzione MARPOL) e in sede di comitato per la sicurezza marittima dell’Organizzazione marittima internazionale nella 111a sessione in merito all’adozione di modifiche della convenzione internazionale per la salvaguardia della vita umana in mare (convenzione SOLAS) del 1974, del codice internazionale di sicurezza per le unità veloci del 1994 (codice HSC del 1994), del codice internazionale di sicurezza per le unità veloci del 2000 (codice HSC del 2000), del codice internazionale sul programma di miglioramento delle ispezioni durante le visite alle navi portarinfuse e alle petroliere del 2011 (codice ESP del 2011), del codice internazionale per i dispositivi di salvataggio (codice LSA) e del protocollo del 1988 relativo alla convenzione internazionale sulla linea di massimo carico del 1966 (protocollo sulla linea di massimo carico del 1988) (G.U.U.E. L del 6 maggio 2026) IL CONSIGLIO DELL’UNIONE EUROPEA, (omissis) HA ADOTTATO LA PRESENTE DECISIONE: Articolo 1 La posizione da adottare a nome dell’Unione in sede di comitato per la protezione dell’ambiente marino (MEPC) dell’Organizzazione marittima internazionale (IMO), in occasione della sua 84a sessione, è di concordare l’adozione: a) delle modifiche delle regole 13 e 14 dell’allegato VI della convenzione MARPOL e dell’appendice VII dell’allegato VI della convenzione MARPOL per quanto riguarda la designazione dell’Atlantico nord-orientale come nuova zona di controllo delle emissioni (ECA), e b) delle modifiche delle regole 20, 25, 27 e 28 dell’allegato VI della convenzione MARPOL per quanto riguarda l’accessibilità della banca dati dell’IMO sul consumo di combustibile delle navi (IMO DCS) e la clausola di revisione della misura a breve termine di riduzione dei gas a effetto serra, che figurano nell’allegato del documento MEPC 84/3 dell’IMO. Articolo 2 La posizione da adottare a nome dell’Unione in sede di comitato per la sicurezza marittima (MSC) dell’IMO, in occasione della sua 111a sessione, è di concordare l’adozione: a) delle modifiche dei capitoli IV e V e dell’appendice (Certificati) della convenzione internazionale per la salvaguardia della vita umana in mare (convenzione SOLAS) del 1974, b) delle modifiche del codice internazionale di sicurezza per le unità veloci del 1994 (codice HSC del 1994), c) delle modifiche del codice internazionale di sicurezza per le unità veloci del 2000 (codice HSC del 2000), d) delle modifiche del codice internazionale sul programma di miglioramento delle ispezioni durante le visite alle navi portarinfuse e alle petroliere del 2011 (codice ESP 2011), e) delle modifiche del codice internazionale per i dispositivi di salvataggio (codice LSA), f) delle modifiche dell’allegato B del protocollo del 1988 relativo alla convenzione internazionale sulla linea di massimo carico del 1966 (protocollo sulla linea di massimo carico del 1988), che figurano nell’allegato dei documenti MSC 111/3 e MSC 111/3/1 dell’IMO. Articolo 3 La posizione da adottare a nome dell’Unione di cui all’articolo 1 e la posizione da adottare a nome dell’Unione di cui all’articolo 2 riguardano le modifiche proposte nella misura in cui tali modifiche rientrano nella competenza esclusiva dell’Unione e possono incidere sulle norme comuni dell’Unione. Ciascuna posizione è espressa dagli Stati membri, che sono tutti membri dell’IMO, agendo congiuntamente nell’interesse dell’Unione. Modifiche di lieve entità delle posizioni di cui all’articolo 1 e la posizione di cui all’articolo 2 possono essere concordate senza ulteriore decisione del Consiglio. Articolo 4 Gli Stati membri sono autorizzati ad accettare, nell’interesse dell’Unione, di essere vincolati dalle modifiche proposte nella misura in cui tali modifiche rientrano nella competenza esclusiva dell’Unione. Articolo 5 La presente decisione entra in vigore il giorno dell’adozione. [photo credits]

Un impianto costruito a Ravenna è pronto a partire per il largo della Libia, dove contribuirà a cambiare in modo concreto la gestione del gas nei giacimenti offshore del Mediterraneo. Il modulo realizzato da Rosetti Marino per il Bouri Gas Utilization Project lascerà il cantiere a Marina di Ravenna, tempo permettendo, il 7 maggio e, dopo circa quattro giorni di navigazione su un pontone rimorchiato, raggiungerà il campo petrolifero di Bouri, a circa 170 chilometri dalla costa libica. Qui sarà installato dalla nave Saipem 7000, una delle più grandi al mondo.Si tratta di un investimento complessivo pari a 1,3 miliardi, di cui circa 400 milioni per la commessa Rosetti Marino.Il progetto BGUP rappresenta uno degli interventi più rilevanti nel Mediterraneo per l’ottimizzazione energetica e la riduzione delle emissioni nel settore offshore. La committente finale è Mellitah Oil & Gas, attraverso cui Eni opera nel Paese nordafricano insieme alla compagnia statale National Oil Corporation of Libya. Il ruolo di main contractor è affidato a Saipem, mentre Rosetti Marino ha curato la realizzazione del modulo.L’impianto nasce con un obiettivo preciso: recuperare e utilizzare il gas associato alla produzione di petrolio che, da decenni, viene bruciato in torcia. Un processo che comporta dispersione di risorse ed emissioni in atmosfera. Il modulo, completato a fine aprile 2026, intercetterà questo gas, lo tratterà eliminando anidride carbonica e umidità e lo comprimerà per renderlo trasportabile verso il complesso di Mellitah, passando dalla piattaforma Sabratha. Da lì potrà essere utilizzato localmente oppure esportato verso l’Italia attraverso il gasdotto GreenStream, in caso di surplus rispetto al fabbisogno domestico.Il risultato atteso è duplice: da un lato un incremento significativo della produzione di gas, stimato in circa 3 milioni di metri cubi al giorno, dall’altro una riduzione sostanziale delle emissioni di CO2, fino ad avvicinarsi all’azzeramento del flaring, cioè delle fiaccole che bruciano il gas in eccesso nei giacimenti offshore.La costruzione ha richiesto circa due anni di lavoro e oltre 2 milioni e 400 mila ore nel cantiere di Marina di Ravenna, a cui si aggiunge oltre 1 milione di ore impiegate in mare per modificare e ammodernare le piattaforme esistenti di Bouri e Sabratha. “Per Ravenna significa lavoro di qualità, in sicurezza, e sviluppo per l’indotto”, evidenziano il presidente Stefano Silvestroni e l’amministratore delegato Oscar Guerra.È lo stesso Guerra a spiegare il funzionamento dell’impianto: “Il modulo intercetta il gas, lo tratta eliminando anidride carbonica, acqua e impurità. A questo punto viene compresso e arriva a terra per essere utilizzato”.Dal punto di vista tecnico, il modulo misura 45 metri per 31 in pianta, ha un’altezza di 45 metri e un peso complessivo superiore alle 5.200 tonnellate, con circa 750 tonnellate di tubazioni e 830 tonnellate di macchinari. Le superfici verniciate raggiungono quasi 60 mila metri quadrati e i cavi superano i 190 chilometri di lunghezza.Il progetto coinvolge una filiera industriale italiana di primo piano e si inserisce in una strategia più ampia che punta a rendere più efficienti le infrastrutture energetiche esistenti, riducendo l’impatto ambientale e valorizzando risorse già disponibili.Alla presentazione del modulo era presente anche una delegazione libica, che ha evidenziato l’importanza dell’intervento sia per la riduzione delle emissioni sia per l’incremento della produzione, sottolineando al tempo stesso la solidità della partnership con l’Italia e la prospettiva di una futura disponibilità del gas anche per il nostro Paese.nella foto Oscar Guerra, Ad di Rosetti Marino SpA, con Albashir Ahmed Mohamed Chairman di Mog

Cosa succede se un lavoratore decide di non caricare le armi destinate alla guerra? Da questa domanda nasce “Articolo 11. L’Italia ripudia la guerra”, il nuovo documentario dei giornalisti genovesi Simona Tarzia e Fabio Palli che verrà presentato in anteprima il 7 maggio alle 16 al Cinema Ariston di Sestri Levante, ospite del Riviera International Film Festival. Il "NO" che ha bloccato i porti Tutto comincia nel 2019 a Genova. I lavoratori del CALP (Collettivo Autonomo Lavoratori Portuali) si accorgono che tra le merci da imbarcare c'è un carico di generatori per i droni da combattimento. Decidono di fermarsi. Non è uno sciopero per l'orario di lavoro o per la busta paga ma per la coscienza. Da quel gesto si propaga un’onda che non resta ferma. Raggiunge altri porti, da Livorno a Trieste a Ravenna, dove prende forma una rete di lavoratori che mette in discussione il ruolo dei porti come snodi dei conflitti. Questa logistica complessa e opaca che permette alle armi di viaggiare indisturbate, il documentario la smonta pezzo per pezzo avvalendosi anche delle interviste a The Weapon Watch, l'osservatorio che monitora i traffici bellici nei porti del Mediterraneo. Dalla Striscia di Gaza all’inquinamento globale “Articolo 11” non resta fermo sulle banchine. Grazie a video inediti girati in Sinai e a Gaza, e ai dati di realtà come Emergency e Medici per l'Ambiente, l’inchiesta svela i costi reali della guerra. Le vittime umane di armi proibite ma anche un enorme danno ambientale: le emissioni del settore militare, ad esempio, pesano quanto quelle delle grandi economie mondiali ma nessuno le conta ufficialmente nelle COP sul clima. Il prezzo della coerenza Ma non è tutto. Il documentario mette a nudo un paradosso: mentre la Procura di Genova cercava tra i portuali un’organizzazione criminale che non esisteva, sulle stesse banchine si consolidava un intreccio di potere tra politica e terminalisti poi stravolto dall’inchiesta del 2024 che ha azzerato i vertici di Regione Liguria. È il prezzo da pagare per il dissenso. Lo raccontano ai registi Luigi Spera, il vigile del fuoco finito all'Alta sicurezza con l'accusa di terrorismo per un'azione simbolica contro Leonardo SpA, e Duccio Facchini, direttore di Altreconomia, colpito da una querela temeraria solo per aver fatto il suo lavoro. Storie diverse, un unico obiettivo: colpire chi disturba l'ingranaggio della guerra.

ASCOLI Aria pulita nel Piceno, in particolare nel territorio del capoluogo. La centralina ascolana di monitoraggio dell’Arpam (collocata in zona Monticelli) non ha registrato presenze anomale di polveri sottili Pm10. Zero sforamenti, dal 1 gennaio 2026 a questa settimana. Una linea che ricalca esattamente il trend del 2025. San Benedetto Discorso leggermente diverso per San Benedetto. Lì, l’apparecchiatura di controllo (installata nei pressi del palazzo municipale) segna per quest’anno tre giornate oltre i limiti consentiti dalle norme europee sulla salute pubblica. In particolare, si è avuto un doppio sforamento, il 14 e il 15 aprile, fortunatamente con quantitativi d’inquinanti minimi. Infatti, si sono registrati rispettivamente 52 e 51 microgrammi di Pm10 per metro cubo d’aria, con la soglia-limite fissata a 50. Complessivamente, il 2026 è in linea con lo scorso anno quando (sempre nello stesso periodo di riferimento) lungo la Riviera si registrarono due sforamenti. Questi non sono solo semplici numeri statistici. È ormai scientificamente provato, infatti, che la presenza di eccessive concentrazioni di micropolveri nell’aria incide negativamente sulla qualità della vita di chi quell’aria è costretto a respirarla. Il numero massimo C’è da sottolineare un’altra cifra importante: 35. Rappresenta il numero massimo di giornate in cui - ogni anno - possono essere registrati livelli di Pm10 superiori ai limiti. Passata tale soglia, ogni Comune è chiamato a prendere provvedimenti straordinari. Da questo punto di vista, sia San Benedetto che, ancor di più, Ascoli, possono stare tranquille. Entrambe hanno superato senza troppi intoppi il periodo invernale che generalmente, complici i gas di scarico degli impianti di riscaldamento, è considerato particolarmente critico sul fronte dell’inquinamento atmosferico. Anche quest’anno, dunque, si stanno rispettando i limiti. La soglia di 50 microgrammi su base giornaliera è pensata proprio per proteggere la salute dei cittadini; registrare solo tre giorni di superamento in un anno è quindi un risultato molto positivo per una città costiera come San Benedetto, caratterizzata da traffico urbano e flussi stagionali di persone e attività. La situazione di San Benedetto, alla luce dei dati ufficiali, appare oggi sotto controllo, ma non priva di sfide. Il rispetto dei limiti di legge non esaurisce infatti il tema della qualità dell’aria, soprattutto in una città costiera attraversata da grandi flussi di traffico e interessata da attività turistiche e produttive. Le politiche locali, integrate con il monitoraggio scientifico e l’informazione ai cittadini, restano quindi uno strumento fondamentale per mantenere e migliorare nel tempo la salubrità dell’aria respirata ogni giorno dai sambenedettesi. Le esortazioni Nonostante il quadro generale sia positivo, gli esperti ricordano che rispettare i limiti di legge non equivale a eliminare tutti i rischi per la salute: per proteggere completamente i cittadini, le sfide sulla qualità dell’aria restano sempre aperte.

Le portacontainer cinesi stanno diventando sempre più elettriche. Ad aprile, Ningbo Ocean Shipping Co ha varato l’unità più grande al mondo: la Ningyuan Diankun. Ha una batteria più piccola, 20 MWh, ma una capacità di 740 TEU. Più efficiente, più container trasportati e – come titola il China Daily – “la portacontainer più intelligente al mondo”. Nave elettrica ed autonoma Nel settore navale si parla spesso dell’ibrido come unica soluzione possibile, ma non è così. Lo dimostrano i milioni di passeggeri trasportati ogni anno a emissioni zero ad Amsterdam e, facendo un salto dimensionale enorme, il crescente trasporto container completamente elettrico in Cina. Si tratta soprattutto di navigazione fluviale, ma in contesti molto ampi e con un traffico continuo che genera un inquinamento significativo vicino alle aree abitate. Nel 2020 avevamo raccontato la Zhongtiandianyun 001, una nave da 1.000 tonnellate equipaggiata con 1,458 MWh di batterie. Nel 2024 è stata la volta della Greenwater 01 del China Ocean Shipping Group, con 50 MWh di capacità elettrica e 700 TEU di carico (un TEU corrisponde a un container standard da circa 6 metri). Le caratteristiche centrali della nuova generazione di portacontainer elettriche sono riassunte da Ma Hongmeng, ingegnere senior dello Shanghai Merchant Ship Design and Research Institute e responsabile del progetto. «La nave è caratterizzata da propulsione completamente elettrica, navigazione autonoma e alta efficienza operativa. Sono i risultati raggiunti dall’industria navale cinese». Secondo Ma, siamo all’inizio di una nuova era per il trasporto containerizzato costiero cinese: «Zero emissioni, operazioni intelligenti e alta efficienza: condizioni necessarie per raggiungere la neutralità carbonica e la trasformazione energetica del settore marittimo». Il grande carico trasportato a zero emissioni La capacità supera i 740 TEU e la nave è stata sviluppata e progettata da SDARI, mentre il sistema di propulsione elettrica è stato fornito dallo Shanghai Marine Equipment Research Institute. Entrambe le realtà fanno parte della China State Shipbuilding Corp. (CSSC), il più grande conglomerato cantieristico al mondo, controllato dallo Stato cinese. Passando ai dati tecnici: la nave è lunga 127,8 metri e larga 21,6 metri. Per quanto riguarda l’energia a bordo, l’unità è equipaggiata con dieci moduli di alimentazione a forma di container, per una capacità complessiva di 19.600 kWh, cioè quasi 20 MWh. L’autonomia? Distanza stimata: 100–180 miglia nautiche a seconda della velocità e del carico. «Questo consente alla nave di operare in modalità completamente elettrica, con zero emissioni e zero rumore per l’intera durata del viaggio, adattandosi perfettamente alle esigenze operative del trasporto containerizzato costiero», ha spiegato Ma. Sul sito aziendale vengono evidenziati anche i benefici ambientali: «La capacità è equivalente a quella combinata delle batterie di 300 auto. Dopo l’entrata in servizio, si prevede un risparmio di 580 tonnellate di carburante all’anno e una riduzione di oltre 1.400 tonnellate di CO₂, pari all’assorbimento annuale di circa 40.000 alberi adulti. In questo modo si raggiunge l’obiettivo di zero emissioni e zero inquinamento durante la navigazione». Una flotta green: 32 navi a basse emissioni e autonome La politica ambientale non si limita a quest’ultimo varo. E l’azienda lo sottolinea: «Ningbo Ocean Shipping possiede 32 navi ecologiche e a basso consumo energetico, pari al 57% della sua flotta, e 19 navi intelligenti, circa il 34% del totale: un segnale dei progressi compiuti nell’ammodernamento verso soluzioni a basse emissioni e a guida intelligente». Sul fronte elettrico, la Ningyuan Diankun avrà presto una gemella: la Ningyuan Dianpeng, con prove in mare previste a maggio e consegna a giugno. Ci siamo quasi. Per quanto riguarda le funzioni smart, queste includono la sala macchine intelligente, dotata delle tecnologie chiave per la navigazione autonoma in acque aperte. In concreto, la piattaforma integra percezione visiva in qualsiasi condizione meteorologica, pianificazione autonoma del percorso, sistema automatico di avviso di collisione e commutazione fluida tra guida manuale e automatica. Inoltre, il sistema intelligente è in grado di acquisire in tempo reale i dati sull’ambiente di navigazione e identificare ed evitare proattivamente i rischi, riducendo alla fonte la probabilità di errore umano. Il valore aggiunto del silenzio La silenziosità delle barche elettriche è spesso apprezzata dai diportisti, ma l’abbattimento del rumore su una nave da lavoro rappresenta un beneficio ancora maggiore per chi ci lavora e ci “vive” 24 ore al giorno. Lo sottolinea Wang Ting, capitano della Ning Yuan Dian Kun: «Rispetto alle navi tradizionali alimentate a combustibile, il cambiamento più evidente in una nave completamente elettrica è l’assenza di rumore. In passato, la sala macchine era dominata dal rombo del motore principale, mentre oggi la navigazione è quasi silenziosa. Questo crea un ambiente di lavoro più rilassato e permette all’equipaggio di concentrarsi meglio sulle operazioni: un miglioramento significativo portato dall’energia verde». Un altro vantaggio è la coppia lineare e immediata dei motori elettrici. «Accelerazione e decelerazione risultano fluide e molto reattive, praticamente senza ritardi, rendendo le manovre più semplici. Tuttavia, ciò richiede nuove competenze agli operatori: devono imparare a gestire l’energia in modo efficiente, monitorare attentamente i consumi e pianificare la velocità della nave in maniera più razionale». L’elettrificazione porta benefici ambientali, ma incide in modo sostanziale sul benessere dei lavoratori senza dimenticare il comfort per i passeggeri nei traghetti. E’ quindi positiva, ma tutta da verificare nelle sue risultanze concrete, la volontà del nuovo ministro al turismo Mazzi di convertire in elettrico la navigazione nei laghi italiani. LEGGI TUTTO: Non tutte full electric, ma tutte elettrificate e guarda il VIDEO

L’inquinamento atmosferico e marino nei pressi delle aree portuali è un’emergenza silenziosa che colpisce ogni giorno migliaia di cittadini. Per questo Meritocrazia Italia chiede al Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti e al Comando Generale delle Capitanerie di Porto un intervento immediato, strutturato e non più rinviabile per la verifica degli scarichi delle navi e delle emissioni in atmosfera. Un problema reale, con conseguenze concrete Nei porti italiani transitano ogni anno migliaia di imbarcazioni mercantili e da crociera. Oltre al traffico commerciale, questo significa scarichi di acque di sentina, rifiuti liquidi e solidi, e soprattutto emissioni di ossidi di zolfo, ossidi di azoto e particolato fine derivanti dalla combustione dei motori. Sostanze che si accumulano nell’aria delle città portuali con un impatto diretto sulla salute respiratoria, sulla qualità della vita e sull’ambiente costiero. Da anni associazioni ambientaliste, comitati di quartiere e amministrazioni locali denunciano un sistema di controlli spesso insufficiente, frammentato e privo di reale efficacia deterrente. La posizione di “Meritocrazia Italia” La nostra missione è riportare il merito e la responsabilità al centro dell’azione pubblica. Per noi merito significa anche garantire regole chiare, applicarle con competenza e farle rispettare senza eccezioni. Non si tratta di essere contro il settore marittimo o lo sviluppo economico. I porti sono infrastrutture strategiche per il Paese, snodi fondamentali per il commercio e l’occupazione. Ma la crescita non può avvenire al costo della salute pubblica e della sostenibilità ambientale. Le richieste concrete di Meritocrazia Italia 1. Piano straordinario di ispezione // Avviare entro 30 giorni un piano straordinario di controlli su tutte le navi in sosta e in transito nei porti nazionali, con verifica del rispetto delle normative IMO 2020 sui limiti di zolfo e delle direttive europee in materia di qualità dell’aria. I controlli devono essere a campione ma frequenti, imprevedibili e basati su analisi tecniche certificate. 2. Monitoraggio continuo delle emissioni // Installare e potenziare centraline di monitoraggio della qualità dell’aria nelle aree portuali, con dati in tempo reale resi pubblici e accessibili a cittadini, comuni e autorità sanitarie. La trasparenza è il primo strumento di prevenzione. 3. Responsabilità e sanzioni certe // Applicare senza deroga le sanzioni previste dal Codice della Navigazione e dalla normativa ambientale vigente per chi viola i limiti di scarico e di emissione. La certezza della pena è l’unico deterrente efficace contro comportamenti illegali e dannosi. 4. Coordinamento istituzionale // Creare un tavolo permanente tra Ministero, Capitanerie di Porto, ARPA regionali, Autorità di Sistema Portuale e amministrazioni comunali per garantire un approccio unitario e non frammentato al problema. Il metodo Meritocrazia Italia Non servono proclami, servono fatti. Non servono controlli di facciata, serve un sistema di verifica basato su professionalità, indipendenza e tecnologia. La politica ha il dovere di proteggere l’interesse collettivo e di assicurare che le regole siano uguali per tutti. La tutela dell’ambiente non è una bandiera ideologica. È una condizione essenziale per il diritto alla salute, sancito dall’articolo 32 della Costituzione, e per lo sviluppo sostenibile del Paese. Meritocrazia Italia chiede al Ministero competente e alle Capitanerie di Porto di assumere con immediatezza le proprie responsabilità. Non è più tempo di proroghe o di commissioni. È tempo di agire. Avv. Walter Mauriello Presidente Naz.ale Meritocrazia Italia

Nel settore della pulizia, tradizionalmente legata all’uso di detergenti e detersivi chimici, si è aperta una nuova fase che unisce sostenibilità ambientale, risparmio e organizzazione del lavoro. Il capofila è Tonino Bernardini, 37 anni, di Porto Torres, esperto in pianificazione ambientale e fondatore della startup “iClean”. Il progetto di Bernardini, propone un modello alternativo basato sull’utilizzo dell’acqua ozonizzata per le operazioni di pulizia e sanificazione. Come funziona La startup ha creato un dispositivo, applicabile in qualsiasi locale, che trasforma l’acqua corrente in acqua ozonizzata, utilizzabile immediatamente per diverse applicazioni professionali o domestiche. «Il dispositivo prende l’ossigeno dall’aria, all’interno dell’apparecchio viene rotta la molecola dell’ossigeno e diventa così ozono, questo ozono viene iniettato all’interno dell’acqua. Successivamente si riempie il flaconcino e così abbiamo la nostra acqua a forte potere sgrassante e igienizzante» spiega il portotorrese. La scienza dietro iClean «Il principio su cui si fonda il progetto è semplice solo in apparenza – continua Bernardini -. Si sfruttano le proprietà ossidanti dell’ozono, generato direttamente in loco, per ottenere una soluzione in grado di pulire e ridurre la carica microbica, senza però ricorrere ai tradizionali prodotti chimici. In questo modo si riduce l’impatto ambientale, e si contengono i costi operativi. Tra l’altro con una maggiore tutela della salute di chi opera in ristoranti, Rsa, supermercati o semplicemente in casa». Gli studi Secondo l’azienda, l’efficacia del sistema è stata verificata attraverso test di laboratorio condotti secondo standard europei. Il meccanismo, spiegano, è legato alla capacità dell'ozono di ossidare le membrane cellulari dei microrganismi, inattivandoli. «Tuttavia è importante sottolineare che il dispositivo non è classificato come “medico-chirurgico”, poiché l’ozono viene generato sul momento e non commercializzato come prodotto già confezionato» spiegano. L’ambiente L’aspetto centrale della proposta riguarda la sostenibilità ambientale. L’eliminazione o la drastica riduzione dei detergenti comporta una diminuzione significativa degli imballaggi in plastica e delle emissioni legate alla logistica. A questo si aggiunge un minore impatto delle acque reflue, che non contengono residui chimici. La nascita del progetto L’apparecchio non è nato da una singola invenzione, esistono infatti sul mercato altri meccanismi simili, ma da una lavoro di selezione e ricerca che semplificano l’operatività del meccanismo. «Il punto di partenza è stato individuare un cambiamento nel mercato – precisa Bernardini -. Il modello basato su detergenti chimici infatti, ha già iniziato a mostrare i suoi limiti, sia in termini ambientali che operativi. Da lì abbiamo costruito una soluzione che garantisce anche la possibilità di intervenire sullo sviluppo e sull’aggiornamento del prodotto stesso, e la scelta è ricaduta su una produzione europea» conclude.