[pelaut] stcw after 9 years

Tue, 12 Apr 2005 05:56:04 -0700 

Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 11:35:11 -0000
   From: "terrence lionheart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: stcw after 9 years
 
 
The 1995 Standards of Training, Certification & Watchkeeping (STCW) 
Convention came into force  in February 1997. Eight years on, the 
question to ask is: has it done any good? What benefits has it 
brought to Filipino seafarers? 
 
Statistics from the P&I clubs will show that the number of accidents 
at sea, involving both vessel losses and personal injuries, has gone 
down. Better trained and more qualified crew, obviously, have been a 
major contributing factor behind this decline.  
 
The other side of the coin is that the financial burden on Filipino 
seafarers has never been greater than at present. The lowest fee for 
a training course in the Phi-lippines is P1,500; the more advanced 
courses will set you back by several thousands.  
 
Such expense will probably be understood and accepted by most 
seafarers if the training is necessary and if it is worth every 
centavo being charged by training centers. But they, as well as the 
training centers themselves, know that it is neither. 
 
The IMO experts who crafted the revised STCW Code never intended to 
replace actual service at sea with pieces of paper called training 
certificates.  
 
Indeed, there was, at least when the Code was being drafted and 
reviewed, the concept of `equivalency.'  This means that a seafarer 
could get certificated based on his shipboard experience and after 
his skills have been `assessed' through  such means as an interview 
or a practical test. 
 
That concept was immediately thrown out the window by the Maritime 
Industry Authority (MARINA), which requires even masters with 15 or 
20 years sailing experience to undergo the basic SOLAS courses which 
are suitable for raw recruits.  
 
Even Maritime English has been made mandatory by many manning 
agencies with the blessings of MARINA - even though the STCW Code 
only requires proficiency in English, not any classroom training on 
the subject. 
 
For the five-day course, thousands of seafarers have been shelling 
out a minimum of P2,500. 
 
To add insult to injury, experienced seafarers are being assessed by 
those who have neither the knowledge nor the experience to do so. How 
could, for instance, a former radio operator who owns a training 
center pass judgment on the competency of chief cooks, fitters, 
bosuns, oilers or even able-bodied seamen?  
 
Yet this kind of  training charade goes on all the time.  
 
One of the latest scandals involves a training center which was 
officially accredited by the  regional MARINA office in Cebu City to 
conduct courses for ship security officers despite the fact that it 
did not even have a classroom. Worse, seafarers were forced to enroll 
in this center on fear of being blacklisted and denied employment on 
board interisland vessels.  
 
Ironically, the case came to light because of a complaint from a 
seafarer who happens to be the son of the MARINA administrator's 
tenant.  
 
But Filipinos who exploit their fellow countrymen in the name of 
STCW '95 would seem like petty thieves when compared with the 
Panamanian Government. 
 
In 1986 the late Captain Rogelio Morales, leader of the now-defunct 
Concerned Seamen of the Philippines, organized  street rallies 
against the  Panamanian examination and certification system. UFS 
president Nelson Ramirez continued the fight until 2002, when Panama 
was forced to scrap the temporary certificate of competency (TCC) for 
officers. 
 
The irony is that the TCC  was replaced by a new assessment scheme 
for ratings.  
 
Norway, of course, has its own system of assessment and certification 
for NIS vessels. The big difference is that Norwegian shipowners, 
unlike shipowners using the Panama register, are humane enough to 
shoulder - in most cases - the documentary  fees. 
 
What is most painful is that Panama has been exploiting Filipino 
seafarers with the help of their fellow Filipinos. Perhaps because 
Panamanians hate clerical work, the Panama Embassy in Manila has 
farmed out the assessment and authentication functions to selected 
local training centers. 
 
In the final analysis, STCW '95 can be said to have opened the 
floodgates to the unprecedented exploitation of Filipino crew. The 
question is: what is the International Maritime Organisation doing 
about it? 
The standard IMO line is that it has only set minimum standards for 
the training and certification of seafarers worldwide. 
 
It is up to individual member states which have acceded to the 
Convention to impose their own standards as long as these meet the 
minimum set by the IMO. 
 
But who is to say whether Panama's standards are higher than the 
IMO's? What system is in place to validate national standards and, 
more importantly, to harmonize them for the good of everyone - not 
least of all the seafarers?


 


JALESVEVA YAYAMAHE


Yahoo! Groups Links

Kirim email ke