Most seafarers are worse off since the introduction of a new code on maritime security. Jim Jump summarises the results of a new ITF- commissioned survey


An ITF survey has found that seafarers have been landed with extra work and responsibilities since the International Code for the Security of Ships and Port Facilities came into force in July 2004. But they are receiving no extra pay or training for the additional duties.

The ISPS code has also created problems with shore leave, according to the ITF survey, with particular difficulties being experienced by crews in US ports or by those seeking US visas.

Even the right of access to ships by seafarers’ trade union and welfare representatives is being made harder because of the way some port officials are implementing the International Maritime Organisation’s code.

A majority of those surveyed – 59 per cent – did acknowledge that the code had improved security on ships and in port areas. Nevertheless, the ITF notes that there has been no reduction in armed attacks on ships since the code came into force.
The ITF commissioned the survey in response to widespread predictions by maritime unions during the drafting of the code that it could impact negatively on seafarers.

The code sets out a wide range of requirements intended to improve security, including the implementation of ship and port security plans, the appointment of ship, company and port security officers and the installation and use of shipboard security equipment. In addition, it stipulates measures to monitor and control both access to and from ships and the movement of people and cargo on ships and within ports.

The survey was conducted by means of a questionnaire circulated to the more than 120 ITF Inspectors in ports around the world and to 230 affiliated seafarers’ unions.
Inspectors and union officials discussed the questionnaire with crews and their members. Responses came from Turkish, Greek, Ukrainian, Indonesian, Chinese, Filipino, Latin American, Polish and Croatian seafarers, along with reports from ITF inspectors. In total, 58 completed questionnaires were returned from unions representing a combined membership of approximately 165,000 seafarers.

More work, same pay and crewing

The most striking finding of the survey is that the overwhelming majority of respondents – 86 per cent – claim that the code has resulted in extra work and has adversely affected crew performance.

Yet 96 per cent of seafarers said there had been no increase in crew levels to cope with the additional workload. And 89 per cent of them said that they had received no extra pay.

It is clear from the survey results that safe crewing levels have not been re-examined since the code entered into force. Flag states are clearly failing in their responsibility to reassess the principles used for issuing safe manning certificates – as required to do so by the STCW international convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping.

Among the ITF inspectors taking part in the survey was Charles Briffa, based in Valletta, Malta, who summed up the mood of many seafarers when he commented:
“With the existing manning levels, seafarers are being exploited, it has become a health hazard and, in so far as vessels are operating on short voyages, it is becoming impossible to perform the requested clerical duties together with the normal duties diligently, efficiently and consciously.”

Human pressures

Several seafarers voiced concern about the adverse effects of the code on health and levels of fatigue and stress, as a consequence of their extra workload. A member of the Danish Navigators’ Union (SL), who reported that the code has added seven or eight more hours of work per month noted that the social dimension of life at sea had suffered, with doors to accommodation being kept locked.

Another respondent felt that seafarers were now looked upon as a threat and treated “more or less like a terrorist suspect”. In some parts of the world seafarers were subjected to restrictions that amounted to a breach of basic human rights.
Inspectors identified particular problems regarding access to vessels and their crew. In general, the tightening of controls had reduced human interaction between different people and groups involved in ships and shipping and had placed the control of information more firmly in the hands of the shipowner.

The survey found chief officers were generally charged with the security of vessels. But commercial pressures were such that frequently these tasks were being delegated to less experienced crew members. In addition, seafarers found themselves required to perform gangway watch while in port. This was deemed to be an inappropriate task for seafarers and one that took an inordinate amount of time that would ordinarily be spent on other essential tasks.

Though seafarers had received ample instructions relating to the introduction of the code, a substantial majority reported little or no training in the practical application of its many shipboard requirements – in particular how to handle difficult situations when people without proper documentation attempted to board a vessel.

Shore leave problems

Some 58 per cent of respondents reported that members had been denied shore leave since the introduction of the ISPS Code or had encountered other problems with securing time and access ashore. Problems were most acute in US ports.

One respondent commented: “Seafarers say that in US ports they fear becoming ill and needing to go and get medical assistance at a clinic or hospital, and perhaps not being allowed to leave the vessel.”

The Associated Marine Officers and Seamen’s Union of the Philippines used the ITF questionnaire to carry out its own informal survey of its members. About 70 per cent of AMOSUP members surveyed stated that they had been denied shore leave and “most of those who answered in the affirmative cited US ports as the most problematic”.

US ports where problems had been reported included: Boston, New York, Portland, Tampa, Houston and Baltimore. A Ukrainian crew member reported spending 30 days alongside in the port of Baltimore with none of the crew being permitted ashore.

One aspect of the shore leave problems in the US is the requirement for some seafarers to obtain US visas, usually at additional personal expense and inconvenience. Of those interviewed, 54 per cent said seafarers were generally required to hold a visa in order to gain employment and 42 per cent reported problems in acquiring one.

The most frequent difficulty cited was the time it took for visa applications to be processed. In some cases this exceeded the time available in which to take up employment on a vessel. AMOSUP quoted an average waiting time of two or three months. Other problems included access to shore leave and the additional expense incurred to acquire individual visas.

According to the NCSU Chinese seafarers’ union: “Our members have to apply for an individual visa in person under a strict US regulation, and if they have been given an interview they have to face stern words and of course be fingerprinted.”
Croatian seafarers said they had to go to the US embassy in Zagreb, where “they must spend all day waiting for a visa. Sometimes the company organises a bus service to the capital. That is an additional cost.”

The survey found that seafarers from Vietnam, China and the Middle East in particular could expect to encounter difficulties in obtaining a US visa.

The need for more resources

The ITF believes that, in the current geopolitical environment, and with very real security threats facing the international shipping industry, the introduction of the ISPS Code offers a valuable opportunity to reduce the risk of attack upon this essential mode of transport and those employed within the industry. However, serious attention must be paid to sufficient manning levels and appropriate compensation for increased responsibilities and workload. The ITF is gravely concerned that shore leave and access to shore-based seafarer welfare facilities, which are recognised in the ISPS Code, are in practise being denied. Seafarers must be treated as allies in security management, not as victims of the regime or as potential terrorist threats.

If flag states and shipowners are really serious in their desire to reduce the risk of attacks on ships and port facilities, more attention must be paid to staffing resources. Moving beyond a token approach to security requires increased investment in training and a practical recognition of the workloads generated by the code.

The results of the survey and the ITF response is contained in the report “Access Denied: Implementing the ISPS Code” which can be viewed online here >>

Jim Jump is a journalist specialising in international labour issues.