|
Feature: Testing shipping's feel for the human factor |
|
|
|
Saturday, 13 March 2010 |
 It’s a feeling that the maritime industry must be used to by now. Ratification of a new piece of regulation, many years in the making and adoption is lurching towards us.
Yet somehow, many in the industry appear, if not ignorant then certainly
unprepared to deal with the impact. It’s a scenario reminiscent of the
introduction of the International Safety Management Code just over a
decade ago and shares some of the unknowns.
The International Labour Organization’s Maritime Labour Convention 2006
(MLC 2006) has been described as the fourth pillar of the maritime
regulatory regime, alongside the SOLAS, MARPOL and STCW conventions.
It certainly has a similar pedigree, drawing together and updating 70
earlier conventions and recommendations into a single enforceable
instrument which grants a range of employment rights to seafarers.
The MLC 2006 will come into force 12 months after ratification by ILO
member states representing 33% of the total world’s gross tonnage. The
Marshall Islands, Norway, Bahamas, Panama and Liberia have already
ratified and many others are close to signing. Current estimates put
final ratification in the fourth quarter of 2010 and implementation in
late 2011.
It is estimated that MLC 2006 will apply to about 70,000 vessels and 1.2
million seafarers. From the Master of a VLCC to hotel staff on a cruise
ship, all are considered seafarers, though in practice, interpretations
will vary.
The difference between MLC 2006 and IMO-style regulations is that it
does not cover technical requirements directly. Instead, the convention
sets minimum standards for the health, safety and welfare of seafarers
covering pay and conditions, accommodation, recreation, food and
catering, health protection, medical care and welfare and social
protection.
Its core objective is to address issues such as fatigue, occupational
health and safety and seafarers’ working and living conditions.
The important difference between the MLC 2006 and previous ILO
conventions is that it includes an IMO-style enforcement and control
mechanism based on “no more favourable treatment” on the basis of flag.
With very few exemptions, such as naval ships, all vessels will be
subject to its provisions.
The MLC 2006 has two parts, Part A which is mandatory and comprises the
Articles and Regulations and Part B, which comprises guidance on
implementation of the Regulations for flag states.
The Regulations are organised into five areas, or titles, which are:
minimum requirements for seafarers to work on a ship; conditions of
employment; accommodation, recreational facilities, food and catering;
health protection, medical care, welfare and social security protection;
compliance and enforcement.
Even two years from implementation the MLC is asking questions of the
maritime industry. These include whether shipowners are allocating
enough resources to MLC preparation and whether port state control
inspectors will know enough in time to accurately assess ships for
compliance.
Certainly the regimes that provide the certification and those that will
inspect for compliance are still in need of education about its
application and enforcement.
Most recently, the International Maritime Employer’s Committee warned
that flag and port states are unprepared for the ratification of the MLC
2006 and that shipowners risk paying the penalty
IMEC secretary-general Giles Heimann said that many stakeholders
continue to underestimate the impact of the regulations and have failed
to budget time and resources for the preparation required.
He quoted an example of a “large and well-respected open register” which
has admitted it is nowhere near prepared for MLC implementation because
it had not yet managed to get a “single word down on paper as far as
national legislation is concerned”.
The most common misconception raised about MLC 2006 is that owners must
comply not just with the regulations of Part A but also with the
guidance of Part B. That guidance is intended to help flag states shape
legislation but in pre-MLC audits, Mr. Heimann says ROs have been
inspecting on the content of Part B and “failing” shipowners if they do
not comply – a test which is entirely unnecessary.
He fears the confusion stretches from the flags to the ROs and to the
training and suitability of Port State Control inspectors. There is, he
says “absolutely no way” a national authority can expect an officer used
to inspecting on safety and technical issues become an inspector versed
in MLC 2006 compliance.
To further muddy the waters, although PSC will provide local
inspections, the ultimate sanction will lie with the ILO, which has not
issued guidance on enforcement beyond warning that no exemptions will be
provided.
It is, he says, an arrangement that has never been tried before and
while the aim of protecting seafarer welfare is clearly the right thing
to do, his concern is that if the industry makes a mess of its
introduction, then the credibility of this piece of law will suffer in
the long run.
It will certainly be a major challenge. Can an industry known for its
ability to manage technical and operational hardware develop the skills
and expertise needed to manage the human software that makes it tick?
It was only after several years working with the ISM Code that some
shipowners began to feel they understood it. Ratification of MLC 2006
appears to offer no such luxury of time and if anything, even more to
achieve.
Source: BIMCO Feature
|
Rss
Online - Contact Send us your news
