MARITIME TRANSPORT VI SAFETY AND SECURITY

MARITIME TRANSPORT VI

SAFETY AND SECURITY
Possible e-Maritime applications for improved safety, security and environmental
protection in maritime transport. E. Vanem. GNV-GL Strategic Research & Innovation,
Norway ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 131
Enhancing Safety of Helicopter Maritime Operations – Fuzzy Modeling Approach. I.
Cavka, O. Cokorilo. University of Belgrade, Serbia. ……………………………………………. 146
Induced Maritime Accidents. R. Montes de Oca. UMC, Venezuela. J.E Martínez Marín,
F.X. Martínez de Osés. UPC, Spain. E. Madariaga, Universidad de Cantabria, Spain …..
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 159
Determination of the reaction limit situation between two vessels to prevent a collision.
J.C. Rasero, N. Endrina, F. Piniella. UCA, Spain. …………………………………………………….
The Manila Amendments to the STCW Code enhance training in maritime safety and
security. E. Madariaga, A. Ortega, J.E. Martínez. UPC, Spain. E. Díaz, I. Sotés. UPV,
Spain. J.M. Oria, B. Blanco, L. Sánchez. Universidad de Cantabria, Spain ……………. 182
The probabilistic ships domain study and incidents model on the route between
Swinoujscie and Ystad – for Ro-Pax ferries. K. Marcjan, L. Gucma. Maritime University
of Szczecin, Poland. ………………………………………………………………………………………… 198
Induced Maritime Accidents. R. Montes de Oca. UMC, Venezuela. J.E Martínez Marín,
F.X Martínez de Osés. UPC, Spain. E. Madariaga, Universidad de Cantabria, Spain. …..
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 208
SHIPPING, NAVIGATION AND ROUTING
Single window for MSI. R. Wawruch. Gdynia Maritime University, Poland …………… 229
The architecture of data transmission in inland navigation. A. Lisaj, P. Majzner.
Maritime University of Szczecin, Poland ……………………………………………………………. 240
Safety management system for restricted and open sea areas. A. Bak, Maritime
University Szczecin, Poland ……………………………………………………………………………… 247
Changes in Ro-Ro transport tendencies in Santander Port. E. Díaz, A. Ortega, E.
Madariaga, J. E. Martínez, UPC, Spain. L. Sánchez B. Blanco, Universidad de
Cantabria, Spain ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 257
An inland waterway option for sustainable freight transport in Southeastern Europe. A.
Corres. University of the Aegean, Greece. B. Tselentis, E. Tzannatos. University of
Piriareus, Greece ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 272
Failure Mode and Effect Analyse in High Speed Crafts. P. Merayo, A. Martín.
Barcelona, Spain. ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 286
8
MARITIME EDUCATION AND TRAINING
Effect of sea experience and confidence in computer use on learning outcomes in
ECDIS training. K. I. Overgard, P. N. Smit, Buskerud and Vestfold University College,
Norway. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 297
Seamen training – history, reality and perpectives. N. Tomic-Petrovic, Serbia. ……….. 311
Simulation-based model course to demonstrate seafarers’ competence for deck officers’
discipline. M. Castells, S. Ordás, C. Barahona, J. Moncunill. UPC, Spain. C.
Muyskens, W. Hofman, S. Cross. NHL University of Applied Sciences, The
Netherlands. A. Kondratiev, A. Boran‐Keshishyan, A. Popov, S. Skorokhodov. Admiral
Ushakov Maritime State University, Russian Federation. …………………………………….. 318
Comparative analysis of eating attitude scale and body Mass index of maritime faculty
students (Istanbul city example). H. Cap, L. Tavacioglu, G. Zorluoglu. Istanbul
Technical University, Turkey …………………………………………………………………………….. 332
MONALISA 2.0 and The Sea Traffic Management – a concept creating the need for
new maritime information standards and software solutions. S. I. Velásquez, F.X.
Martínez de Osés, M. Castells. UPC, Spain. U. Svedberg. Swedish Maritime
Administration, Sweden ……………………………………………………………………………………. 339
SHIPBUILDING, YACHT AND NAVIGATION
Theoric and descriptive wave analysis of “Barcelona World Race” Part. F. Guarga, R.
Bosch, P. Casals, M. Castells. Barcelona, UPC, Spain ……………………………………….. 367
Design thinking in offshore ship bridge development. H. Tor Kristiansen. Aalesund
University College, Norway ……………………………………………………………………………… 386
Efficiency of the cathode protection in the sports crafts, fishing and cabotage boats.
M.A. Girón, E. Madariaga, J.E. Martínez, UPC, Spain. B. Río-Calonge, A. Girón, J.M.
Oria. Universidad de Cantabria. Spain. …………………………………………………………….. 399
Comparative analysis of the results of measurements and calculations of period’s
oscillation motion of the training ship model. W. Mironiuk. Naval Academy, Poland. …..
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 411
Reduction of fuel consumption in fishing fleet engines. O. Klyus, C. Behrendt. Maritime
University of Szczecin, Poland. …………………………………………………………………………. 419
Analysis of the process of inspection in recreational craft in Spain. Suggestions for
safety improvement. J. Torralbo, M. Castells. UPC, Spain. ………………………………….. 428
Index
SHIPPING, LOGISTICS AND TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT
Maritime transport as an urban and interurban alternative on the River Guadalquivir:
GuadaMAR F. Piniella, A. Querol, J.C. Rasero. Universidad de Cádiz. Spain. ……… 443
The economic viability of Northern Sea Route as a seasonal supplement for container
shipping between Europe and Asia. T. Kiiski. University of Turku, Finland ……………. 453
How can cooperation between neighbouring ports within the Oslofjord area become a
reality. Ø. Berg, H. Schoyen. Buskerud and Vestfold University College Vestfold,
Norway. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 469
WiderMoS, a new way to make better business by using the EU Core Network
Corridors and Smart Logistics. A. Montori, S.I. Velásquez, Spain ………………………….. 489
Are there significant differences in port innovation after decentralization? Watershed
analysis. L. Sánchez Ruiz. B. Blanco, C.Á. Pérez-Labajos, E Madariaga, Universidad
de Cantabria. Juan Ramón Oreja-Rodríguez, Universidad de la Laguna. Spain ……… 501
Containers Movements Cost Analysis in a Marine Terminal. A. Isalgué Buxeda, J. E.
Martínez, UPC, Spain. M. L. Eguren. UB, Spain …………………………………………………. 514
The effect of the economical crises of 2007 to the container shipping in Spain, Turkey
and Greece. N. Şenbursa, J. E. Martínez Marín. UPC, Spain. E. Madariaga,
Universidad de Cantabria, Spain. ……………………………………………………………………… 524
MARITIME ENVIRONMENT AND ELECTRONICS & HUMAN INTERFACE.
Ballast Water Management Convention and Turkish shipping perspective. T. Satir. İTÜ
Denizcilik Fakültesi, Turkey. …………………………………………………………………………….. 543
A comparative study of the Northern Sea Route in Commercial and
Environmental perspective with focus on LNG shipping. Z. Raza, H. Schoyen. Vestfold
University College, Norway ……………………………………………………………………………… 549
Sensors and actuators supervision in Inland Navigation Networks: Cuinchy-Fontinettes
case study. J. Blesa, V. Puig, Y. Bolea, L. Rajaoarisoa. UPC, Spain. K. Horváth, E.
Duviella, K. Chuquet, Univ. Lille Nord de France……………………………………………….. 577
Resizing study of main and auxiliary engines of the tanker vessels and their contribution
to the reduction of fuel consumption and GHG. G. de Melo, I. Echevarrieta. UPC,
Spain ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 593
10
MARITIME ENVIRONMENT II
The energy efficiency indicators of fishing cutters for the Polish fishing fleet. C.
Behrendt. Maritime University of Szczecin, Poland ……………………………………………… 605
Energy audit structure dedicated to fishing cutters operating at the Baltic Sea. M.
Szczepanek, P. Rajewski. Maritime University of Szczecin, Poland ……………………….. 615
Governing external cost of shipping in emission control areas: an instrumentation
approach. D. Gritsenko. University of Turku, Finland ………………………………………….. 632
Review of legislation on rules of noise and vibration in merchant ships. F.J. Bermúdez
Rodríguez, R. Hernández Molina, F. Tejedor-Panchón, A. Muñoz Rubio, F. Fernández
Zacarías, J.C. Rasero Balón. UCA, Spain. …………………………………………………………. 648
Analysis of viability to promote a hub ro/ro terminal in Palma of Mallorca Port. I.
Galiano, F. X. Martínez de Osés. UPC, Spain …………………………………………………….. 671
The environmental monitoring of Finnish Ports – Case Port of Haminakotka. O. PekkaBrunila. University of Turku, Finland ………………………………………………………………… 681
MARITIME POLICIES AND ISSUES AND MARITIME HERITAGE
Ethics and the environment, with a view from the sea. A. Viso. Universidad Nacional
Experimental Marítima del Caribe, Venezuela ……………………………………………………. 699
Role and importance of Marine Insurance in Maritime Transport. J. N. Grdinic,
University of Montenegro. ………………………………………………………………………………… 711
Implementation of the MLC 2006 convention: effects on the development of regulation
in the European Union and on vessel inspections under the Port State Control (PSC)
system. F. Bernal, J. González-Gil, F. Piniella. UCA, Spain ……………………………….. 723
Dangers at sea and Helps to sailors for Overcoming them in the past. L. Carbonell.
Barcelona, Spain …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 737
Dynamics of maritime transport in the Baltic Sea: Regionalization and multimodal
integration. A. Serry. University of Orleans, France…………………………………………….. 746
Problems related with energy efficiency improvement of the polish fishing fleet
Ph. D. Eng. Marcin Szczepanek Institute of Marine Propulsion Plants Operation, MBA
Małgorzata Sawicka Maritime University of Szczecin ……………………………………………….. 767
Research and analysis of fp6 and fp7 projects in waterborne transport within
transport sector in Europe Radovan Zobenica, Vladislav Maraš, Zoran Radmilović
University of Belgrade …………………………………………………………………………………………… 775
Index
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MLC 2006 CONVENTION: EFFECTS ON
THE DEVELOPMENT OF REGULATION IN THE EUROPEAN UNION
AND ON VESSEL INSPECTIONS UNDER THE PORT STATE
CONTROL (PSC) SYSTEM.
Prof. Francisca Bernal (I), Mr. Jaime González-Gil (II), Prof. Dr. Francisco Piniella (III)
(I) Universidad de Cádiz, Spain – Department of Labour Law and Social
Security.
(II) European Maritime Safety Agency, Lisbon.
(III) Universidad de Cádiz, Spain – Head Department of Maritime Studies.
Abstract
The International Maritime Labour Convention, known by the initials MLC,2006, was
approved almost unanimously in 2006. Signed on 7 February of that year, it is the fruit
of five years work by the International Labour Organisation, together with its
interlocutors such as the ITF and associations of ship owners. Its object is to improve
the employment situation that had been established by the old C147 of Minimum
Standards for the Merchant Marine. Considered historic by the ILO’s Director-General
himself, this Convention would enter into force twelve months after the date on which it
would have been ratified by at least 30 Members that together account for at least 33%
of the total gross tonnage of the world merchant fleet. These conditions were met in
August 2012 and the provisions of the Convention began to be applied from 20 August
2013.
The MLC,2006 has faced a series of initial problems with regard to its implementation
at the level of the Flag State, especially because of the heterogeneous nature and
reduced level of development in the countries that have ratified the Convention. Hence
some of the initial expectations for improvement have had to be drastically reduced. In
this communication the aim is to study comparatively this implementation at the
national and European Union levels, and the repercussions at the level of the Port State
Control, specifically in the controls being executed through the mechanisms established
within the Paris Memorandum.
Keywords
Maritime Labour Convention, Port State Control, Working Conditions, European
Union
1. INTRODUCTION
The aim of our paper, presented in this 6th International Conference on Maritime
Transport (MT’14) in Barcelona is to analyse the implementation of the Maritime
Labour Convention (MLC, 2006) approved in 2006 and in force from 20th August of
723 Maritime Policies and Issues and Maritime Heritage
2013: the effects on the development of regulation in the European Union (EU) and on
vessel inspections under the Port State Control (PSC) system.
Within the International Labour Organization (ILO), the maritime sector is one of the
specific sectors in which the organization has been PhD thesis working since its creation. The ILO
has a specifically maritime program that has the objective of promoting the social and
economic progress of maritime employees. Since the foundation of the ILO, it has
included a Joint Maritime Commission that advises the Governing Body on maritime
matters; it also organizes special meetings of the International Conference on Labour
that exclusively deal with drawing up and adopting standards on maritime work. Since
1920, the International Labour Conference has adopted almost a hundred standards on
maritime work, covering a very diverse range of topics, such as the minimum age for
admission into employment, contracting and placement, medical examinations,
enrolment contracts, paid holidays, social security, working hours and rest periods, crew
accommodation, identity documents, health and safety at work, welfare at sea and in
port, continuity of employment, vocational training and certificates of aptitude. It has
also adopted reams of practical recommendations, directives and reports dealing with
topics of interest for seafarers. The ILO cooperates with other bodies of the United
Nations organization that are competent in the maritime sector, particularly the
International Maritime Organization (IMO) and the World Health Organization (WHO).
As stated recently by McLaughlin (2012) the maritime labour force has unique
characteristics in terms of migration and mobility, which have also created a highly
segmented market. The segmentation allows shipowners to indulge their preferences for
certain groups and their desire to reduce costs, a phenomenon which has led to
significant differences in terms and working conditions within the seafaring labour
market.
The nationality of crew members has an influence on costs, through the standard of life
in their country of origin, because this leads them to accept among others, wages and
conditions that may be worse than current international standards but much better than
what they may obtain in their places of origin.
The role of EU Member States has been important as social protector: EU Member
States’ national legislations are generally more protective and detailed than the ILO
standards. Some European countries have proactively been the pioneers in signing the
document of ratification of these Labour Conventions. EU has therefore not ignored the
need for a unified and global set of regulations that ensure decent living and working
conditions for seafarers (Vicente-Palacio 2009, Ruano and Vicente-Palacio 2013).
However the shipping industry is the world’s first genuinely global industry, which
requires an international regulatory response of an appropriate standard applicable to the
entire industry. The EU’s maritime transport policy put emphasis in enhancing the
attractiveness of the maritime professions to Europeans by means of actions that
involve, where appropriate, the Commission, the Member States and the industry itself.
This fully applies to the implementation of the MLC, 2006 which considerably
improves working and living conditions on board ships. The EU has consequently to
provide the means, through flag State and port State control to ensure that the relevant
MLC-related standards are applied on board EU vessels as well as on all ships calling at
EU ports, regardless of the nationality of the seafarers (EC 2012).
724 Maritime Transport
2. THE INTERNATIONAL MARITIME LABOUR CONVENTION
On 20 August 2013 the International Maritime Labour Convention entered into force
for all ships, introducing provisions for certification, inspection and record keeping
requirements. A year before, The Philippines became the thirtieth state to ratify the
MLC (Piniella et al. 2013).
Some years before, in February 2006, the International Convention on Maritime Labour
was approved almost unanimously. This Convention is the fruit of five years of work by
the ILO, together with its interlocutors such as the International Transport Workers’
Federation (ITF), aimed at improving the working situation previously established by
the old C147 of Minimum Standards for the Merchant Marine. The specific object was
to draw up a single, comprehensive instrument that would, as far as possible, bring
together all the standards currently in force dissertation writing contained in the various international
conventions and recommendations on maritime work, including the fundamental
principles that featured in other international agreements on labour. The MLC,2006
applies to all seafarers. The Convention is unique in the sense that it aims both to
achieve decent work for seafarers and to secure economic interests through fair
competition for quality ship owners. It is therefore a comprehensive text that sets out, in
one place, seafarers’ rights to decent working conditions. It covers almost every aspect
of their work and life on board including:
– minimum age
– seafarers’ employment agreements
– hours of work or rest
– payment of wages
– paid annual leave
– repatriation at the end of contract
– onboard medical care
– the use of licensed private recruitment and placement services
– accommodation, food and catering
– health and safety protection and accident prevention and
– seafarers’ complaint handling (ILO 2006)
Figure 1: Parties to the MLC, 2006 (cumulative by year)
Source: Authors’ own elaboration from http://www.ilo.org (updated 12.01.2014)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
World States
EU States
725 Maritime Policies and Issues and Maritime Heritage
The Director-General of the ILO has considered the MLC,2006 to be “historic”, to
emphasize the real implications of its application and the instruments on which its
application will depend. However, is it really justified to rate it as a “super convention”?
(Chaumette 2010). It has been claimed that this Convention will constitute the fourth
pillar on which the international system of regulation will be based, thus ranking it in
importance with SOLAS, MARPOL and STCW. It will bring up-to-date more than
sixty-five maritime labour agreements of the ILO and for the first time will provide
more than 1.2 million seafarers from all around the world with complete social
protection, according to those promoting the significance of the MLC, 2006. We think,
therefore, that these claims are justified (at least until there is evidence that it is not
being implemented, and that State practice is not really changing) (Bauer 2007;
McConnell 2011).
The MLC,2006 sets out the minimum requirements for seafarers who work on board a
vessel, and includes provisions relating to the conditions of employment,
accommodation, recreational facilities, food and catering, health, medical care, welfare
and social security protection. In this respect, it may be compared with a legal code in
the Napoleonic concept and, equally, with a legal guideline in the Anglo-Saxon sense.
And of course it comes within the broader ILO strategy of promoting ‘Decent Work’ in
a context dominated by the globalization of crews. But most importantly for the subject
of this article, it contains no new provisions for enforcement beyond those already in
operation, theoretically, under previous international conventions. However, although
the MLC, 2006 may open the door to realizing hopes held by its drafters of obtaining a
better-regulated global market for maritime labour through the Maritime Labour
Certificate and the Declaration of Maritime Labour Compliance, everything will, as
ever, depend on its application in practice by the Flag States, because, as we have
shown throughout this article, there are real problems in the practical implementation of
the issues affecting the maritime labour regulation and especially the future Convention
through PSC instruments. As occurs with matters of structural safety of vessels and
prevention of pollution by vessels, the second opportunity for effective control passes to
the Port State Control authorities. If the same inspection system is followed, the Port
State will delegate to the PSC Officers the execution of tasks that will surely be difficult
to perform effectively without considerable additional knowledge and experience. A
different approach and more resources are needed if the PSC “inspection” is to be
converted into the real exercise of control as intended under the MLC, 2006 (Piniella et
al. 2013).
3. THE INSTRUMENTS OF CONTROL
For more than 30 years the International Maritime Organization (IMO) has carried out
valuable work and invested a great deal of effort in implementing rules and regulations
covering maritime transportation to ensure compliance with vital standards of shipping
safety and marine environmental protection. The SOLAS and MARPOL Conventions
have been adopted in respect of ninety per cent of the international fleet. From the
current situation, however, it is clear that sub-standard vessels are proliferating, and
represent a serious hazard to the safety of marine navigation. The large number of
different nationalities involved in maritime transportation has motivated Coastal/Port
States to try and develop protecting policies.
726 Maritime Transport
The Paris Memorandum 1982 and other regional agreements are examples under
consideration by the Port State Control (PSC) (Piniella 2005). After the Amoco Cadiz
environmental disaster in France, in 1978, the Paris MoU on Port State Control was
created. The purpose of this harmonized inspection system is to prevent substandard
ships that present high risk from sailing to European and Canadian N. Atlantic ports and
anchorages. The existence of many substandard ships is a well-known fact and they sail
not only in European waters but all over the world; most of these substandard ships are
registered in states that are very permissive in respect of regulations of design,
construction, equipment, safety, working conditions, etc. The original objective of the
Paris MoU on Port State Control was for each member country to inspect individually
25% of all the foreign merchant ships entering its ports (specified MoU Ports) to
identify the degree of risk. The original inspection regime of this system was replaced
by a New Inspection Regime, adopted in 2009 (Rodríguez and Piniella 2012)
Globalization and the proliferation of open registries have created a situation by which
the PSC activity has become much more effective than the feeble or non-existent
controls exercised by States issuing flags of convenience. In theory, any vessel arriving
in any port can thus be inspected by an authorised officer to make sure it complies with
applicable not only IMO but also ILO standards and regulations; further, the vessel can
be obliged to rectify any deficiency or defects observed and, if so determined, be
detained to that end (Cariou, Mejia Jr. and Wolff, 2007 and 2008; Li and Zheng, 2008).
Perhaps the quiz of the question is “Who will put MLC,2006 into effect?” (Piniella et al.
2013): the same problem arises as that with the safety certificates – the almost
obligatory ceding of responsibilities by the Flag States to the Recognized Organizations
(González-Gil, 2013); in other words, these particular labour-related inspections will
inevitably be “privatized”, with all the consequences implied by that. Another factor is
that the labour inspectors show certain reluctance to crossing the port boundary and
boarding a ship, as if they were afraid of challenging the sovereignty of a foreign
country. Correcting this may require a change of mentality for the implementation of
the MLC,2006, since it seems that the major part of these controls will fall, almost by
default, on the Port State Control officers (PSCO); however, the training of these
PSCOs is essentially maritime and technical, and much less applicable to labour
relationships and some of the juridical matters covered by the new Convention. The
Guidelines themselves state that, in most cases, the labour-related inspections will be
carried out by personnel who are already qualified under the existing international PSC
arrangements, undertaken as provided for by the IMO conventions and under the
corresponding regional MoU on port State control. However, in some countries it is
possible that these inspections would be carried out by an authorized officer who is not
necessarily qualified as a PSC Officer for other purposes, for example, a maritime
labour inspector. Until now, that possibility, which had been envisaged in most of the
regional MoUs, has never been put into force; normally it is experienced seamen who
do this work, and in many cases it falls to a former Naval Engineer, a Captain or Chief
Engineer, even occasionally a former Radio Communications Officer. One of the
weaknesses of the MLC,2006 is that it does not set out the specific requirements that
PSC Officers must have, to be capable of implementing all its provisions.
In august 2013, the MLC, 2006 entered into force and became a relevant instrument for
the Paris MoU, being the MLC, 2006 requirements officially subject to port State
control. A first survey during the first month stated that 7 ships were detained for MLCrelated deficiencies. This means that 10% of the total number of detentions (68) in the
727 Maritime Policies and Issues and Maritime Heritage
Paris MoU area in this period was MLC, 2006 related. 494 deficiencies out of the 4,260
total recorded (11.5%) were related to any of the ILO Conventions listed as relevant
instrument; Of these 494, 30 (6,1%) were considered to be serious enough to be a
ground for detention; 23 of those 30 (76,7%) were related to breaches of the MLC and
resulted in the detention of 7 individual ships; The total number of detentions was 68
during 1,532 inspections, which resulted in a detention rate of 4,4% (Paris MoU 2013).
In compliance with the MLC, 2006 the Harbour Master Office of Algeciras (Spain)
carried out the first inspection in Europe to the ship “Algeciras Spirit” owned by the
company Teekay on 4th May 2013, before the upcoming entry into force on the 20th of
August of the MLC, 2006 (Figure 2). Only the member States of the Paris MoU who
have ratified the MLC, 2006 on or before 20 August 2012 are entitled to conduct PSC
inspections on MLC, 2006 requirements from 20 August 2013 (see Table 1). As a result
the following twelve member States of Paris MoU have started enforcing the MLC,
2006, nine EU States: Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Latvia, the Netherlands,
Poland, Spain and Sweden. In 2013 and 2014 some EU States, members of Paris MoU,
have ratified the Convention: Belgium, Finland, France, Greece, Italy, Lithuania, Malta
and United Kingdom. The exceptions are Ireland, Portugal, Romania and Slovenia, that
not have ratified MLC, 2006 at this stage.
Table 2 presents a three-month overview after the entry into force of the Convention
gathered from the Paris MoU public information system. Note in the mentioned table
that still only 12 Paris MoU States are entitled to carry out port State control inspections
under the MLC, 2006. That may be one of the reasons why the impact is still rather
small. Another reason may be that those States doing PSC already are in the the process
of adapting their PSC procedures and do not take any risks with raising deficiencies.
The following is valid on 20November 2013, based on inspections results after three
months of the effective implementation of the Convention.
Figure 2: The first European specific inspection on board the Spanish
flagged ship “Algeciras Spirit”: 04-05-2013
Source: Marina Civil 106:17
728 Maritime Transport
Table 1: EU Member States: Fleet and MLC National Requirements
State
Entry into
EU
€ Zone
Population
(MIll)
Paris MoU
Flagged
Fleet
(Th.GT)
MLC, 2006
Date of
Ratification
Entry
into
force National Requirements
Austria 1995 € 8
Belgium 1957 € 10 * 4532 20.08.2013 20.08.2014 http://www.shipregistration.be/
Bulgaria 2007 7 * 357 12.04.2010 20.08.2013 http://www.marad.bg
Croatia 2013 4 *
1
392 12.02.2010 20.08.2013 http://www.mppi.hr
Cyprus 2004 € 1 *
20
464 20.07.2012 20.08.2013 http://www.mcw.gov.cy/mcw/dms
Czech 2004 10 http://www.mdcr.cz/en/Water+Transport
Denmark 1973 6 *
11
530 20.06.2011 20.08.2013 http://www.dma.dk
Estonia 2004 € 1 * 290 http://www.vta.ee/atp
Finland 1995 € 5 *
1
737 09.01.2013 09.01.2014 http://www.trafi.fi/en/maritime
France 1957 € 66 *
6
197 28.02.2013 28.02.2014 http://www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr
Germany 1957 € 81 *
15
053 16.08.2013 16.08.2014 http://www.bg-verkehr.de/ship-safetydivision/mlc
Greece 1981 € 11 *
42
569 04.01.2013 09.01.2014 http://www.yen.gr
Hungary 2004 10 31.07.2013 31.07.2014 http://www.nkh.hu/en/shipping
Ireland 1973 € 5 * 177 http://www.transport.ie/maritime
Italy 1957 € 61 *
18
098 19.11.2013 19.11.2014 http://www.mit.gov.it/mit
Latvia 2004 € 2 * 152 12.08.2011 20.08.2013 http://www.jurasadministracija.lv/en
Lithuania 2004 4 * 354 20.08.2013 20.08.2014 http://www.msa.lt/en
Luxembourg 1957 € 0,5 1
498 19.09.2011 20.08.2013
Malta 2004 € 0,5 *
44
113 21.01.2013 21.02.2014 http://www.transport.gov.mt/ship-registration
Netherlands 1957 € 17 *
7
759 13.12.2011 20.08.2013 http://www.ilent.nl/english/merchant_shipping
Poland 2004 38 * 102 03.05.2012 20.08.2013 http://www.umgdy.gov.pl
Portugal 1986 € 11 *
1
131 http://www.imarpor.pt
Romania 2007 22 * 141 http://www.rna.ro/ENGLEZA/Seafarers.html
Slovakia 2004 € 5 33 http://www.telecom.gov.sk
Slovenia 2004 € 2 * 3 http://www.up.gov.si/en
Spain 1986 € 47 *
2
792 04.02.2010 20.08.2013 http://www.fomento.es/MFOM
Sweden 1995 9 * 417 12.06.2012 20.08.2013 http://www.transportstyrelsen.se/en/Shipping/
U.Kingdom 1973 63 *
1
346 07.08.2013 07.08.2014 http://www.dft.gov.uk/mca
Source: Authors’ own elaboration from Eurostat (http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat), Review of Maritime
Transport 2013 (UNCTAD), http://www.ilo.org (ILO, updated 12.01.2014).
729 Maritime Policies and Issues and Maritime Heritage
Table 2: Survey of Inspections between 20August and 20 November
2013
Total number of Inspections 4 245
Total number of inspections with deficiencies 3 016
Total number of deficiencies found 11 921
Total number of detentions 159
3.74 %
Nr of deficiencies excluding MLC 11 387
Nr of detainable deficiencies excluding MLC 2 233
19.1 % of deficiencies excl MLC were considered detainable
Inspections where MLC deficiencies were found 286
9.84 % of insp with def had MLC deficiencies also
MLC related deficiencies found 533
1.86 MLC def per inspection with MLC deficiencies
4.5 % of the total nr of deficiencies was MLC related
Whereof detainable MLC 43
15 % of MLC deficiencies were considered detainable
2 % of all detainable deficiencies were MLC related
Nr of Individual ships detained for MLC reasons 19
12 % of all detentions were also due to MLC related issues
Port State and number of detentions for MLC
Bulgaria 1
Canada 3
Croatia 1
Denmark 1
Netherlands 1
Poland 1
Russian Federation 1
Spain 8
Sweden 2
Grand Total 19
Source: Authors’ own elaboration from Paris MoU information system, THETIS :
https://portal.emsa.europa.eu/web/thetis
Flag State and number of detentions for MLC
Antigua and Barbuda 1
Cyprus 4
Liberia 1
Malta 1
Marshall Islands 1
Netherlands 1
Panama 6
Russian Federation 1
Tanzania, United Republic of 2
Togo 1
Grand Total 19
730 Maritime Transport
4. REGULATION AT THE LEVEL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION
The EU Member States and the Commission have supported the ILO work on this
matter from the outset. The EU sees a valuable input in the MLC, 2006 which aims at
establishing a level playing field in the worldwide maritime industry by setting common
minimum standards for all flags and seafarers. In this respect, the EU adopted the
Council Decision 2007/431/EC of 7 June 2007 authorising Member States to ratify, in
the interest of the European Community, the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006, of the
International Labour Organisation (EC 2007). Some Member States ratified some years
well before, as Spain, Bulgaria, Luxembourg, Denmark, Latvia, or the Netherlands. In
Table 1 is shown the relation of EU States and the dates of ratification and entry in
force. On the substance, the EU Member States’ national legislations are generally more
protective and detailed than the ILO standards. To maintain the consistency between the
international and national standards and to ratify the Convention, an extensive and timeconsuming gap analysis of the national legislations was the prerequisite, as stated in the
Proposal of a Directive concerning flag States responsibilities (EC 2012) (Table 3
shows the case study of Spain).
The EU also adopted the Council Directive 2009/13/EC of 16 February 2009,
implementing the Agreement concluded by the European Community Shipowners’
Associations (ECSA) and the European Transport Workers’ Federation (ETF) on the
Maritime Labour Convention, 2006, and amending Directive 1999/63/EC2. Directive
2009/13/EC constitutes an outstanding achievement of the Sectorial Social dialogue and
the present proposal aims at ensuring that it is endowed with proper enforcement means
in the Union (EC 2009a).
Firstly the EU has set up a legal framework to increase maritime safety by adopting
three maritime safety packages, the latest dating from 2009: the mentioned Directive
2009/13/EC and the Directive 2009/21/EC on compliance with flag State requirements
to ensure that EU States effectively and consistently discharge their obligations as flag
States, to enhance safety and prevent pollution from ships flying their flag. It provides
for the conditions for ships to be registered under the flag of a EU State and the
obligation for flag States to set up a quality management system and internal evaluation
in line with the international standards. To this end, IMO standards, in particular the
mandatory audit plan of national maritime administrations and the IMO Flag State Code
apply (EC 2009b).
As early as 1994, the EU Council issued the Council Directive 94/57/EC on common
rules and standards for ship inspection and survey organizations and for the relevant
activities of maritime administrations, within the framework of its common policy on
Maritime Safety. In the Preamble of the Directive it was admitted that “a large number
of the existing classification societies do not ensure either adequate implementation of
the rules or reliability when acting on behalf of national administrations, as they do not
have adequate structures and experience to be relied upon and to enable them to carry
out their duties in a highly professional manner” (EC, 1994). In the light of this, criteria
were agreed regarding the information that ROs should provide to their corresponding
State government, and these in turn to the European Commission. By this means the EU
eliminated from the market those small Societies and Consultancies that did not have at
least one thousand vessels classified on their books, and that lacked technical capacity
both in the area of the updating of rules and in their staff, and were also deficient in
731 Maritime Policies and Issues and Maritime Heritage
respect of the Code of Ethics and the quality standards stipulated in the resolutions of
the IMO.
Later, in 2001, this earlier Directive was modified by that of 2001/105/CE; this
increased, in particular, the requirements for the ROs to tighten even further the existing
framework, to meet the standards of the IACS. Even more recently, in 2009, with the
Directive 2009/15/CE and the Ruling (EC) Nº 391/2009, more severe changes have
been made in the regulation of the ROs. This has been done by the creation of a
certification body intended to be independent, and the reform of the system of sanctions
that should make the inspection and classification system more effective, with the
necessary incorporation of these regulations in the internal legislation of the individual
European States in 2010 and 2011 (BOE, 2011). There have also been significant
advances in the mutual recognition of the certificates among the better ROs, provided
the certificate has been issued on the basis of equivalent technical standards (EC, 1994-
2009c,d).
Summarizing, we can say that various parts of MLC, 2006 have been introduced into
different Union instruments both as regards flag State and port State obligations. The
aim of the new Directive 2013/54/EU (EC 2013) is to introduce certain compliance and
enforcement provisions, envisaged in Title 5 of MLC, 2006, which relate to those parts
of MLC, 2006 in respect of which the required compliance and enforcement provisions
have not yet been adopted. Those parts correspond to the elements set out in the Annex
to Council Directive 2009/13/EC (EC 2009a): ensuring the effective discharge of their
obligations as flag States with respect to the implementation, by ships flying their flag,
of the relevant parts of MLC, 2006 and establishing an effective system for monitoring
mechanisms, including inspections. A EU Member State may, where appropriate, grant
authorisation to public institutions, or to other organisations within the meaning of
Regulation 5.1.2 of MLC 2006, under the conditions set out therein.
The new Directive of 2013 requires to each Member State to provide the ILO with a
current list of any recognised organisations authorised to act on its behalf, and shall
keep this list up to date. The list shall specify the functions that the ROs have been
authorised to carry out.
Table 3. Spain, case study: MLC implementation in the National
Laws
1. Minimum age
(Regulation 1.1):
Royal Decree 1/1995 Statute of Labourers: Arts. 6.1), 6.2).
Royal Decree 1561/1995: 21-09-1995, about hours of work and hours of rest.
Royal Decree 26-09-1957, about forbidden works for women and children.
2. Medical certificate
(Regulation 1.2):
Regulation 1.2 Maritime Labour Convention, 2006
Medical certificate: International Convention on Standards of Training,
Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers: Section A-I/9)
Medical certificate: Royal Decree 1696/2007: 14-12-2007 medical
examinations: Annex III
3. Training and
qualifications
(Regulation 1.3):
Royal Decree 973/2009, 12-06-2009 Professional Certificate for Seafarers
Order 21-06-2001 about Maritime Titles in The International Convention on
Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (or
STCW) modified as Manila Amendments of 2010.
Maritime Labour Convention 2006: Regulation 3.2. point 3 Standard A3.2 and
Guideline B3.3.3: Order 20-05-2013 General Directorate for the Merchant
Marine about Ship’s Cook Certificate.
732 Maritime Transport
4. Seafarers’
employment
agreements
(Regulation 2.1):
Statute of Labourers: Art. 8
Royal Decree 1659/1998, 24-07-1998 about legislative development of the
Art. 8.5 Statute of Labourers: information to the workers about Seafarers’
employment agreements. Maritime Labour Convention, 2006: Standard A2.1.4
5. Recruitment and
placement (Regulation
1.4):
Law 56/2003, 16-12-2003, National Employment Law. Arts. 20-22bis.
Royal Decree 1796/2010, 30-12-2010, about Manning Agency Art. 3 and
Chapter III: Arts. 9-15.
Regulation 1.4 Recruitment and placement, Standard 1.4 paragraph 2:
Authorization to General Directorate for the Merchant Marine to Seafarer
Manning Agency in order to compliment of the Maritime Labour Convention,
2006.
6. Hours of work and
hours of rest
(Regulation 2.3):
Royal Decree 1/1995 Statute of Labourers: Art. 34.
Royal Decree 1561/1995: 21-09-1995, about hours of work and hours of rest
modified by Royal Decree 286/2002, 22-03-2002: Arts. 8,9,15-18bis. Annexes
I and II.
Seafarers’ Hours of Work and the Manning of Ships Convention, 1996 (No.
180): ILO/IMO Guidelines for developing work organization crew.
Add. prov. 16th Royal Decree 2/2011: Law of Ports and Merchant Marine.
7. Manning levels
(Regulation 2.7):
Order 14-07-1964, minimum crew for merchant and fishing ships, modified by
Order 5-09-1964 and Order 15-09-1975.
Royal Decree 2/2011: Law of Ports and Merchant Marine.
International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), 1974:
Regulation V/14.2: requires that every ship to which the regulation applies be
provided with a Minimum Safe Manning Document.
Resolution A.1047(27) International Maritime Organization (IMO) 30-11-
2011, Principles of Minimum Safe Manning.
8. Accommodation
(Regulation 3.1):
Existing ships: ILO’92 Accommodation of Crews Convention (Revised), 1949.
New ships: Maritime Labour Convention, 2006.
Standards A3.1.18 and A3.1.19
Royal Decree 7-09-1934 Regulation Foreign Healths.
Royal Decree 258/1999, 12-02-1999, minimum conditions for health
protection and medical care for seafarers: Art. 9.
9. Recreational
facilities (Regulation
3.1):
Maritime Labour Convention, 2006: Regulation 3.1 and Standard A3.1.
10. Food and catering
(Regulation 3.2):
Royal Decree 1109/1991, 12-07-1991 standards about quick-frozen foodstuffs
for human consumption.
Royal Decree 1254/1991, 2-08-1991 standards about preparation and
preservation, public facilities, food for immediate consumption contained in
the egg as an ingredient, especially mayonnaise, sauces and creams.
Royal Decree 140/2003, 7-02-2003 standards about health criteria for water
quality for human consumption.
Regulation EC178/2002 European Parliament and Council 28-01-2002 about
the principles and requirements of Food Laws, creation of the European Food
Safety Authority.
Regulation EC852/2004 European Parliament and Council 29-04-2004, about
the hygiene of foodstuffs: Annex II (Chapters I, II, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX and
VI). Regulation International Health 2005.
11. Health and safety
protection and accident
prevention (Regulation
4.3):
International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), 1974: Annex I
International Safety Management Code (ISM).
Law 31/1995, 8-11 Law of Labour Risk Prevention: Arts. 14, 15, 16, 18 and
19. Royal Decree 39/1997, 17-01-1997 about the Regulation of Prevention
Services: Arts. 3 to 7.
Order TAS2926/2002, models for reporting accidents and transmission by
electronic means.
12. Medical care on
board ship and ashore
(Regulation 4.1):
Royal Decree 568/2011, 20-04-2011 and Royal Decree 258/1999, 12-02-1999
about minimum conditions for health protection and medical care for seafarers.
Order PRE/646/2004, 5-03-2004, about the syllabus of specific health
education programs and the conditions for issuance of the certificate of
approval and health training of seafarers.
733 Maritime Policies and Issues and Maritime Heritage
13. On-board
complaint procedures
(Regulation 5.1.5):
Maritime Labour Convention, 2006: Regulation 5.1.5 y Standard A5.1.5.
14. Wages (Regulation
2.2)
Royal Decree 1/1995 Statute of Labourers: Arts. 26 and 29.
Collective agreement if they’re Chapter II of arbitration award.
Order 27-12-1994 about model of individual payslip.
Add. prov. 16th Royal Decree 2/2011: Law of Ports and Merchant Marine.
Source: Authors’ own elaboration from http://www.fomento.es/MFOM
5. CONCLUSIONS
As authors as stated in this and other works, Port State Control is the framework which
will effectively contribute to achieve the objectives of the MLC,2006. Harmonization,
uniformity, cooperation and exchange of information are essential for the success of the
MLC, 2006. But the entry into force of MLC,2006 will be only the starting point for the
ratifying Members to face a revised enforcing approach where seafarers’ rights have to
be given the deserved significance. Shipowners will have to demonstrate compliance
with the MLC, 2006. The door is opened to a new scenario in the practice of States, to
put seafaring on a basis equal to that of other distinctive professions and occupations,
with regard to the conditions of living and working of the persons employed. It would,
however, be very optimistic to think that the Flag States, most of them now Open
Registries, are going to put into effect more rigorous policies to control the abuses that
are currently being committed in the recruitment and contracting of crews. The
improvement of maritime working conditions in EU ports is more likely to come from
effective Paris MoU inspections rather than from any new regulation imposed by Flag
States on “their” shipowners and dissertation operators. This will be evident in the coming years.
Disclaimer: The content of this article does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the
European Maritime Safety Agency. Responsibility for the information and views
expressed in the article therein lies entirely with the authors.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bauer PJ (2007) The Maritime Labour Convention: An Adequate Guarantee of Seafarer
Rights, or and Impediment to True Reforms Chi J Int Law 8:643-655
Cariou P, Mejia MQ, Wolff, FC. (2008) On the effectiveness of port State control
inspections. Transportation Research – Part E 44(3):491–503
Cariou P, Mejia MQ, Wolff, FC. (2008) An econometric analysis of deficiencies noted
in port State control inspections. Marit Policy Manag 34(3):243–258
Chaumette P (2010) El Convenio sobre el Trabajo Marítimo: cuarto pilar del Derecho
Internacional Marítimo. Rev Ministerio Trabajo 82:65-76
734 Maritime Transport
EC (European Council) (1994). Council Directive 94/57/EC of 22 November 1994 on
common rules and standards for ship inspection and survey organizations and for the
relevant activities of maritime administrations.
EC (1997). Directive 97/58/EC of 26 September 1997 amending Council Directive
94/57/EC on common rules and standards for ship inspection and survey organizations
and for the relevant activities of maritime administrations.
EC (2001). Directive 2001/105/EC of 19 December 2001 amending Council Directive
94/57/EC on common rules and standards for ship inspection and survey organisations
andfor the relevant activities of maritime administrations.
EC (2007) Council Decision 2007/431/EC of 7 June 2007 authorising Member States to
ratify, in the interests of the European Community, the Maritime Labour Convention,
2006, of the International Labour Organisation. OJ L161:63 22-06-2007
EC (2009a) COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 2009/13/EC of 16 February 2009 implementing
the Agreement concluded by the European Community Shipowners’ Associations
(ECSA) and the European Transport Workers’ Federation (ETF) on the Maritime
Labour Convention, 2006, and amending Directive 1999/63/EC.
EC (2009b) Directive 2009/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23
April 2009 on compliance with flag State requirements.
EC (2009c). Directive 2009/15/EC of 23 April 2009 on common rules and standards for
ship inspection and survey organisations and for the relevant activities of maritime
administrations.
EC (2009c). Ruling (CE) Nº 391/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of
23 April 2009 on common rules and standards for ship inspection and survey
organisations.
EC (2012) Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council
concerning flag State responsibilities for the enforcement of Council Directive
2009/13/EC implementing the Agreement concluded by the European Community
Shipowners’ Associations (ECSA) and the European Transport Workers’ Federation
(ETF) on the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006, and amending Directive 1999/63/EC.
EC (2013) Directive 2013/54/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20
November 2013 concerning certain f lag State responsibilities for compliance with and
enforcement of the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006. OJ L329:56 10-12-2013
González-Gil J (2013) Le contrôle par l’État du port en tant que cadre pour la réuss ite
de la CTM 2006. Revue de droit comparé du travail et de la sécurité sociale 2. Centre de
droit comparé du travail et de la sécurité sociale (COMPTRASEC)
ILO (2006) Maritime Labour Convention. International Labour Conference. Text
available in:
http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/@ed_norm/@normes/documents/normativei
nstrument/wcms_090250.pdf
735 Maritime Policies and Issues and Maritime Heritage
Li KX, Zheng H (2008) Enforcement of law by the Port State Control (PSC). Marit
Policy Manag 35(1):61–71
Marina Civil (2013) 106:17-22
McConnell ML(2011) The Maritime Labour Convention – reflections on challenges for
flag State implementation. WMU J Marit Affairs 10:127-151
McLaughlin HL (2012) Seafarers and Seafaring. In: Talley WK (eds), The Blackwell
Companion to Maritime Economics. Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Paris MoU (2013) Results first month Maritime Labour Convention: 7 ships detained
for MLC-related deficiencies. Press Release 14.10.2013:
https://www.parismou.org/results-first-month-maritime-labour-convention-7-shipsdetained-mlc-related-deficiencies
Piniella F, Rasero JC, Aragonés (2005) Maritime Safety Control Instruments in the Era
of Globalisation. J Marit Research II(2):19-39
Piniella F, Silos JM, Bernal F (2013) Who will give effect to the ILO’s Maritime
Labour Convention, 2006? Int Labour Rev 152(1):59-83
Rodríguez E, Piniella F The New Inspection Regime of the Paris MoU on Port State
Control: Improvement of the System. J Marit Research IX(1):9-16
Ruano-Albertos S, Vicente-Palacio A (2013) Adapting European Legislation to the
Maritime Labour Convention 2006 Regulations in Relation to the State Responsibilities
of Both the Flag State and the Control of Ships by Port State Control. Beijing Law
Review 4(4):141-146
THETIS: https://portal.emsa.europa.eu/web/thetis
Vicente-Palacio A (2019) El Convenio OIT de Trabajo Marítimo (CTM 2006) avanza
hacia su entrada en vigor. Últimas actuaciones de España y de la Unión Europea a favor
de la protección del trabajo de la gente del mar. Revista General del Derecho del
Trabajo y de la Seguridad Social, Iustel 20
736 Maritime Transport