Front Page |
 |
 |
Some Nations May Be Lax On Compliance With STCW '95 |
|
|
|
|
By MICHAEL R. McKAY | |
|
The U.S. is bustin' butt to comply with STCW '95-Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, adopted by the International Maritime Organization of the United Nations. Confronting a February 2002 compliance deadline, the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy in Kings Point, N.Y., and state-operated maritime academies in Maine, Massachusetts, New York, Texas, and California have altered their core curricula to meet STCW mandates, and they market specific STCW courses to mariners already on the job. Joint industry-labor training centers like AMO's Raymond T. McKay Centers for Advanced Maritime Officers' Training and RTM Simulation, Training, Assessment and Research Centers have had to broaden their programs beyond license and rating upgrades to accommodate the requirements. In AMO, union members can take STCW training at any approved site if it is more convenient for them than traveling to Dania Beach-the U.S. Coast Guard, which enforces compliance with the mandates, has identified more than 280 training sites nationwide that offer courses in one or more specific STCW disciplines. No question about it-STCW is a complicated and expensive burden to industry, to labor and individual mariners, and to taxpayers who fund Kings Point, federal aid to state academies, and Coast Guard services. STCW often intrudes on a seagoing individual's personal time and forces many to delay upgrading or pursue independent study for the higher license or unlicensed rating. Many believe STCW has driven young, talented men and women from seagoing careers, thereby aggravating a confirmed shortage of skilled and dependable officers and crew members for sealift and other military support services in defense emergencies. Nevertheless, STCW is something we have to live with in the American merchant marine. U.S. mariners who do not have the appropriate STCW certifications by 2002 will have fewer job opportunities because they will not be permitted to work aboard ships operating outside U.S. waters-no exceptions. And, while the STCW regime-which requires demonstrated proficiency, rather than written examination-now affects only those sailing deep-sea, there is a possibility that some STCW requirements will be extended to include the Great Lakes and even some inland trades. One especially troubling aspect of STCW is the increasing sense that many other countries-and some bureaucrats in the IMO-are not following the U.S. example. Some governments appear to be putting off or ignoring their responsibilities. For example, the IMO reported in May that 82 IMO signatory countries had submitted the seafarer training program reports required of them under the STCW convention. Many of the reports were submitted after the August 1998 deadline. The problem is that there are 158 IMO countries-by the IMO's own count, 76 countries are either late by nearly two years or they have no seafarer training programs. In addition, only 42 of the 82 submitted reports had ben audited by the IMO as of mid-May, meaning the information in the remaining 40 had not yet been verified. As a result, the IMO expects a delay of at least six months in the release of its "white list," which will identify countries said to provide quality maritime training. Some countries that supply seagoing labor, but which provide no training, were said to be pleased by that prospect. As one published report put it: "There is speculation that some of them are pushing for publication of the list to be pushed back further still." The Philippines, for example, now has some breathing room. Filipinos fill an estimated 200,000 seagoing jobs worldwide, mostly through crewing agents who do very well dispatching them to flag-of-convenience cargo and cruise ships, and the government desperately wants its training programs certified in time for "white list" inclusion. There are two good reasons for that. Once the "white list" is released, ships owned or registered in IMO flag states would-theoretically, anyway-draw their crews only from IMO-approved countries, if for no other reason than to deny port states the opportunity to detain ships because the crews are unqualified. And, if the "white list" is delayed for too long, unilateral or regional regulations could be developed to pre-empt the IMO. The IMO's latest disclosure followed its report of widespread fraudulent STCW certification under some flags of convenience. The IMO in May was still trying to determine "the nature and extent of unlawful practices" and "their main sources and geographical areas." Meanwhile, the Coast Guard understands its responsibilities under STCW, and its enforcement policy will not be influenced or compromised by what other governments do. "Our ability to quantitatively demonstrate the knowledge and skill acquired is far better under STCW than our previous system, and is a step that the Coast Guard believes is in the right direction," said Coast Guard Captain Myles S. "Chip" Boothe in a recent address in Washington. "I fully acknowledge that there is a cost associated with this improved accountability, but it is a worldwide cost which should enhance environmental protection and overall vessel and port safety." Capt. Boothe, who oversees the Coast Guard's mariner licensing and documentation unit, also said STCW waivers or eased requirements are "short-sighted alternatives, and neither is the answer to improving our competitive edge." He called for "an alarm sounded throughout the maritime industry that those that wish to continue a seagoing career need to acquire the required STCW training without delay." No one in AMO can afford to ignore Capt. Boothe's blunt counsel. Whether or not STCW enforcement is uniform worldwide is a legitimate issue, but long-term job security in our union is-as always-a priority. If you need STCW certification, please make the appropriate arrangements as quickly as possible by calling CAMOT/STAR Student Services at 1-800-942-3220, ext. 7112. |
 |
| Front Page |  |
Return To Section-Front |