Maritime Security from the
Viewpoint of Maritime Labor
George A. Quick
Vice President
International Organization of
Masters, Mates and Pilots
Maritime Security
• Maritime labor fully supports ship and port
security as envisioned by the IMO in the ISPS
Code.
• There is a need to recognize the international
scope of the maritime transportation system.
• Only an international regime can effectively
address the security of a global transportation
system.
ISPS Code
• The IMO undertook the drafting and adoption
of the ISPS Code in 2002.
• In drafting the Code it was recognized that
there was a potential conflict between security,
the efficiency of maritime transport and the
human rights and working conditions of
transport workers
ISPS Code
Preamble to the ISPS Code
10 Nothing in this Code shall be interpreted or applied
in a manner inconsistent with the proper respect of
fundamental rights and freedoms as set out in
international instruments, particularly those
relating to maritime workers and refugees,
including the International Labor Organization
Declaration of Fundamental Principles and Rights
at Work, as well as international standards
concerning maritime and port workers.
ISPS Code
• A major concern was that a security regime
would unreasonably restrict the freedom of
movement of seafarers by:
• Denial of shore leave
• Denial of access through terminals
ISPS Code
Preamble to the ISPS Code
11 Recognizing that the Convention on the Facilitation of
Maritime Traffic, 1965, as amended, provides that foreign
crew members shall be allowed ashore by the public
authorities while the ship on which they arrive is in port,
provided that the formalities on arrival of the ship have been
fulfilled and the public authorities have no reason to refuse
permission to come ashore for reasons of public health,
public safety or public order, Contracting Governments when
approving ship and port facility security plans should pay
due cognizance to the fact that ship’s personnel live and
work on the vessel and need shore leave and access to shore
based seafarer welfare facilities, including medical care.
ISPS Code, Part A - Mandatory Provisions
16 PORT FACILITY SECURITY PLAN
16.2 The port facility security plan shall be approved by the
Contracting Government in whose territory the port facility is
located.
16.3 Such a plan shall be developed taking into account the
guidance given in Part B of this Code and shall be in the
working language of the port facility. The plan shall address, at
least, the following:
.15 procedures for facilitating shore leave for ship's
personnel or personnel changes, as well as access of visitors
to the ship including representatives of seafarers' welfare
and labour organizations.
ISPS Code
• The provisions of the ISPS Code regarding
shore leave and access through port facilities
are not being adhered to by all governments.
• The denial of shore leave and access through
port facilities are of major concern to seagoing
maritime labor.
• In June of 2004 the IMO issued further
guidance on the proper application of the ISPS
Code in MSC/Circ.1112
MSC/Circ.1112- Shore Leave and Access to Ships under the ISPS Code
1 The 2002 SOLAS Conference that adopted …….the ISPS
Code…………..was aware of potential human aspect
problems affecting the fundamental human rights of seafarers
with the imposition of a security regime on international
shipping on a global basis. It was recognized that seafarers
would have the primary duties and responsibilities for
implementing the new security regime for ships. At the same
time, there was concern that the emphasis on port facility
security may result in the ship and seafarers being viewed as a
potential threat to security rather than partners in the new
security regime.
MSC/Circ.1112- Shore Leave and Access to Ships under the ISPS Code
2 In this regard, it was recognized that there may be conflicts
between security and human rights, as well as between
security and the efficient movement of ships and cargoes in
international trade that is essential to the global economy.
There must be a proper balance between the needs of security,
the protection of the human rights of seafarers and port
workers, and the requirement to maintain the safety and
working efficiency of the ship by allowing access to ship
support services such as the taking on of stores, repair and
maintenance of essential equipment, and other vital activities
that are appropriately undertaken while moored at port
facilities.
MSC/Circ.1112- Shore Leave and Access to Ships under the ISPS Code
4 To address these concerns and principles…..
the ISPS Code provides that a port facility security
plan (PFSP) must contain procedures for facilitating
shore leave, crew changes and access for visitors
including representatives of seafarers’ welfare and
labour organizations. This should be construed as
including shore-based ship support personnel and the
taking onboard of ship’s stores. The guidance
contained in ……. the ISPS Code reinforces this
requirement by providing that the PFSP should
contain such procedures relating to all security levels.
ISPS Code, Part A - Mandatory Provisions
14 Port Facility Security
14.1 A port facility is required to act upon the security levels
set by the Contracting Government within whose territory it is
located. Security measures and procedures shall be applied
at the port facility in such a manner as to cause a minimum
of interference with, or delay to, passengers, ship, ships’
personnel and visitors, goods and services.
The Identity dilemma
• There is a need for a universally accepted
seafarer identity document.
• The International Labor Organization (ILO)
has developed an international Seafarer
Identity document (SID).
• The ILO SID Convention is not yet ratified
and some countries are reluctant to accept an
identity document issued by another country
for visa or travel purposes.
The Identity dilemma
• In order to go ashore or travel for crew change
purposes the United States is now requiring
seafarers to make a personal appearance before
a US Consul to obtain an individual visa.
• This is a time consuming and costly
requirement for a foreign seafarer.
The Identity dilemma
• The Australian model - a Maritime Crew Visa
(MCV).
• Application with passport number via the
internet.
• Security check against Australian database.
• Visa issued within three to four days,
electronically linked to passport number.
• No charge to the seafarer for the visa.
The Problem
•
Security professionals lack an understanding
of the maritime industry.
•
A singular focus on the port facility in the
security plan without consideration of its
impact on the other partners in the maritime
transportation system.
The Problem
The politics of fear driving the security
agenda – more important to look vigorously
committed to security regardless of whether
the action or program is reasonable or
effective.
THE END
I hope I have said enough about maritime labor
and maritime security to start an interesting
discussion with some of you over the next few
days.