leading the way; making a difference filipino seafarers and the emsa audit bill box intertanko
TRANSCRIPT
Leading the way; making a difference
Filipino Seafarers and the EMSA audit
Bill BoxINTERTANKO
Leading the way; making a difference
Structure of the talk
Why is this an issue?LegislationEMSA audit processDecision points – audit concernsTimelinePossible outcomes Contingency planning
Leading the way; making a difference
Why is this an issue?
80,000 Filipino seafarers on EU ships
Endorsement of training equivalence required ...
... or Filipino officers not allowed to sail on EU flagged ships
Leading the way; making a difference
Legislation
STCW Convention – obligation on Member States to endorse only CoCs that up to standard
I/10 Recognition of CertificatesI/8 Quality StandardsI/2 Certificates and Endorsements
Leading the way; making a difference
I/10 Recognition of Certificates
... the Administration has confirmed, through an evaluation of that Party, which may include inspection of facilities and procedures, that the requirements of the Convention regarding standards of competence, training and certification and quality standards are fully complied with
Leading the way; making a difference
I/8 Quality Standards
1.1 ... all training, assessment of competence, certification, endorsement and revalidation activities carried out by non-governmental agencies or entities under its authority are continuously monitored through a quality standards system to ensure achievement of defined objectives, .2 where governmental agencies or entities perform such activities, there shall be a quality standards system.
Leading the way; making a difference
I/2 Certificates and Endorsements
... shall endorse such certificate to attest its recognition only after ensuring the authenticity and validity of the certificate ...
The endorsement shall only be issued if all requirements of the Convention have been complied with.
Leading the way; making a difference
Flag State endorsement
Evaluation of the issuer’s systemQuality standards systemAll requirements of the ConventionThen an endorsement can be issuedThen seafarer can sail under another flag
Leading the way; making a difference
EMSA audit process
EMSA evaluations of Filipino admin:
•2006 highlighted failings•2006-2010 EMSA inaction re Philippines•2010 first real threat of a ban•2010-2013 three follow-up inspections
Leading the way; making a difference
October 2013 final inspection
Decision points – audit concerns
1. Quality standards System 2. Programme and course approval3. Monitoring and evaluation of training and
assessment 4. Maritime education and training institutions
Leading the way; making a difference
Quality Standards System
EMSA found limited evidence of QSS implementation
Response: QSS not fully implemented as only running < 6 months
Leading the way; making a difference
Programme and course approval
EMSA concerns over management level courses – no consistency in delivery
Response: New syllabi developed and being implemented
Leading the way; making a difference
Monitoring and evaluation of training and assessment
EMSA saw non-uniform assessment of monitoring activities - different evaluators = different results
Response: More uniform training
Leading the way; making a difference
Maritime education and training institutions
EMSA found some institutions usingeasy, unchallenging questions
Response: cracking down on standards
Leading the way; making a difference
Philippines Response
Serious engagement by government
Joint House Bill reinforcing MARINA
Philippines not too big to fail
Government ‘gets it’
Leading the way; making a difference
Timeline - report
1. 20 February was deadline for Philippines Government to respond and correct factual errors.
2. EMSA finalise report (no specific deadline) and send to European Commission (EC).
Leading the way; making a difference
Timeline – EC decision
3. EC to decide on recommendation regarding derecognition of Philippines-issued CoCs and endorsements oil/gas/chemicals.
Decision point most likely before the summer break.
Leading the way; making a difference
Timeline - COSS
4. Recommendation from EC then placed in front of the Committee on Safety of Sea (COSS).
Leading the way; making a difference
Timeline - decision and implementation
5. EU Member States who make up COSS decide on the EC recommendation.
6. Decision of COSS implemented in legislatures of Member States
Any ban would take place from end of 2014 at the VERY earliest.
Leading the way; making a difference
Possible outcomes
Complete ban on endorsements
Partial ban due to some poor training
No ban and no deficiencies
Leading the way; making a difference
Complete ban
EC decides Philippines not in complete compliance
Precedents:Georgia banned for 5 yearsPhilippines aircraft for 3 years
Not inconceivable.
Leading the way; making a difference
Partial Ban
EC decides that only part of the Convention is being complied with.But no option exists for partial compliance.
‘The endorsement shall only be issued if all requirements of the Convention have been complied with.’ (I2)
Leading the way; making a difference
No ban
If EC decides that they are in full compliance, with no deficiencies, then no ban.But, need to downgrade any deficiencies to observations.Elicit technical assistance from EU States.
Leading the way; making a difference
Technical assistance
‘Directive 2008/106/EC only allows for the recognition or withdrawal of recognition of national maritime education and training systems’(Nov 2012 Report)
Leading the way; making a difference
Technical assistance
‘Since one of the main obstacles for the Philippines to achieve STCW compliance is the lack of technical qualified human resources in charge of school-monitoring, Member States might be willing to assist the authorities in developing the needed capacity in this field’(Nov 2012 report)
Leading the way; making a difference
Contingency planning
New 5-year endorsementsOnly applies to EU-flagged shipsFilipino seafarers trained in Philippines, but examined in an EU State
Leading the way; making a difference
Thank you