There’s an odds-on chance the EU will let the Philippines off the hook and not withdraw recognition of Filipino STCW certificates. This won’t mean, however, that all is suddenly well. The European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) report which triggered the EU threat painted an unflattering picture of the country’s maritime educational system. Only five of more than 85 academies were visited by the EMSA team in 2010. But four are well-known institutions, and three had deficiencies that were only partially addressed or not addressed at all.
To be fair, attempts were made by the schools inspected to fix the shortcomings that first came to light during the first EMSA visit in 2006. The Philippine Merchant Marine Academy (PMMA) and the Palompon Institute of Technology (PIT) were both given a clean bill of health. Three others, however, had deficiencies that jutted out likely ugly sores. Consider these findings by the EMSA team:
Philippine Maritime Institute (PMI)
- undefined requirements for instructors and assessors conducting simulator training
- seven out of a total of 61 instructors lacked appropriate training in instructional techniques
- no records to show the 10 instructors using the GMDSS simulator had the required qualifications
- in the electrical workshop, equipment for coupling and changing over AC generators lacked adequate protection against electrical hazards; no safety isolation facilities in operator’s position; power supply for exercises with motors obtained using naked cables from main switchboard at 220v; no sufficient equipment for practical exercises
- only two exercises developed for training with ARPA radar simulator; training objectives general and not specific; described performance criteria only enabled familiarisation with the equipment’s capabilities; no evidence of testing and validation of training exercises
University of Cebu
- fuel and lubricant kit acquired after the 2006 inspection but had not been used in the regular training of students by 2010
- laboratory equipment in electrical, electronic and control engineering same old equipment shown to inspectors in 2006, preventing students from attaining skills needed
University of Visayas
- preventive maintenance procedure adopted based on manufacturer’s recommendation for hours of industrial use and not adopted for training purposes
- equipment of electronic & electro-technical laboratory same as that in 2006 and seriously inadequate for basic understanding and skills training of students
- equipment purchased by school for training in system control, hydraulics and pneumatics but had not been used at time of 2010 visit
- steam turbine operational after repair of steam plant machinery workshop but had no speed control feedback loop installed – thus creating dangerous risk of uncontrolled over-speed
- two exercises developed in open sea scenario had maximum of three targets and included learning objectives and assessment procedures but two exercises on their own not sufficient to cover training in the necessary skills
- no manual of exercises with learning objectives and assessment procedures laid down
We’d like to think that all the deficiencies have been addressed by now. Reforming the maritime education and training (MET) system is another matter. It won’t be easy or quick. It will require political will on the part of the bureaucrats supervising the schools and training centres and an end to corruption. Anything less will not do. Anything less will be bad for the Filipino seafarer factory. ~Barista Uno
Ever wondered why so few Philippine airlines have international flights to Europe? It’s not because the airlines have poor safety records – many of them are pretty good – it’s because of lax government oversight. The EMSA report identified the same problems with oversight by government bodies whose job it was to ensure that the Philippines produced quality seafarers.
Bob Couttie is absolutely right…we do have government agencies who do not have a clear understanding of the competencies required by the STCW 78 as amended.These regulating agencies are at the mercy of the “consultants” coming from maritime schools and training centers whose primary interest is to protect business profits.
These agencies regulate through people with vested interests rather than the requirements of the Conventions they are supposed to support. Take the case of TESDA (Technical Education and Skills Development Authority)…instead of putting up laboratories and training their own people they fanned out the assessment of ratings to their chosen training centers. CHED (Commission on Higher Education) have members of the technical working panel who come from the schools they regulate…The MTC (Maritime Training Council) have Technical panel members who are from training centers they regulate. Representation is valid but not all members should come from regulated business.
EMSA maintains double standards. It seems that conventions and regulations are only for small countries. Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) of the Philippines is 2.4 (134th place) when Georgia’s index is 3.5 (68th place). Now would anyone tell me that Georgia has more deficiencies in fulfilling STCW convention? Answer is no.
I’m trying to say that, yes, EMSA’s recommendations and claims were correct. They were right when making those heavy steps in the case of Georgia, but it seems that this crew supply country (is) like a hanged man in front of everybody.
In my opinion, nothing will change with the Philippines. The fact is that in countries which lack democracy or have weak democratic and transparent institutions, there can’t be rule of law, they cannot fulfill and follow domestic legislations, not to say anything about international obligations.
I know the means of how to make STCW certificates, including COCs, in some crew supply countries (not in GEORGIA) – just send money and have back ready documents. But their COCs are recognized by EMSA. In Georgia, you might get in jail for offering money to anyone for making certificates and COCs.
It seems that Georgian seafarers will only be victims of EMSA.
Thank you, Nicolas. Your comparison of the deficiencies in STCW between your country and the Philippines exacted a very hearty laugh and made my day. Your skit writing is like listening to Bob Hope.
I am posting the following article with permission from Capt Leuel Osena, an alumnus of the Philippine Maritime Institute (PMI). You can visit http://www.amigos-marino.org for the whole article and the EMSA report.PMI RALLYING POINTS
Article 20 of EC directive is clear on HOW recognition of certificates will be withdrawn. At this point, No EC member state officially complained or intend to withdraw the endorsements of certificates issued by the Philippines comparable to what Norway and Australia did in 2002. Therefore, closing PMI is not the one-stop solution to comply EMSA.
1.) Why close PMI and transfer the students to schools
NOT yet inspected and audited by EMSA?
2.) Who can prove these schools pass the EMSA standard?
3.) If PMI today, in spite of its two FULL mission bridges, one
Training Ship, long line of PRC Board top-ten passers, and a
big alumni pool of successful deck officers and marine
engineers, is viewed UNFIT to offer BSMT and BSMARE by
CHED, what happens to our students going to
schools without proven historical track record?
4.) If there’s no EC member state complaining against the
Philippines initiate the withdrawal method, as per Article 20
of EC directive, why displace 12,000 maritime students of
PMI?
5.) If CHED itself is not fully compliant with EMSA, then
why disrupt the education and training of 12,000 future
seafarers?
6.) If MTC of DOLE itself is not fully compliant with EMSA,
then why allow the dislocation of 12,000 PMI students?
7.) If PRC itself is not fully compliant with EMSA, then why
remain silent on the dilemma of 12,000 future officers?
8.) What is the government PPP program for if private maritime
institution like PMI will be crippled by CHED closure order?
PMI had years to get it acts together. It declined to do so. You feel it wrong that the EU should take steps to protect itself against poor standard training.
The Philippine government is responsible for ensuring that maritime training facilities adhere to standards and regulation. It did not do so.
The PMI got what it deserved.
The incident reported here: http://wp.me/pxyhm-4Ci (Filipino officer) and, of course the Rena grounding in New Zealand which involved Filipino officers are likely, rightly or wrongly, to raise questions in the public mind.
Nice input people. It’s true that our Maritime institutions have a lot to improve with the support of the Philippine Government. However we can’t fully rely on Gov’t Agencies. I still believe democracy is founded on its people and not the government. This would mean improvement and help would still come from the people itself.
This is my thought that’s why I created http://www.seamanonline.ph to form a body, an organization, an entity that will help improve and monitor our shipping and maritime industry. Feel free to register and log-on to http://www.seamanonline.ph. Yes, I am asking your help for the industry I have long embraced and cared for. And I need people like you who have good thoughts and proper criticism.
thanks,
Seamanonline.PH