It’s been two weeks since ILO Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 went into force. Yet, everything is quiet on the MLC 2006 front. No flurry of Port State Control inspections. And no news of ships being detained for not adhering to the so-called ‘seafarers’ bill of rights’. But how could it be otherwise? Although nobody is calling it as such, the global shipping industry – not just shipowners – has been granted a grace period, a moratorium.
Says the UK P&I Club in its latest (16th August 2013) Q&A on MLC 2006: ‘It is anticipated that Port State Control authorities are unlikely to fully implement MLC inspection requirements before 20th August 2014.’ The Paris MoU (Memorandum of Understanding) said as much in its press release of 12th August 2013. ‘The ILO,’ it noted, ‘has adopted a Resolution requesting port States to allow ships to continue to operate without a Maritime Labour Certificate (and Declaration of Maritime Labour Compliance) during a period of one year after 20 August 2013. ILO invited the member States to take a pragmatic approach in this respect during the first year.’
The ILO resolution referred to (Resolution XVII) dates back to February 2006, when the International Labour Conference met for its 94th maritime session in Geneva. The ILO folks realised early on the practical problems of enforcing MLC 2006 on the day it would come into force – time to train enough inspectors, the huge number of vessel certifications, etc. But what does it matter? Seafarers have had their rights violated for ages. What difference will a one-year moratorium make?
The real difference will be seen after 20th August 2014, and it will be between practicality and leniency. ~Barista Uno
Feel free to comment on this article. You may also like:
One final important word on MLC 2006
A Filipino seaman’s doubts on MLC 2006
Seafarer education and MLC 2006
“The real difference will be seen after 20th August 2014, and it will be between practicality and leniency””.
Let me draw a parallel below and you decide:
QUOTE:
The collapse of Lehman Brothers shook the global financial system to its core five years ago. Nevertheless, lawmakers continue to shy away from making the necessary reforms.
Superficial Reforms
Between 2009 and 2011, the governments of the 20 leading industrialized and emerging economies (the G-20) agreed at several summit meetings that fundamental reforms were needed. They were determined that banks should never again be in a position to blackmail entire countries, because they were too big and too closely intertwined with the rest of the financial world to be allowed to fail. That was the consensus reached by world leaders, from German Chancellor Angela Merkel to US President Barack Obama.
The G-20 resolutions were followed by many attempts to tame what former German President Horst Köhler once called the “monster” of the financial markets. But the results remained tenuous.
While it is certainly true that bank bailouts no longer have to be ironed out in hectic, nighttime crisis meetings, it is also true that large banks, especially in the United States, are raking in billions once again.
But the new sheen is deceptive, because banks owe much of their comeback to ongoing support from governments and central banks. Instead of having to launch bailout operations worth billions, they have simply turned to a policy of slowly feeding the financial industry with cheap money.
In the euro zone, many banks would have trouble refinancing themselves without the help of the European Central Bank (ECB),
UNQUOTE
Now you may ask what the above have to do with the ILO Maritime Labour Convention, 2006, which went into force two weeks ago?
Thanks for your time and hospitality.
Thank you for dropping by and commenting, Nicholas. Always appreciated.
I see where you’re coming from. All I can say is that money is a commodity, seafarers are not. Reforms to promote the human rights of seafarers are as important and urgent as bank reforms, if not more so.