Prudence dictates that we don’t completely discount the possibility of an EU ban on Filipino seafarers. We’re hoping, of course, that it won’t come to pass and that the EU will give the Filipino seafarer factory a thumbs up despite certain shortcomings. But what if? We made some quick taps on our calculator and the numbers tell us that the maritime bureaucrats in Manila had better do double-time work for the sake of everyone.
An EU ban, no doubt, would be earth-shaking. But it’s the series of aftershocks following the earthquake that should be cause for real concern. There’s a lesson to be learned from Georgia. The country did not have a significant number of seafarers employed on board EU-flags. The big blow came when a non-EU flag of registry withdrew recognition of Georgian STCW certificates immediately after the EU ban was slapped on Georgia.
So how many Filipinos will be directly affected if and when the EU decides to dump Filipino seafarers?
347,150 (total no. seafarers deployed in 2010)
x 5 (average no. of family dependents per seafarer)
________
1,735,750 (total no. of Filipinos to be directly affected)
The total figure would be significantly higher if one assumes a conservative 5% increase in seafarer deployment in 2011 and takes into account the Filipinos’ extended family system. In 2010 Filipino seafarers sent home a total of US$3.806 billion. It’s not just a matter of remittances, however. An EU ban will affect manning agents, maritime schools, review centres, training providers, medical clinics, doctors, maritime lawyers and even tailors. In a word, just about everyone who has been profiting from the sweat and tears of Filipino seafarers. ~Barista Uno
UPDATE: Filipino seafarer deployment declined by 1.03% in 2011, according to the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration. Still, the number remains significant.
“In 2010 Filipino seafarers sent home a total of US$3.806 billion” This is 80 percent of base pay, it does not include overtime and other bonuses etc. Many years ago, in consultation with the industry, we came up with a multiplier of 2.5 to reach the actual value to the Philippines. The maths is not hard.
And, yes, if the EU bans Filipino certs others will follow. I think Australia already refuses to recognise them.
Competency wise, we filipino seafarers are still ahead of other countries. However it is the relievers of officers/crew that makes the delays. Imagine, the new requirement of PRC is that those who have management license/coc from feb.2002 onwards must take a management level course? The cost is so exorbitant and will take about 2-3months. Look at all the training centers who offered this course…fiesta bonanza. Some European shipowners are not happy. There are officers who commanded their vessels on their ranks without any record of accident but still need to take this management level course. Otherwise, there is no c.o.c. Calling on President Aquino’s tuwid na daan policy makers…please check on this because our seafarers cannot complain because of fear of “violation of code of ethics”. If they try to complain to PRC..according to some lawyer sources, it is only those who are directly affected who can file a complain, others who are not directly affected cannot file…
Some of your gripes about the management level course (MLC) are well-grounded. But note that the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) itself has been pushing the MLC. Kindly read carefully the full EMSA report on the Philippines.
The MLC is an IMO mandatory requirement to make up for a shorter education in the Philippines and bringing them up to the same level as seafarers in other countries. Those responsible to ensure compliance were not doing so.
The other option would be to spend an extra year in education, certainly more expensive than the so-called ‘exorbitant’ cost of two to three months.
By treaty the Philippine government must ensure the MLC requirements are implemented.
Employment of Filipino seafarers, especially officers, in some maritime sectors, is certainly under pressure and I’d suggest that proposing the abandonment of IMO compliance is not a good idea at this time.
Bob, the MLC per se is not in the STCW Convention or Code. And I’m quite certain that the EMSA will agree with me. But you are correct in saying that MLC is mandatory to bring Filipino seafarers up to the STCW standards and the standards of other countries. As things stand, Philippine maritime education is wanting in this respect. This is the reason EMSA has been urging the Philippines to implement the MLC – and to implement it properly.
“An EU ban will affect manning agents, maritime schools, review centres, training providers, medical clinics, doctors, maritime lawyers and even tailors.”
Add: waiters, xerox operators, sidewalk vendors, real estate & condo agents, taxi drivers, pokpoks, trade unions, etc….
“MLC per se is not in the STCW Convention or Code” correct. Other countries are required to do something similar and the Philippines is not being held to higher standards than anywhere else.
Back in the 1980s and early 1990s the Philippines was given special treatment. The corrupt and inadequacy of training establishments and regulators lie the PRC were ‘over-looked’ because te industry needed seafarers and there were few options.
The result was a ‘glass ceiling’ which limited how many stripes a Filipino officer could get.
Indeed, many companies hired ‘experts’ to tell them how to manage Filipinos. Something not done for any other nationality.
In the 1990s the glass ceiling was removed but Filipinos had to meet the same standards as anyone else.
Also, special training to manage Filipinos largely came to an end – it isn’t done for anyone else so why do it for Filipinos?
Now, the competition is far greater.
As for the cost of the two or three month MLC – It’s not much more than a couple of months’ paychecks. Consider it an investment.