139
1 RESEARCHMETHODOLOGY
The research was conducted within 6 partner
countries(Bulgaria,Romania,Spain,Turkey,Ireland,
Slovenia) with four separate questions.
Complementary desktop research was conducted to
validate the findings at national, European and
International Level with reference to international
standards.Eachpartnercollatedinformationthrough
their countries administration
which was cross‐
referencedwithinternationalpractices[1].
Figure1.NationalResearchMethodology
Review of European Maritime Certification
of Competence Practices
U.Acar
1
,G.DeMelo
2
&N.Curran
3
1
MaritimeInnovators,Istanbul,Turkey
2
TechnicalUniversityofCatalonia,Barcelona,Spain
3
NationalMaritimeCollegeofIreland,Cork,Ireland
ABSTRACT:Thispaperspecificallyhighlightsthevariouselementsofthenationalpracticesthatareroutinely
carriedoutatprojectpartnernationaladministrationlevelwithrespecttoStandardsofTrainingCertification
and Watchkeeping of Seafarers (STCW) training and endorsement of seafarers in the Certification
and
Competency(COC),particularlywithintheEuropeanUnion.
Themethodologyusedinthispapercontainstheresearchmainlyconductedwith6partnercountries(Bulgaria,
Romania,Spain,Turkey,Ireland,Slovenia)withaseriesofquestionsdesignedtocaptureinformationasmuch
as possible in the early stages for the project, information around
maritime training of seafarers and their
certificationinvariousrolesandcompetencies.
Thechaptersrepresentthecurrentpracticesatnationallevelforpartnersoftheprojectandthetargetaudience
responded provided tocompare specificrequirements andtraining practices with reference to international
standards.Thisinformationisusedtoinvestigate
anybarriersthatarecurrentlypresentforseafarerscertificate
ofcompetencyinendorsementorrecognitionoftheirprofessionalqualifications.
http://www.transnav.eu
the International Journal
on Marine Navigation
and Safety of Sea Transportation
Volume 18
Number 1
March 2024
DOI:10.12716/1001.18.01.13
140
2 STCWROLEINCERTIFICATEOF
COMPETENCY
ThenationaladministrationsusetheSTCWstandards
forrecognitionof foreigncertificates,however,there
are some specific rules regarding recognition of
certificatesissuedbycountries.
The Administrations maintain a ‘Whitelist’ of
Training Centers in other countries for specific
CertificatesofProficiency(CoP)
recognitionandthese
criteria are specifically guided by IMO standards in
terms of competent training institutes and centers.
Thesecriteriaarespecifiedbasedontheinternational
requirements for CoP certification in a focused or
specialistrole[2].
Ithasbeennotedthattherehasbeenashiftinthe
global supply
of trained seafarers from Europe and
theUnitedStatesofAmericatoAsiannationsandthe
farEast.Consequently,therearesome differencesin
training practices when a comparison is made
between such regions. From the perspective of
internationalSTCWstandardsonmarinertraining,all
nations committed to the provision
of seagoing
personnelmustadheretothesespecificCertifications
ofCompetency(CoC)andCertificationofProficiency
(CoP)standards.
However,althoughtherequirementsoftheSTCW
are the global standard, it has been noted also that
certaintrainingpracticesareexperiencingalagperiod
with respect to state‐of‐the‐art technologies.
An
example can be given when considering energy
transition and the International Code of Safety IGF
code requirements which havebeen implementedin
STCWsince2017.Thetrainingofpersonnelhasbeen
slow to meet these new requirements for seafarers,
however this type of training and certification for
instance in
Bulgaria is now being observed to be
catchingup.
From a European member state perspective, all
training aligned with STCW standards are taught
across training providers and certified by national
administrations. There does not appear to be any
significant barriers to seafarers having been trained
up on the newest shipping technology,
as crewing
management, and shipping companies themselves
provide the specific demand for training and
certification of future mariners working towards
professioninsuchfields[3].
3 CROSSRECOGNITION
According to all ENDORSEME project ‘‘Enabling
Seafarers toMutual Endorsement’’ partner countries
responses, STCW training is provided to all
individuals across the
European Union, including a
‘whitelist’ of so called third countries like the USA,
Australia,andothers.However,ithasbeenfoundthat
training practices in third countries in many cases
differ fromthe STCW standardsand theseare what
gives rise to challenges in cross recognition. Even
within EU member states,
specifically, Italian
legislationimposes stricter standards, and thus does
not adhere closely to Directive 2008/106/EC, as
amendedbyDirective2012/35/EU,andfailstofollow
totheletterthespecificprovisionsontherevalidation
of certificates set out in section A‐I/11 of the STCW
Code.Asaresult,updatingand
renewingcertificates
has become particularly complicated, as what are
essentially bureaucratic problems are preventing
workers from continuing in their profession as
normal, despite abundance of experience and
qualificationinmanycases.
Thisalsolimitsthosetrainedseafarersfromother
EU nations and third countries from applying and
workingonboardan
Italianflaggedvessel.Thereare
several examples within the EU of these limitations
andbarrierstorecognition.InIrelandforexample,the
UnitedKingdomwhichisnowathirdcountrysince
leavingtheEuropeanUnion,hasvariousagreements
with the UK due to geographic and geopolitical
considerations. It remains to
be seen how these
barriers could be strengthened in the near future as
STCW regulation isupdated and reassessed.From a
Bulgarian perspective, agreements on cross‐
recognition or endorsement with third countries has
not been approved, but as a member of the EU, is
obliged to recognize the CoCs (Certification of
Competencies) and CoPs (Certification of
Proficiencies) issued by another member state after
confirmingtheirauthenticity.Forthethirdcountries,
thisisvalidonlyforthosewhichareincludedinthe
EMSA list. But this recognition does not lead to
endorsement.ThisismorecomplicatedforTurkeyas
being EU member
candidate. Endorsement of COCs
and COPs are much more challenging for Turkish
seafarerswithinEU.
There is a process in Romania regarding third
countryvalidationofCoCandCoPcertification.Ifthe
thirdstateinquestionisnotonthelistpublishedin
the Official Journal of the European Union, the
Romanian maritime administration can issue a
request to the commission, stating the reason for a
specific case for recognition. There is a clause that
states if the commission does not return a decision
within 18 months of application, the Romanian
administration may then decide unilaterally on the
recognitionofthe
certificatesissuedbythecompetent
authority of the respective state. This is clearly a
barrier that could be reformed with reference to the
timeframe that the commission must decide.
Reducing the time that a prospective seafarer must
wait in this particular case would speed up the
processtoendorsementoftraining
certification.Ithas
been noted also that Slovenian mariners holding
CoC’sareworkingsolelyonEUflaggedvessels.The
reasonforthisappearstobetheresultofnumbersof
qualifiedindividuals,whichisapproximately40who
obtaintheirCoCeachyear.Becauseofthisfact,they
donotface
anyrecognitionproblems.
If the seafarers have a CoC from an approved
country but has CoPs from non‐approved Training
Centers,theywouldnotberecognizedinsofarasthe
relevant CoP has not been validated. Certification
fromapprovedtrainingcentersisonlyrecognizedin
ordertoendorseanindividual’s
certifications.
141
4 NATIONALANDINTERNATIONALCASES
There are numerous case study examples that have
beenlookedatbyorganisationslikeEMSA(European
MaritimeSafetyAgency)andthe IMO(International
Maritime Organisation) in relation to shipping and
maritime safety challenges. Many of these studies
tend to focus on aspects of safety
at sea from the
perspectiveoftheworkingenvironment.Manymore
Asian nations like Vietnam, Indonesia and the
Philippinesare now consideredtobe inthe top five
largest supply countries of seafarers (officers and
ratings) according to the International Chamber of
Shipping.[4]
Thisshiftissaidtobethe
consequenceofseafarers
seekinghigherstandardsofemploymentinEuropean
flaggedandAmericanvessels.Thishasshowntobea
majorchallengefortheshippingindustrytorespond
to,asdemandforofficershasincreasedyearonyear
since 2000. Consequently, so called third country
qualifiedseafarersfromtheperspective
oftheEUare
showntoholdcertificationsthatarenotfullyaligned
with standard STCW qualification. This creates an
issuegloballyinthecross‐recognitionofcertifications
fromAsiannationsasmentionedabove.Inaspecific
casestudyfocusedonVietnam,potentialreasonsmay
be attributed to the combined effects
of changing
international regulations such as working time
legislation,the higher back up ratio which increases
the demand for seafarers, and the lower manning
scales on modern vessels that reduces demand. The
challengethiscreatesisdemandforseafarerscannot
readilybemetduetothelongleadtimeinvolved
in
trainingseafarerscomparedtotheshortertimeframe
requiredforbuildingandlaunchinganewvessel[5].
As mentioned previously, IGF code training
requirements have become a barrier to certification.
TherewasacaseafewyearsagoinBulgariatowhich
someseafarerswereunabletooperateoncertain
EU
flagged vessels because of the absence of such
training.OnceBulgariannationallegislationadopting
theIGFcodetrainingrequirementswasestablished,it
remained a limiting factor in the provision of this
trainingfortheBulgarianseafarersforsomeyearsdue
to lack of training providers covering the
requirements. Curren tly,
there is an option to
Bulgarian seafarers to complete their training with
IGFcoderequirements,andthisisbecominglessofa
barrier[6].
Certain EU member states using Slovenia as an
example, having quite a small shipping sector and
consequently a sufficient maritime training
infrastructure, the supply of trained seafarers
from
active training colleges and facilities have been
capableofservicingthecurrentdemandformaritime
personnel.
Figure2.ExampleonRomaniaPracticesinCOCs
5 BETTER CERTIFICATIONPRACTICES
There is no support or guidance for the
administrationswhichtheycanapplyinthecasesof
seafarers holding a non‐recognized certification, for
them to be able to work on ships under the state’s
flag.
All the information about recognition of
certificatesispubliconAdministrations’
websites.
InIreland,Romania,andBulgariainthecontextof
this question, there have been online IT platforms
identifiedthatarebeingadoptedwithinothersectors
butalsointraininginstitutesthathavethecapability
toprovideinformationonqualifications,coursesand
STCW standards to certification requirements out to
sea.
InthecaseofIreland,thereisaplatformoronline
toolthatiscurrentlyunderdevelopmentbytheIrish
MaritimeAdministration.Thisonlinetoolislikethat
in existence within the oil and gas sector, OPITO
approved courses and certification. NMCI (National
Maritime College of Ireland) in Ireland have for
several years since 2010 been delivering fully
accredited OPITO approved offshore courses. It is
through collaborations like this that programmes to
develop such tools for the maritime sector has
emergedinIreland.InRomania,thereareseveralIT
platforms in existence for online training. Constanta
Maritime University is implementingsuch
products,
onebeingaplatformfortrainingandexaminationfor
all curricula developed by the University, based on
STCWConventionrequirements.
TheBulgarianNavalAcademyisintheprocessof
adopting similar online tools as above. In a similar
tooltowhatisbeingdevelopedinRomania,thereis
an IT
platform for training and examination of
COLREG (Collision Regulations) traineeships which
areinuseregularly.[7].
ENDORSEME project develops a tool for COC
endorsement and it is encouraging that there are
workingexamplesofanonlineplatformavailablethat
iscarryingoutthetasksandgatheringsuchrelevant
endorsement information
for employers and
employees of the oil and gas sector and now also
maritime training facilities. In designing and
developingatoolthatwillstoreseafarercertifications,
providedetailsofthemostuptodateinformationon
requirements by country, and potentially act as a
platform in which national administrations and
traininginstitutescanpromoterefreshercourses,each
142
nation that has global STCW agreements could link
up with one another providing an international
databaseofrelevantinformationonendorsementsto
allprospectiveseafarers.[8].
Figure3.NationalPracticespartnercountries
6 CONCLUSION
The information provided above, although only the
beginning of data gatheringin thisproject, provides
themostuptodateinformationfromprojectpartners
in the context of the national practices currently
undertakenbymaritimetrainingprovidersinpartner
countries. This is clearly limited to the questions
designedand
includedinthisdocument.Also,aspart
ofthisphaseofresearch,supplementaryinformation
willbeprovidedbyaseriesofsurveyquestionnaires
that have been circulated to maritime stakeholders
andnational administrationsinpartner countries.In
addition to training provision at each institute
participatingon the project, we are
seeking relevant
experiences from seafarers regarding their personal
challenges orbarriers to endorsement overseas from
where they achieved their qualifications. Once it is
discovered, the practices and processes that show
pathways to solutions for various obstacles to cross
recognition will be included as recommendations to
relevant authorities and administrations responsible
for
updating and implementing maritime training
standardsforEuropeanseafarers.
All this information is included also in the
development of an online tool/platform whereby
seafarers, training providers and national maritime
administrations will have access to such data. This
could help to streamline and improve knowledge
sharing in the maritime and shipping
sector, and
possibly lead to more collaborative endorsement or
recognitionofsuchtraininginEurope.
REFERENCES
ENDORSEMEProject,2021‐2023,EnablingSeafarersMutual
Endorsement.www.endorseme4seas.com
International Maritime Organization. (1978). International
ConventiononStandardsofTraining,Certificationand
Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW). Retrieved June 7,
2023,fromhttps://www.imo.org
Chen, B. (2000). An investigation into the current state of
ChinesehigherMET[MaritimeEducationandTraining]
in the light
of new international legislation with
reference to STCWʹ95. World Maritime University
Dissertations.
InternationalChamberof Shipping. AccessedJune7,2023.
[Website:https://www.ics‐shipping.org/]
Demirel, E., & Bayer, D. (2015). Improvement of safety
educationandtraining forseafaring officers. Electronic
JournalofSocialSciences.
Theshortageofqualifiedpersonnelin
maritimeandinland
waterwaytransport.
Trainingrequirementsforpersonnelonshipssubjecttothe
IGFcode.
(2012).Studyontheuseof AlternativeDispute Resolution
for Business‐to‐Business disputes in the European
Union,FinalReport
