International Journal

on Marine Navigation

and Safety of Sea Transportation

Volume 2

Number 2

June 2008

207

The STCW Convention & the Manning

Resolution NEED Amendment & Improvement

F.R. Chowdhury

Bahamas Maritime Authority, UK

1 INTRODUCTION

The adoption of the International Convention on

Standards of Training, Certification and Watch-

keeping in 1978 was a milestone in the history of the

International Maritime Organisation. I say so

because no amount of advancement or refinement in

design, material, construction and equipment would

have achieved the ultimate goal of safety unless

people were trained to operate safely and efficiently

the ship and its equipment. In respect of manning

there are two words very closely inter-related –

sufficiency and efficiency. The former relates to

the “Safe Manning Document” under SOLAS and

the latter is the subject of STCW Convention.

The original Convention as adopted in 1978 was

the first step in standardisation of training to a global

context. However, the Convention was open to

different interpretation because of the openness of

its language. Far too many things were left “to

the satisfaction of the Administration”. The first few

years of its operation revealed the areas of weakness

that the world shipping community needed to

improve. In 1995, the Convention was thoroughly

revised - as much as it could be, for acceptance

through “tacit approval”. 1995 was the year

when IMO concentrated on the human element

and developed another Code (later to become a part

of SOLAS) known as the International Safety

Management Code – commonly referred to as ISM

Code. The revised standards of the STCW

Convention commonly referred to as STCW95 (not

correct from legal point of view) and the ISM Code

together were meant to address the issue of

efficiency (human performance).

Things have improved. But there is still more to

achieve. Unfortunately some of the important

matters in the Convention need to be clarified for

uniform interpretation so that Member States can

work together to achieve the common goals. The

purpose of this paper is to analyse those ambiguities

and suggest measures so that standards of training

and certification can be further improved.

2 STCW CONVENTION

Convention should call up on Party States to develop

suitable domestic training and certification system in

line with the Convention for masters of vessels

operating in the vicinity of the sea-going vessels and

the Engine Operators of vessels of propulsion power

of less than 750 kW that operates in short sea

voyages. (This requirement may be introduced

208

through a regulation instead of amendment to an

Article).

2.1 Chapter I: Regulation I/10 – Recognition

of certificates

The regulation explains in detail how a Flag State

may recognise (after necessary check and verification)

certificates issued by other Party States and issue

Endorsements to allow the holder to serve on ships

registered under its Flag. However, the regulation

does not make it clear that before the Flag State

considers recognising the certificate it has to ensure

that the certificate issuing State is duly listed by

the IMO as one of those States to have given full

and complete effect to the provisions of the

Convention.

Another matter that causes a lot of confusion is

the inspection of facilities and procedures. Some

Flag States think they can accept certificates of those

who graduate from particular schools. This is wrong

because it is supposed to be “State to State”

recognition and not recognition of individual

schools. If the training facilities and procedures

(approved by the Administration of the State where

they are located) are not of the desired standards

then it is best not to recognise certificates issued by

that Party State. Recognising certificates originating

from particular schools amounts to interfering with

internal matters of that State. It is for the Certificate

issuing State to ensure that standards of training and

assessment in all approved institutes are maintained

to the same level.

2.2 Chapter I: Regulation I/11 – Revalidation

of Certificates

In paragraph 5 it is stated that for the purpose of

updating the knowledge of officers the

Administration shall ensure that the texts of recent

changes in national and international regulations

concerning safety of life at sea and the protection of

the marine environment are made available to ships

entitled to fly its flag. The Administration is not

directly responsible for the operation of the ships

under its flag. The objectives could be conveniently

achieved by introducing this requirement as a

“company responsibility” under regulation I/14 (in

addition to present reference in regulation I/11) to

state that “Company shall ensure that necessary

publications are supplied to the ship under its mana-

gement so that officers can update their knowledge

in relation to latest changes and requirements in

respect of safety and environmental protection”.

2.3 Chapter II: Regulation II/2 – 4.1 – Master and

Chief Mate on Ships between 500 and 3,000

gross tonnage

It appears that in order to serve as Chief Mate on

ships less than 3,000 GT it is only necessary to hold

a Certificate under regulation II/1 as Navigational

Watch-keeping Officer. This virtually allows a person

having no previous independent watch-keeping

experience to suddenly become Chief Mate of a ship

as big as 3,000 GT. This is potentially dangerous.

The requirement specified in sub-paragraph 4.1

of regulation II/2 is contrary to the fundamental

principle of training and experience. This needs to be

corrected. Sub-paragraph 4.1 must contain an

element of mandatory sea-service while holding II/1

Certificate as a Navigational Watch-keeping

Officer.

From the language of the present regulation it

appears that training and assessment (A-II/2) is only

required for the capacity of master. This is wrong.

The training and assessment must also be a

mandatory requirement for the capacity of a Chief

Mate. There must be the requirement for additional

experience (sea-service) while holding II/2 certificate

to become a master. This serious ambiguity must be

removed.

2.4 Chapter V: Regulation V/1 – Tanker training

and certification

One big change that has been made through the

amendments in 1995 is to change the training system

from mere knowledge based education to

competence based skill and knowledge. This has

been achieved by the introduction of four columns to

include – competence, knowledge, demonstration

and assessment. Unfortunately the tanker training

has not yet been put in this new format. The entire

syllabus/ course content for tanker training must be

re-arranged. Special attention should be given to

recent development of the gas technology and its

transportation. SIGTTO (Society of International

Gas Tanker & Terminal Operators) has done some

excellent work in this field and this should be taken

into consideration while updating the requirements

for gas tanker training. Perhaps it is also time to

develop separate training programmes for LPG and

LNG tankers.

In regulation V/1.4 it is written “Administration

shall ensure that an Appropriate Certificate is issued

to …..”. There are at least two elements of confusion.

Firstly the use of the word Administration (means

the Administration of the State whose flag the ship

carries) makes it restrictive in the sense that only

Flag State can train and issue the certificate (contrary

to the concept of regulation I/6). It should be the

209

“Party State” (providing training and issuing the

certificate) leaving it open for the Flag State to

accept the same or insist on its own training and

certification. The second part of the confusion is the

use of the term “Appropriate Certificate” which has

been defined (in regulation I/1) as a certificate issued

and endorsed for a particular capacity with a range of

functions which is still in many countries referred to

as a “Certificate of Competency”. Surely a certificate

testifying to the training and experience required for

service on a tanker is different and it should have a

certificate to that effect. It is strongly recommended

that the sentence must be amended to state “A

certificate to the effect that the officer has met the

requirements of regulation V/1.2 (for the relevant

type of tanker) may be issued”.

2.5 Chapter V: Regulation V/2 & V/3 – Training

for service on Ro-Ro Passenger Ships and other

Passenger ships

The training requirements are very similar except

that training for Ro-Ro Passenger ships also includes

design feature, stability, flooding, closing devices

and lashing of vehicles etc. etc. Seafarers trained

under regulation V/2 get to know more than what is

contained in V/3. There is no justification for the

seafarer to undertake V/3 training if s/he has already

received training under V/2. It is, therefore, strongly

recommended that a special note should be added

after regulation V/3 to state that “Training and

certification under regulation V/2 being more

extensive, stringent and onerous will also be valid

for service on other passenger ships”.

2.6 Chapter VI: Regulation VI/1 – Familiarisation

and Basic Safety Training

Use of the words “training or instruction” is

inappropriate. Advice or instruction equates to a

briefing. It is quite possible that seafarers may

receive instruction (advice or briefing) to familiarise

themselves with the lay-out of the ship with special

emphasis on individual fire and muster stations. But

Basic (Safety) Training cannot be accomplished

through mere instruction; it has to be participatory

training. This becomes clearer in the last part of the

sentence where reference is made to “appropriate

standard of competence”. This makes it obvious that

Basic Training has to be not only achieved through

participatory training but there has to be a degree of

assessment to ensure that the standard of competence

has been met. The following amendment would

remove the confusion and assist in achieving a

common standard:

Regulation VI/1 – Every person, other than a

passenger, employed on a ship shall immediately

upon joining the ship receive the necessary

familiarisation instruction with respect to that ship in

conformity with Code A-VI/1.1. The familiarisation

instruction may be approved by the Administration

or be a part of the approved ISM/SMS procedures.

There must be documentary evidence of familiarisa-

tion instruction.

Every seafarer employed on a ship as part of

ship’s complement for the operation of the ship with

designated safety and pollution prevention duties

shall have (prior to joining the ship) successfully

completed the Basic Training comprising of the four

elements referred to in the Code A-VI/1.2.

Code A-VI/1 should be amended accordingly to

reflect the requirements of the relevant regulation.

2.7 Regulation VI/3 – Advanced Fire-fighting

training

Training in advanced fire-fighting is meaningless

unless the person has some idea as to how a ship

looks like. There must be an entry requirement of a

minimum period of sea-service so that the seafarer

has some idea about bridge, engine-room, ship’s

galley, cargo space, accommodation, escape route

etc. Knowledge of a ship’s general lay-out and

arrangements is essential for conducting a successful

fire-fighting operation. It is, therefore, suggested that

every person who desires to undertake an Advanced

Fire-fighting training must have already undertaken

the Fire prevention and fire-fighting training (a part

of the Basic Training) and at least three months sea-

service. Informatively there is a similar requirement

of sea-service for undertaking Proficiency in

Survival Craft & Rescue Boat.

2.8 Issue of certificates to non-nationals

The Convention does not have any limitation or

barrier on nationality. A certificate symbolises one’s

qualification and competence. Any Party State that

wants to restrict employment of foreign nationals on

its ships can do so by having the necessary

provisions in the employment law or in the merchant

shipping legislation. Yet, some countries like the

United States and Canada do not issue certificates to

non-nationals. Nothing can be done about this, as the

sovereign countries make their own decisions.

In this respect it is important that Party States that

do not have their own training facilities within the

country should make “State to State” agreement with

another Party State for training and certification of

their seafarers. Such Party States may also make

210

direct arrangements (approval of training and

assessment under regulation I/6) with reputable

training centres abroad for the required training and

subject to meeting other requirements can issue

the Appropriate Certificate to their seafarers. While

recognising training centres abroad the Party must

ensure that the relevant training centres are

also recognised by their own Administration for

similar training purpose. Otherwise it would cause

the serious diplomatic embarrassment.

2.9 Training and Certification of Deck and Engine-

room Ratings

The Certificate of Qualification as an “Able

Seaman” dates back to an ILO Convention of 1946

when IMO did not exist. Recently ILO has decided

to hand-over this responsibility to IMO (now the

competent body for maritime training matter) to

develop a suitable replacement qualification. IMO

has taken the opportunity to develop two new

qualifications known as Able Seafarer (Deck)

under regulation II/5 and Code A-II/5 and Able

Seafarer (Engine-room) under regulation III/5 and

Code A-III/5. The new qualifications will be of a

level higher than II/4 and III/4. Party States should

make provision for utilising the skill such as those of

a mechanic or electrician learnt ashore for

certification under regulation III/5 (of course with

additional sea-related training).

2.10 GP Rating

There is quite an old concept of GP (General

Purpose) Rating referring to those who are qualified

both as Deck as well as Engine-room rating. It is

time that we recognise this concept. This can be

conveniently done by necessary amendment in

Chapter VII. Ratings that are qualified under both

II/4 and III/4 may be referred to as GP2. Ratings that

are qualified under both II/5 and III/5 may be called

GP1.

2.11 Certificate of Qualification as Ship’s Cook

The ILO Convention of 1946 has now become

obsolete. It never had any requirement of safety

training. We should draw up new requirements for

training and certification of Ship’s Cook (combining

minimum period of sea-service, safety training and

professional cooking with knowledge and

understanding of health, hygiene and dietary

supplement).

2.12 Issue of Ratings’ Certificates

Certificates for ratings are issued against regulations

II/4 and III/4. Soon there will be new ratings’

certificates under regulations II/5 and III/5. There

could be also Certificate of Qualification as Ship’s

Cook. (It is to be noted that the Cook’s certificate

was always referred to as a Certificate of

Qualification and not Competency so that it is not

confused with officers’ certificates). These

certificates (the final document) should be issued by

the Administration of a Party State. This is because

these certificates relate to specific capacities defined

in the Safe Manning Document. They are not mere

training components for which training institutes

could be approved and authorised. However, these

certificates not being officers’ certificates need not

be endorsed (reference Article VI.2) by the issuing

administration (regulation I/2) or the flag

administration in recognition (as referred to in

regulation I/10).

It is unfortunate that some states have authorised

companies to issue watch-rating certificates. Some

have even provided companies with printed forms or

letter-heads of the administration to issue such

certificates. This cannot be accepted as it dilutes the

whole requirement of quality control. It is a total

compromise of standards. Any amendment or

revision of the STCW Convention must make

specific reference to this matter and should try to

develop a common format for the certificates

(watch-rating and other new types of ratings) so that

it includes the name of the issuing administration,

capacity for which it is issued with reference to the

regulation of the Convention.

2.13 Security (ISPS) training

In view of the global threat of terrorism and piracy,

the need for security training has taken priority over

many other issues. Security training needs to be

included within the STCW Convention. The

Convention deals with seafarers’ training and as

such it may not include the training for Company

Security Officer which the Administration will have

to deal with as required under the Code.

The training for Ship’s Security Officer may be

included in Chapter VI (as new regulation VI/5)

which already deals with Emergency, Safety,

Medical and Survival functions.

However, it is also felt that all seafarers should

have some basic security awareness training. This

can be included in the revised “Basic Training” as

the fifth new component.

211

(Suitable training requirements are already given

in paragraphs 13.3 and 13.4 of the Part “B” of the

ISPS Code).

2.14 High Speed Craft (HSC) Training

Having discussed all training matters, it appears

that the only training component still left out of

the

Convention is the training for service on High

Speed Craft. The inclusion of HSC training will

make the Convention a comprehensive document of

seafarers’ training. This may be included in Chapter

V (as new regulation V/4) which already deals with

training for specialised vessels.

When new standards of training and certification

for operation of WIG (Wing in Ground) are adopted,

it could be also included in Chapter V (perhaps a

new regulation as V/5).

3 CONCLUSION

The process of technological development will

continue. Training requirements will have to keep

pace with it. This paper looks at the situation as it

stands today. There is a need for a comprehensive

review. There is need for consolidation, clarification

and interpretation. There must be no scope for

different interpretation of the same matter. Only then

we will have a common platform from where we can

move together to a better standard of training and

certification. However, any amendment or revision

must not touch the Articles in which case it would

have to be a Protocol to the Convention and make it

difficult to achieve.

However, in consultation with the legal division

of the IMO, efforts should be made to find a simple

way by which newer training requirements (such as

AIS, VDR and BWM etc.) introduced by LL,

SOLAS and MARPOL may be taken on board.

Revision of A-890 (Principles of Safe

Manning):

The MAIB (UK), NTSB (USA) and a number of

other accident investigation agencies have in recent

days blamed cumulative fatigue for many accidents

and casualties. This is happening because of

commercial pressure and unhealthy competition

where not only owners and operators but even

administrations are also becoming a party to

insufficient manning. It is time that for the cause of

better safety A-890 should be reviewed and revised.