The situation has not gone unnoticed by social partners. Regulation 4.3 and
Standard A4.3 of the MLC, 2006 as well as Article 32 of C188 on health and safety
protection and accident prevention provide the legal basis for employers to “establish on-board procedures for the prevention of occupational accidents, injuries and
diseases”. In setting up these procedures, companies might take into account the ICS
Guidance on Large Scale Rescue Operations at Sea, which supplements the UN
Refugee Agency Rescue at Sea: A Guide to Principles and Practice as Applied to
Refugees and Migrants. The development of the ICS Guidance is a milestone as
there is no other procedure on safety, security and health issues arising out of the
maritime migration challenge.
The ICS Guidance goes through several safety issues including checklists and
information that ought to be posted on a ship area specifically intended for rescued
persons. Nevertheless, and as pointed out by Iussich and Maglić (2018), the recovery
process of desperate people on board unseaworthy ships is very challenging for a
non-specialized crew. The Standards of Training, Certification and Watch-keeping
(STCW) Convention lays down in Section A-VI/2 Mandatory minimum requirements for the issue of certificates of proficiency in survival craft, rescue boats and
fast rescue boat, but towing to rescue others is not mentioned as a competence.
Reference to towing is made on the IMO Model Courses 1.23 (Proficiency in
survival craft and rescue boats) and 1.24 (Proficiency in fast rescue boats), but
only one-hour practice is allocated that is barely performed during onboard drills
(Iussich and Maglić 2018). The difficulties in the recovery process increase the
psychological pressure upon the crew.
Rescue at sea not only poses significant safety issues, but also security risks. The
ICS Guidance also takes them into account by recommending the prohibition of
weapons on board and isolation of rescued people from the crew where possible.
However, it is not only the possibility of criminals boarding the ship, but also that
conflicts on board might escalate as a consequence of the disembarkation issue.
Indeed, practice shows that the master of the rescuing ship may have a hard time
following the RCC’s orders as the MV Tampa case again illustrated; although
ordered to deliver the refugees in Indonesia, the vessel ended up trying to enter the
Christmas Islands’ port because some asylum seekers threatened to commit suicide.
In view of these problems, the ICS Guidance suggests the RCC to take into account
‘the Master’s preferred arrangement and location for disembarking or transferring
the rescued persons, mindful that rescued persons should not be disembarked or
transferred to a place where their life or safety would be at risk’. However, the trend
is going in another direction and masters left to host on board a large number of
people for longer than expected or advisable.
All in all, safety and security issues contribute to augment health issues related to
rescue at sea. First, crew members are under pressure exerted by their employers to
proceed without further delay, by the State authorities to comply with their orders,
and by the rescued people who have their own agenda. Second, they assist people
severely injured or deeply traumatised, what might have a significant impact on crew
members themselves. And third, the rescued might bring diseases on board in
addition to the hygienic issues related to host a significant number of people on
90
L. Carballo Piñeiro
Standard A4.3 of the MLC, 2006 as well as Article 32 of C188 on health and safety
protection and accident prevention provide the legal basis for employers to “establish on-board procedures for the prevention of occupational accidents, injuries and
diseases”. In setting up these procedures, companies might take into account the ICS
Guidance on Large Scale Rescue Operations at Sea, which supplements the UN
Refugee Agency Rescue at Sea: A Guide to Principles and Practice as Applied to
Refugees and Migrants. The development of the ICS Guidance is a milestone as
there is no other procedure on safety, security and health issues arising out of the
maritime migration challenge.
The ICS Guidance goes through several safety issues including checklists and
information that ought to be posted on a ship area specifically intended for rescued
persons. Nevertheless, and as pointed out by Iussich and Maglić (2018), the recovery
process of desperate people on board unseaworthy ships is very challenging for a
non-specialized crew. The Standards of Training, Certification and Watch-keeping
(STCW) Convention lays down in Section A-VI/2 Mandatory minimum requirements for the issue of certificates of proficiency in survival craft, rescue boats and
fast rescue boat, but towing to rescue others is not mentioned as a competence.
Reference to towing is made on the IMO Model Courses 1.23 (Proficiency in
survival craft and rescue boats) and 1.24 (Proficiency in fast rescue boats), but
only one-hour practice is allocated that is barely performed during onboard drills
(Iussich and Maglić 2018). The difficulties in the recovery process increase the
psychological pressure upon the crew.
Rescue at sea not only poses significant safety issues, but also security risks. The
ICS Guidance also takes them into account by recommending the prohibition of
weapons on board and isolation of rescued people from the crew where possible.
However, it is not only the possibility of criminals boarding the ship, but also that
conflicts on board might escalate as a consequence of the disembarkation issue.
Indeed, practice shows that the master of the rescuing ship may have a hard time
following the RCC’s orders as the MV Tampa case again illustrated; although
ordered to deliver the refugees in Indonesia, the vessel ended up trying to enter the
Christmas Islands’ port because some asylum seekers threatened to commit suicide.
In view of these problems, the ICS Guidance suggests the RCC to take into account
‘the Master’s preferred arrangement and location for disembarking or transferring
the rescued persons, mindful that rescued persons should not be disembarked or
transferred to a place where their life or safety would be at risk’. However, the trend
is going in another direction and masters left to host on board a large number of
people for longer than expected or advisable.
All in all, safety and security issues contribute to augment health issues related to
rescue at sea. First, crew members are under pressure exerted by their employers to
proceed without further delay, by the State authorities to comply with their orders,
and by the rescued people who have their own agenda. Second, they assist people
severely injured or deeply traumatised, what might have a significant impact on crew
members themselves. And third, the rescued might bring diseases on board in
addition to the hygienic issues related to host a significant number of people on
90
L. Carballo Piñeiro