indications that coastal States are not prepared to meet the solutions discussed in an
inter-agency meeting with the maritime industry on mixed migration organized by
IMO on 30 October 2017 with the participation of ITF, ICS, BIMCO, IFSMA, IOM,
UNHCR, UNODC, OHCHR and EUNAVFOR. In this meeting, the shipowners’
associations put forward the humanitarian nature of rescue operations—as opposed
to maritime interceptions could be here added—and the significance of the work
done by NGOs that has relieved merchant shipping and fishing from the rescue
obligation. However, not even 2 years after the meeting, the situation has clearly
moved in the opposed direction to the clear mandate coming from international
humanitarian and human rights law, leaving shipowners and owners of fishing
vessels to face the economic losses and crewmembers the potential occupational
hazards.
While concerted efforts at an international and regional level are essential to
alleviate the burden placed upon seafarers and fishermen by the law of the sea, the
political and socio-economic winds do not seem to blow in that direction and
crewmembers will still be required to undertake risky rescue operations without
proper training. A review of SOLAS, STCW and STCW-F Conventions along with
the ISM and ISPS Codes is advisable to prepare seafarers and fishermen for this type
of rescues at sea. Such review might not be feasible, but IMO might request
programmes to include basic training on how to handle safety, security and health
issues arising out of rescue of a large number of people at sea.
OSH matters are covered by the MLC, 2006 and C188. If accidents, injuries or
diseases occur as a result of rescues at sea, they have to be characterized as
occupational, even if they surface time after it. The main shipowners’ associations
have already acknowledged that: “The long-term psychological effect on seafarers
who have conducted large scale rescues at sea is a further matter of concern to the
industry” (IMO 2017). As mentioned above, the ICS Guidance also reminds that
shipboard programmes have to take into account the possibility “with appropriate
support and monitoring of crew members”. The point is what kind of support and
monitoring when their coverage is still not clear.
Both the MLC, 2006 and C188 address social security protection, but it is still a
national matter to be decided either by the law of the flag or the law of the seafarer’s
country of residence. In accordance with Regulation 4.5, Standard A4.5 and Guideline B4.5 of the MLC, 2006 as well as Articles 34 to 37 of C188, ratifying States
shall undertake steps to provide seafarers and fishermen residing in their territory
with a full coverage. However, a research on the MLC, 2006 database and the
declaration issued by ratifying States on branches of social security protection
provided in accordance with the abovementioned provisions reveals that there is
still a long way to go until full coverage is granted. Moreover, many States do not
cover seafarers residing in their territory and sailing on board foreign-flagged ships
whose protection is then in the hands of the flag State. The uncertainty as to the
applicable law to social security matters and lack of coordination among systems
only increases the vulnerability of seafarers and fishermen.
92
L. Carballo Piñeiro
inter-agency meeting with the maritime industry on mixed migration organized by
IMO on 30 October 2017 with the participation of ITF, ICS, BIMCO, IFSMA, IOM,
UNHCR, UNODC, OHCHR and EUNAVFOR. In this meeting, the shipowners’
associations put forward the humanitarian nature of rescue operations—as opposed
to maritime interceptions could be here added—and the significance of the work
done by NGOs that has relieved merchant shipping and fishing from the rescue
obligation. However, not even 2 years after the meeting, the situation has clearly
moved in the opposed direction to the clear mandate coming from international
humanitarian and human rights law, leaving shipowners and owners of fishing
vessels to face the economic losses and crewmembers the potential occupational
hazards.
While concerted efforts at an international and regional level are essential to
alleviate the burden placed upon seafarers and fishermen by the law of the sea, the
political and socio-economic winds do not seem to blow in that direction and
crewmembers will still be required to undertake risky rescue operations without
proper training. A review of SOLAS, STCW and STCW-F Conventions along with
the ISM and ISPS Codes is advisable to prepare seafarers and fishermen for this type
of rescues at sea. Such review might not be feasible, but IMO might request
programmes to include basic training on how to handle safety, security and health
issues arising out of rescue of a large number of people at sea.
OSH matters are covered by the MLC, 2006 and C188. If accidents, injuries or
diseases occur as a result of rescues at sea, they have to be characterized as
occupational, even if they surface time after it. The main shipowners’ associations
have already acknowledged that: “The long-term psychological effect on seafarers
who have conducted large scale rescues at sea is a further matter of concern to the
industry” (IMO 2017). As mentioned above, the ICS Guidance also reminds that
shipboard programmes have to take into account the possibility “with appropriate
support and monitoring of crew members”. The point is what kind of support and
monitoring when their coverage is still not clear.
Both the MLC, 2006 and C188 address social security protection, but it is still a
national matter to be decided either by the law of the flag or the law of the seafarer’s
country of residence. In accordance with Regulation 4.5, Standard A4.5 and Guideline B4.5 of the MLC, 2006 as well as Articles 34 to 37 of C188, ratifying States
shall undertake steps to provide seafarers and fishermen residing in their territory
with a full coverage. However, a research on the MLC, 2006 database and the
declaration issued by ratifying States on branches of social security protection
provided in accordance with the abovementioned provisions reveals that there is
still a long way to go until full coverage is granted. Moreover, many States do not
cover seafarers residing in their territory and sailing on board foreign-flagged ships
whose protection is then in the hands of the flag State. The uncertainty as to the
applicable law to social security matters and lack of coordination among systems
only increases the vulnerability of seafarers and fishermen.
92
L. Carballo Piñeiro