safety assessment and a more proactive consideration of the human element through
the “Human Element Analysis Process” (HEAP). The application of this paradigm
and related tools in the specific context of seafarer education and training is not
obvious. The framework remains predominantly prescriptive, with training being
multiplied for any new task or area of focus that arises and needs to be addressed on
board ship. As an example, one can contrast the reaction of the maritime industry
with other industries like aviation, when a post-911 world required significant
increase in security on ships. In most other industries, a well-trained cohort of
security personnel would have been drafted to ensure security. In the case of the
maritime industry, an already burdened crew were tasked to become the new “ship
security officers” with additional training which had cost implications for finances
and time. This regulatory approach to work on board ship has led to the incessant
compounding of what a seafarer should know, the training required to know this and
the associated cost to the seafarer and sometimes the shipowner. Unlike for many
other professional contexts, the maritime industry’s approach to regulation of education and training has—understandably, perhaps—led to significantly high levels of
diversity of trainings and high recurrence of such training for revalidation of
certificates.
60 The current legal and governance framework allows for the multiplication of training and certification which leads to a financial burden on seafarers. In
many cases such training has to be undertaken during the seafarers’ vacation time
with significant negative implications for fatigue and seafarer’s health and social
welfare. It also allows for the provision of seafarer education and training services to
take on a severely commercial and business ethos and model, which does not always
augur well for the achievement of the desired learning outcomes.
It may be argued that this multiplication of training, in and by itself, is limited in
its ability to comprehensively address the competence issues that face the industry.
Nevertheless, with clear signs of increased quantification of outcomes—aspects of
which have been called variously “the tyranny of metrics”,
61
“the McDonaldization
of society”
62 and “governance by numbers”
63
—it does not seem likely that the
global community will deviate from a path towards an increased number of prescriptive regulations. In parallel, the bid to subject more and more elements of the
education and training of seafarers to measurable outcomes for international legal
control will lead to more erosion of sovereignty.
60 Table B-I/2 in Section B-I/2 of the STCW Code, is an indicative table of the number of certificates
required under different regulations of the STCW Convention. They number about 14 (any seafarer
will possess anywhere up to 8 certificates at any one time not counting the myriad of company
specific training and associated certification.
61 Muller (2018).
62 Ritzer (2018).
63 Supiot (2017).
The Evolution of Seafarer Education and Training in International Law
489
the “Human Element Analysis Process” (HEAP). The application of this paradigm
and related tools in the specific context of seafarer education and training is not
obvious. The framework remains predominantly prescriptive, with training being
multiplied for any new task or area of focus that arises and needs to be addressed on
board ship. As an example, one can contrast the reaction of the maritime industry
with other industries like aviation, when a post-911 world required significant
increase in security on ships. In most other industries, a well-trained cohort of
security personnel would have been drafted to ensure security. In the case of the
maritime industry, an already burdened crew were tasked to become the new “ship
security officers” with additional training which had cost implications for finances
and time. This regulatory approach to work on board ship has led to the incessant
compounding of what a seafarer should know, the training required to know this and
the associated cost to the seafarer and sometimes the shipowner. Unlike for many
other professional contexts, the maritime industry’s approach to regulation of education and training has—understandably, perhaps—led to significantly high levels of
diversity of trainings and high recurrence of such training for revalidation of
certificates.
60 The current legal and governance framework allows for the multiplication of training and certification which leads to a financial burden on seafarers. In
many cases such training has to be undertaken during the seafarers’ vacation time
with significant negative implications for fatigue and seafarer’s health and social
welfare. It also allows for the provision of seafarer education and training services to
take on a severely commercial and business ethos and model, which does not always
augur well for the achievement of the desired learning outcomes.
It may be argued that this multiplication of training, in and by itself, is limited in
its ability to comprehensively address the competence issues that face the industry.
Nevertheless, with clear signs of increased quantification of outcomes—aspects of
which have been called variously “the tyranny of metrics”,
61
“the McDonaldization
of society”
62 and “governance by numbers”
63
—it does not seem likely that the
global community will deviate from a path towards an increased number of prescriptive regulations. In parallel, the bid to subject more and more elements of the
education and training of seafarers to measurable outcomes for international legal
control will lead to more erosion of sovereignty.
60 Table B-I/2 in Section B-I/2 of the STCW Code, is an indicative table of the number of certificates
required under different regulations of the STCW Convention. They number about 14 (any seafarer
will possess anywhere up to 8 certificates at any one time not counting the myriad of company
specific training and associated certification.
61 Muller (2018).
62 Ritzer (2018).
63 Supiot (2017).
The Evolution of Seafarer Education and Training in International Law
489