Hashtag mess- the bane of the seafarer.

The IMO’s press release in the run up to the ‘Day of the Seafarer’ is an exercise in rambling self-indulgence and desperate hashtag activism. I also question the motives behind this annual attempt that asks- pleads with- society to value seamen; a plea should be directed at the shipping industry first anyway. 

“Every year, June 25th is celebrated globally as the Day of the Seafarer, an official United Nations observance day,” the IMO reminds us. “This year, once again, the IMO is asking people everywhere to show their appreciation, through social media, for seafarers and their contribution to global prosperity”.  The IMO then asks everyone to complete the sentence- “Seafarers brought me….” and post it on Twitter and Facebook, adding the hashtag “#thankyouseafarers”.  Probably to help the juvenile part of the audience that is buying this deceitful and trite campaign, the missing word in that sentence can be anything that came by sea. There is also an ‘exciting’ virtual wall somewhere on IMO’s website where people will write down the things that seafarers brought them and which they value the most. 

Most seamen will say that the IMO works first to further the cause of the shore based part of the shipping industry; seamen’s interests- even their basic rights- come a very poor second. To then use the seafarer to evoke sympathy for the industry- or empathy with it, which is what the IMO campaign is really about- is disingenuous, even specious. The fact is also that the industry does not have a human face that it can present to the world (mainly because it does not want to spend the money to do so); seamen are the industry’s face, or so it thinks. I find it offensive that my ‘face’ is being used- without my consent or approval- by a UN organisation in this cynical bait-and-switch way. 

I am not sure that it is the IMOs job to extort sympathy or empathy from the general public. Its job is mainly regulatory. If it is really concerned about seamen, a day or a week spent pulling them out of the woodwork and parading them on social media will not cut the mustard. By the way, do we have any numbers on how much is being spent every year on this ‘Day of the Seafarer’ exercise, and what, if anything is the pay off? 

 Perhaps the IMO should concentrate more on its day job, including the breaches of basic safety regulations that occur every day on many, many ships around the world-instead. Perhaps it should concentrate on ensuring that seamen’s basic rights- including those that are now claimed to be enshrined in the MLC- are actually delivered. Perhaps it should persuade shipping to value its seafarers before it asks the general public to do so.

The IMO’s use of the social media to create sympathy for- or awareness about- shipping reveals that the industry has run out of ideas. And, leaving my distaste for Twitter and Facebook aside, social media is hardly the place for in depth analysis of anything; it is a very hopeful quick fix. The problems of shipping- especially its seamen- cannot be solved in 140 characters or less. They cannot be solved by an annual feel-good event that nobody, within or without the industry, really cares about. Hoopla is no substitute for substance. 

Many of you will tell me, hey! The IMO is not looking to solve any problems with this campaign, so why are you making this fuss?  And what is the harm if they try to create awareness- or evoke empathy for the industry- even if it involves using seamen as bait?

No harm, I guess. If only I could get rid of the distasteful feeling I have in my mouth, I am sure everything would be just fine.

 .

.

Licence to kill

To the consternation of my cat that was sleeping in my lap at the time, I could not help laughing as I read that the IMO was ‘on the verge of addressing the recognised and documented safety problem’ of underdeclaration of container weights by shippers. For everybody in shipping has known, expected and accepted underdeclaration of container weights for decades. Not just that, but improper stowage or securing, undeclared or ignored fire hazards and the like are rampant in the trade. 

The IMO is supposed to be voting shortly (see note below, please) on making mandatory weighing of containers before shipment, but underdeclaration of weights- which the industry delicately chooses to call misdeclaration- is just one of the issues. 

Now I have no idea about the way the IMO vote will go. I have written about this old, old problem before so I won’t repeat myself, except to point out that the IMO being on the verge of addressing the problem is akin to my nose hair clippers being on the verge of making me handsome. Chances are it just isn’t gonna happen. And even if it does, it will be diluted, circumvented or simply not implemented in many parts of the world, as is usual.

Recent capsizes and major fires on boxships have highlighted, once again, the widespread abuse by shippers of the system under which the entire container industry operates. Nonetheless, there seems to be a mini-confrontation between shippers and operators today. The World Shipping Council represents 90 per cent of global liner capacity; it wants the IMO to make mandatory the weighing of containers. Some countries like the Ukraine now require all containers discharged there to be weighed. This, after they found over a two week period, that 56 per cent of containers discharged in Ukrainian ports were underdeclared in weight. Others, including India, are planning to take similar steps. Planning, mind; there is usually many a slip.

Unsurprisingly, shippers are up in arms at the proposal.  Both Asian and European shippers’ bodies (allegedly representing 75 per cent of the trade) have warned the IMO not to vote for mandatory weighing of boxes before shipment, claiming disingenuously that such a move would seriously disrupt the global supply chain, be detrimental to trade, add to costs and, in any case, would fail to address the root causes of the safety problems tied to the transport and handling of containers.

That, frankly, is hogwash. Logistics chains ashore- even in countries with tough regulations that are actually enforced- do not seem to have any problems following shoreside safety regulations, so what makes shippers think that a simple weighing of each container before shipment is not possible? Of course it is; it has to be. What they are really saying is that the fraud some perpetuate on the system should be allowed to continue, and that their profiteering- on the back of criminal actions, since shippers are required to declare proper weights even under existing conventions- is untouchable. 

And, in the final analysis, what they are really saying is that the industry should continue to allow their profits to be more important than seamen’s lives, because it has always done so. 

Like I said, I don’t know which way the IMO will vote. We will know soon enough; they may have already done so by the time this appears in print. But I suspect that a vote for mandatory weighing will not be enough, even if that happens. I suspect that because I do not trust the system, and I do not trust many people in the system either. 

I reckon a few ports or a few countries will make mandatory weighting of containers compulsory, sooner or later, regardless of the IMO vote. As for the rest in the industry, they will make the right noises, perhaps, but nothing substantial will happen. 

For seamen, therefore, even a vote for mandatory weighing will be analogous to the admittedly hypothetical situation where Alice Eve unbuttons the top two buttons of her shirt, and then slaps me across the face when I  make my move.

Seamen are used to being slapped across the face by shipping; even so, it is about time that this criminal and murderous profiteering was stopped. It has gone on for far too long.

(Later note: Between the submission of this article and its publication in the Marex Bulletin, the IMO, which specialises in doing so, copped out once again. Its dangerous goods subcommittee chose a hedge allowing governments to choose between mandatory weighing and an alternative involving “adding together the different constituent parts of a container load at unspecified times and places along the transport route”.

The Global Shippers’ Forum called it a “sensible compromise.” 

Alice Eve, rejoice)

.

.

The MLC and flexible responsibility

President Borromeo of InterManager- the trade association of ship managers- asked Flag States a few weeks ago to exercise ‘maximum tolerance’ and ‘flexibility’ in the implementation of the MLC. Intermanager claims to represent the management of almost 5000 ships and to be ‘responsible’ for some quarter of a million seafarers, as its website says. It feels that, ‘as the MLC requires total commitment from its global stakeholders, restraint and a common interpretation of the rules needs to be seen from inspecting authorities.’ 

Apprehensive about disruptions to ship’s operations and schedules post the convention coming into effect, Borromeo says that “InterManager welcomes the entering into force of MLC but remains concerned that many of the world’s major ports which our members’ vessels visit, lie within the borders of countries which have yet to ratify the MLC such as the US, Korea, UK, Italy and Japan”. 

I can understand Intermanager’s angst; the words in shipping legislation often have a habit of running away with themselves, sometimes being interpreted- as in the Port State Control regime- in a dozen creative and unintended ways by lazy, arrogant or corrupt officials. The MLC has the potential to be pretty draconian unless common sense is applied. Which may explain some of Mr Borromeo’s concerns; there is scope for mayhem until everybody ratifies it and the dust settles, after which we can all presumably live happily ever after. 

However. 

My memory is poor; which is probably why I can’t recall such apprehensions being expressed before with, for example, the implementation of the useless ISPS convention, which has done little except add a layer of daily drudgery to a seaman’s life without adding an iota to a ship’s security. (Ask the hundreds of seamen that are still being taken hostage every year.) I don’t recall such public misgivings before the ISM Code was implemented either; that was the one that started the conversion of seamen into clerks, running around the ship with clipboards and checklists; that was the one that contributed immensely and directly to fatigue at sea. That was the one that asked ship’s crews to lie in writing. It still does; nothing has changed. 

No concern has been expressed, as far as I know, about the need, effectiveness or usefulness of the new courses that the STCW regime has slapped on seamen with every amendment for the last twenty years. As we speak, for example, hundreds of seamen are running around trying to get a certificate for the ‘Designated Security Duties’ course, another one in a long line of piffling courses that should have been aborted with extreme prejudice before it was born. 

The problem with selectively expressing concern, as Intermanager has done, is that organisational credibility takes a toss. People wonder about who is actually being sought to be protected. People know what the real agenda is. People suspect that asking for flexibility may be another way to wiggle out of the financial cost of responsibility.

Which reminds me. I take exception to Intermanager’s claim that the organisation’s members are ‘responsible for some 250,000 seafarers.’ 

With a small handful of notable exceptions that actually value their seamen, the driving force for most ship managers’- particularly  third party ship managers- is the retention of old clients and the addition of new ones. Other major forces include penny pinching, blinkered short term outlooks and the covering of the organisational backside. Responsibility for seamen is very low down on their agenda. I can tell you, from first-hand experience, that some of these managers- including many considered blue chip- care two hoots about the seamen working aboard their ships. But then you know that already.

Had I suffered from the misconception that these managers were ‘responsible’ for me in any way whatsoever, I would have died at sea long ago. 
.

.

Paper chase

The International Maritime Organisation is seeking public input on ways to ease the administrative burden across the industry. IMO Secretary-General Koji Sekimizu calls this ‘wasted paperwork;’ I call it bullcrap in spades. During the next six months, the IMO will seek inputs from all stakeholders- including through their website, after which ‘a steering group established by the IMO Council will analyse the responses to identify those administrative requirements that are perceived as burdens, and will make recommendations to the Council as to how any such burdens should be addressed’, the organisation says.

It is not just Masters and crews that are affected by all this, the IMO is quick to point out, but also owners, governments, administrations, port authorities and a wide spectrum of interested parties.

Apart from snidely wondering how much wasted paperwork the IMO’s exercise to reduce paperwork will generate, I feel that the move, long overdue as it is, is being made by the wrong organisation. The IMO legislates, and, although it can perhaps reduce the nitty-gritty paper requirements of its legislations a fair bit (or do what I would like to see- throw out useless legislation altogether, perhaps starting with the ISPS code), the real problem here lies in shipowners’ and shipmanagers’ offices. It will take more than the IMO to address that.

I am not too concerned with reduction of paperwork in shore offices of any kind; they can and do hire more people and they never suffer the kind of fatigue seamen do at sea as a direct result of paperwork overload. I therefore will only look at shipboard paperwork here.

A driving force in the shipmanagement business is the manager’s need to have his backside covered at all times and preferably in triplicate. To do this successfully, the shipmanager demands from the ship reams of checklists, reports, emails, letters, photographs and declarations that all is hunky dory, or, if it is not, ‘appropriate’ action is being taken. Appropriate implies, here, that the managers do not end up with egg on their faces; solving the problem is secondary. The IMO can do very little unless this mindset changes. Incidentally, Indian managers are amongst the worst offenders here- whoever said that the British invented bureaucracy but the Indians perfected it was spot on.

There needs to be one manager level person- preferably a Superintendent- tasked in all shipowning or shipmanagement companies, whose responsibility it should be to examine management and safety systems and reduce, mercilessly, unnecessary or duplicated paperwork. He or she should, amongst other things:

•  First of all, realise that the organisation’s love for paper is putting ships at risk because it is the last nail in the coffin for fatigued and overworked crews.
•  Secondly, realise that the main purpose of the organisation is not its administration.
•  Dispense with all those monthly, quarterly, half yearly and yearly reports that managers are so fond of- and, as one admitted candidly to me, never actually read.
•  Payroll should be moved ashore, where it belongs. All that should come from the ship monthly are the deductions to be made to a seaman’s salary- cash taken, bond and communication costs etc. A simple spread sheet once a month. That is all. Stop using Masters as data entry operators; employ a couple of those ashore instead.
• Planned Maintenance Systems should be streamlined to effectively become the one stop combined source for inventories and requisitions. Many are capable of being just that, but are rarely used as such. An exported file should be all that is required to be emailed to the office. The utilisation of PMS software is a joke aboard most ships (I often joke that PMS is not just restricted to women; sailors know the acronym- and the stress- differently, is all). Realise that office insistence on following older systems in parallel on ships increases workload without advantage.
•  Simplify ISM manuals. Very few of the crew understand them to begin with, and then manuals are usually unwieldy, often incoherent or incomplete and so unsurprisingly not followed.
•  Put enough computers aboard. Give other crew – cooks, bosuns, junior engineers et al- the responsibility to keep their equipment and inventories updated. Something is wrong if a Chief Engineer is spending four hours almost every day on the computer updating PMS or other systems, or a Master is spending similar time doing essentially worthless work that is detracting from his main job.
•  Put aboard an additional ‘administrative officer’ or seaman/clerk. To those already doing so, take a bow.
• Reduce the number of people in shipmanagement offices authorised to send emails to Masters. (And demanding immediate responses or clarifications to usually useless queries, many of which have already been addressed). Stop demanding repeat information just because your office filing or email systems are disorganised, or because there is incomplete communication between departments ashore, or because you are too lazy to look it up.
•  Reduce the number of checklists. Curb shore enthusiasm in creating checklists for ships even when not mandated. (If you must create them, then fill them yourselves, please).

I am sure sailing seamen would have an almost endless supply of practical suggestions, and I know many who surface these to managers ashore. The problem in third party managerial offices- especially the big ones- is one of organisational inertia. Change seems impossible, especially when nobody wants to stick their necks out for fear of being beheaded.

The IMO may simplify regulations and compliance associated with them. It may even help with certain kinds of paperwork directly- related to port formalities and such, for example. (I know standard forms exist, but every country seems to want its own format anyway). The IMO can even try to streamline the Port State Control system- the present one is odd, and consists of PSC inspectors having the ability to board a ship at any time and occupy the entire crew for hours on end at a time when urgent operations are happening at multiple locations aboard. In doing so, they compromise safety and add to fatigue.

The IMO- or any one body- cannot change the mindset that prevails in shipping and administrative offices around the world. That mindset uses seamen as cheap labour, dumping increasing administrative workloads on them without thought and without sufficient additional compensation. That mindset dumps paper aboard that belongs ashore, simply because it is expedient to do so.

Ultimately, and besides anything else, that mindset is directly responsible for fatigue and its proven impact on safety. When will all the smart men and women in the industry begin to understand that?

.

.