Of RIP agencies, lambs- and wolves

That the rampant exploitation of new entrants into the profession of seafaring is now a publicly acknowledged fact may taste like victory to some, but this victory is Pyrrhic, for it carries within it the metallic taste of future defeat. The many corruptions that pervade the training and ‘placement’ space are not going to be reversed by chest-beating about just one of them; the deep rooted rot requires amputation, not aspirin. The system must be destroyed and then rebuilt; there is no other way, because the purification goes in too deep.

In India, the Directorate General of Shipping has finally acknowledged that something needs to be done about the ‘placement’ of cadets for on board training. “Considering the gravity of the situation,” a recent DGS circular says, approved MET institutes will be allowed to operate their own recruitment placement services (RPS) to place their students aboard ships for required seatime. Hitherto, RPS agencies have been external body shopping outfits. 

For the life of me, I cannot understand how this will change anything. As things stand today, individuals- including in many DGS approved RPS agencies- are taking hundreds of thousands of rupees under the table for every student they ‘place.’ Many MET institutes are hand in glove with this practice. How then, will giving MET institutes RPS authority help? What is needed is a clampdown, with criminal prosecution, on the touts in the business- sadly, some of them ex Masters- RPS or not. Adding more wolves to the same jungle is hardly going to help the lambs. RPS is an inappropriate acronym, actually. They should be called RIP agencies instead.

Unfortunately, as in most everything, shipping concentrates on tactics and ignores strategy when it tries to solve problems. Small wonder then that it fails, because knee jerk reactions are- like a beheaded chicken’s still twitching limbs- quite useless when the head is missing. For example, the industry also seems to believe that raising pre-sea training standards, combined with somehow (magically) increasing training berths on ships will expediently result in Indian seafarers becoming- magically, once again- in great demand overnight. This will never happen; because this will do nothing to address issues related to the calibre of the entrants, their attitudes, the widespread con game that ‘placement’ is today, or the unwillingness of the industry to invest in its crews instead of poaching them. All core issues. 

A detached observer will undoubtedly say that the model for fresh recruitment in any industry must have a vital component that gauges the demand and then meets it, and that a contract ridden business model must have sticky elements that dissuade- even guarantee- that people do not switch jobs too easily. That those jobs must be provided in the first place- which means, simply, do not train more people than you can employ. 

Anybody will tell you that on-board training of cadets must have the trained and their teachers- other officers and crews- speaking the same language. I have seen Indian cadets, for example, learning nothing from East European and Filipino officers simply because there are crippling language difficulties between them. When the much acclaimed (and, in my view, very dubious) distance learning programmes that reduce seatime requirements cannot even be read properly by officers or trainees with nothing but rudimentary English language skills, the whole exercise becomes  even more farcical.

And even my cat will tell you that the apocalypse is nigh for any maritime business where giving jobs to professional seamen is the way the business- and its employees- choose to make their money. ‘Placement fee’ is what they call it; me, less charitable than most, calls it pimping. RIP pimping, to be more precise.

The present training and recruitment model is lunatic. The question begs to be asked- if Indians were preferred seamen thirty years ago, then why the hell is it that- despite increased regulatory oversight, and despite complicated international conventions on training and certification- their stock is headed southwards today? Could it be that we need to go back to the past to relearn what we did right then? 

Don’t tell me, please, that it is the attitude of the new generation that is the overwhelming factor here; 

don’t use their slipping commitment- which is a fact- as a red herring. Besides the many other factors that are more important reasons, a seafarer- like any employee everywhere- is as committed to a company as the company is committed to him. If one must judge by that yardstick, mariners are angels in comparison to their employers. Competence does not develop in a vacuum.

Don’t tell me either that Indians have priced themselves out of the market. That is rubbish; crew never set wages, employers do, based on supply, demand and the availability of cheaper alternatives. Besides, professional standards do not drop with higher wages- they drop because of reasons like lower calibre of entrants, poor training and low commitment all round. European professional standards have not fallen over time, whatever has happened to the job market there, so why should Indian standards fall today?

In this litany of lunacies, the biggest lunacy is that shipping seems to think that training and manning are discrete functions divorced from each another; they are not. In an ideal world, no seaman would be trained that didn’t have a job at the end of the exercise, This is why the older system of sponsorship of cadets and guaranteed sea berths was superior to the system we follow today, where we, blind, deaf and dumb pushers of the mother of all lunacies- greater STCW mandated ‘training’- do little except throw our young to the wolves.

.

.

Maritime regulation: faking it

I have not sailed for a few years. If this goes on much longer, I will perhaps remain qualified to comment authoritatively- provided I have my ear to the ground- on many seafarer issues. However, I will be dangerously unqualified to participate in the culture of inept regulation that plagues shipping, because I will be outdated. I will not know, any longer, what happens on a merchant ship on a day to day basis. I may pretend to be an expert, but I will be faking it.

That is the first problem with shipping regulation- it is promulgated by outdated fuddy-duddies, many of whom have not sailed for decades, or by people from a non-maritime background. Or even by people who have a ‘fighting’ naval background and have no clue- their experience of international waters and ports being limited to exercises or goodwill visits, and perhaps war- as to what a merchant vessel is all about. These ‘experts’ are luminaries in regulatory bodies because of political patronage or because of over-rated academic credentials, many obtained through programmes paid for by the taxpayer; they are rarely there because of their ability to understand the practical issues involved, something that is essential before even one regulation to cross one road is made. 

There are many other problems that feckless regulation burdens the industry and its mariners with. Chief amongst those is the fact that we are today more concerned with the paperwork being in order than the seamanship being first rate. The ‘don’t get caught’ ethos overrides everything as it follows ill-thought out regulation that is either unenforceable or is enforced in an atmosphere of patronage and corruption. This impacts safety directly, and is therefore extremely dangerous. 

Another strain that seems to run through maritime regulation and its implementation is the ‘shore people know best’ attitude. This results in regulation and its implementation being thrust down the throats of crews in an atmosphere of absolute arrogance. Besides being dumb, this attitude can never promote safety or even simple efficiency. This hubris- whether displayed by shoreside shipmanagement offices, regulators or private or State inspectors-is stupid and paradoxical. We are prepared to trust crews with hundreds of millions of dollars of ship and cargo, but we are not prepared to listen to them. (We must regulate their every moment of existence, though, because those bad boys sure as hell can’t be trusted).  It is inevitable that this hubris leads to hostility, which is hardly the atmosphere in which useful regulation should be implemented. 

Of course, there is so much over regulation in shipping today, and more is coming, but where is the money to implement it? What do the fuddy-duddies think will happen, for example, to the implementation of the MLC in its totality, if cash strapped shipowners simply cannot afford it? Or the millions required to implement the Ballast Water Convention? 

The way in which what is to be regulated is decided upon is also highly suspect. Some critical issues are ignored- container weights and lifeboat release mechanisms, for example- even if they have cost tens, even hundreds of fatalities at sea. Useless regulation- ISPS, for one- is pushed through for the wrong reasons. This pandering to regional – usually Western- economic or political interests may not continue for too long, given that Asia is set to replace, or at least equal, Western dominance in shipping. Regardless, this does not promote good or fair regulation.  

Given history, it is no surprise that we are seeing, once again, an undermining of new regulations that have been thrust upon us. For example and from all accounts, the provisions of the Maritime Labour Convention, many unenforceable, some say, are being very selectively implemented- creative ways of fudging work hours and rest periods continues unabated. Another example: ECDIS courses have mushroomed with new regulations and requirements, but too many are not worth the paper they are written on. (And, sometimes in some countries, it is not necessary to even sit through them to get a certificate).

I can tell you with absolute honesty, as a sailor not yet outdated, that administrative overload was a pain in the unmentionables during much of the twenty odd years after I first got Command. It is close to agonising, this pain, when one is calling fifteen countries a month in Europe or six ports in different States in the US, as I sometimes was. The increasing mountain of paperwork connected with useless regulation- and with the propensity of cheapskate shipmanagers to pass on clerical work that belongs to their offices on to crews- is a major reason cited by many senior officers choosing to quit sailing. Do we really want experienced seamen leaving in droves, and the inevitable impact this will have on the industry, just because regulators or managers can’t get their acts together?

The fuddy-duddies are not part of the solution, as they would like you to believe; they are part of the problem. Please shoot me if you see me headed down their way. 

.

.

Torture on the Iceberg- and the dances of pygmies

The tragic, compelling story of the atrocities suffered by the hostage crew of the Iceberg 1 begs to be told anyway, but the reason I do this now is because another bunch of five Indian crew of another ship have just been released, after more than a month in captivity on the other side of Africa- off the Niger delta- where pirate attacks are steadily but unsurprisingly spiking; they have almost tripled in the last year. There is no doubt in my mind that the violence will increase too, just as it did off Somalia, while everybody sat twiddling their thumbs. As they do today; crews will pay, with blood once again, for the callousness of the pygmies who run the industry.

The Iceberg story is not a pretty story; seafarer stories these days rarely are. Where does one begin? With 75 year old Yemeni Captain Abdul Razak, who was hung upside down for almost a whole day and flogged? Or with his Chief Engineer and compatriot, Ali Mohammed Khan, whose ears were sawed off while he cried in pain for mercy? Should one start with the tale of the courageous Indian Chief Officer Dipak Tiwari, who was tortured and beaten because he repeatedly- heroically- stood up for his crew, and who disappeared more than a year ago? Or should one start with the tale of the Yemeni 3rd officer Wagdi Akram, who went insane and killed himself over two years ago, after the pirates told the hostages that their kidneys, livers, hearts and other organs would be removed and sold?

Does one need to really chronicle the daily saga of pain and humiliation, for 33 months, of concentrated psychological and physical torture of the entire crew, of starvation diets and filthy water, or of regular beatings with electrical cable and wooden planks after being hung upside down? Of losing teeth during these beatings? Of being thrown overboard or being left in the sun the whole day? Of being shot at, over their heads? Of the debilitation of one meal a day of rice and dirty water? Does one even express surprise at the destroyed health of the crew? Or shock that each and every member of the 24 crew was subject to repeated and barbaric torture? 

Does one even try to get the industry to understand the despair of hostages, who were told daily by their captors that they would die in Somalia because nobody was going to come for them? Does one have to dig up even more horrific stories in a desperate attempt to wake up the pygmies and spur them into taking action to ensure we don’t have a sequel to the story in West Africa tomorrow, somewhere else the day after? 

Where, on the hierarchy of pygmies in this sordid tale, do we put Yemeni shipowner Yazir Mohammad of Dubai based Azal Shipping, who abandoned the crew as soon as the Iceberg was taken, not even paying them their salaries after they were taken hostage? Three and a half million dollars. That’s what the pirates asked for at one stage. Negotiable, of course. Azal offered $100,000- some reports say $300,000. And then broke off negotiations.

Where, on this same hierarchy, do we put governments, the IMO, the industry and its bodies and unions, who knew ransom was the only way and chose to do nothing? Where do we put Panama, the Flag State? Where do we put the Indian government on this list, who a reporter from a local news channel says has told the released Iceberg crew to shut up about their ordeal and the hijack?

Do we even mention the fact that, as the trial begins in Mumbai of 120 Somali pirates captured by the Indian navy, pirates have offered to swap their comrades for 46 Indian crewmen still held hostage in Somalia?

I don’t know about you, but I prefer to concentrate on the one giant in this story of pygmies. Missing Chief Officer Dhiraj Tiwari- all of 27 years old- who repeatedly placed himself in harm's way in an attempt to protect the crew, protesting to the pirates against the abuse of his shipmates. For this he was singled out time and again, beaten and tortured. His courage in the face of overwhelming brutality was last seen in September 2011, when he disappeared after a particularly severe beating. Pirates told the other crew that they did not know where he had gone; some of the crew thought that had been murdered, but nobody knows for sure.

I pray Dhiraj is alive; I pray for divine fortitude for his family.

I am told that an agnostic’s prayers are especially powerful, but I do not know. Whatever, they will surely be more powerful, I trust, than the sounds of song and dance from the pygmies.

Wag the dog

Norwegian Kongsberg Maritime announced, some time ago, a ‘new’ ECDIS Instructor Training course some weeks ago. Ship Captains and “senior personnel”- which means the Chief Officer, I presume- will now be able to train ‘other officers and crew members’- which means the Second and Third Mates, I presume- in familiarisation of Kongsberg ECDIS systems aboard. Kongsberg will test officers before issuing STCW compliant ECDIS competence certificates to people trained this way.

"The course enables Captains to train their own officers and crew, which significantly reduces training and travel costs compared to each crew member attending separate ECDIS training courses," says Kongsberg’s Product Manager, Training.  The company says that the course has been booked by ‘several’ clients. Cheaper alternatives usually will be, in shipping, even if they are inferior alternatives.

The degradation in maritime training that started in the nineties, thanks to STCW 95, continues with each amended STCW regime, because the object of the exercise appears to be to cater to the business of maritime training at the cost of quality of training. The Kongsberg course is another small step down this slope. Its drivers are purely commercial- savings for the owner. As automation increases at sea, I have no doubt that other manufacturers of navigational, safety, automation or engine room equipment will be tempted to roll out such training. I have no doubt that shipowners will welcome such training if it means saving some pennies here and there.

And therein lies the danger. While one can argue that an ECDIS course involves few personnel (so what is the problem doing this on board, they will say), the fact is that Captains, officers and crews do not have the time aboard the ships of today for any kind of equipment ‘training’, mandated or not. At a time when normal operations aboard many ships leave crew severely fatigued- hang those other STCW regulations that are supposed to address this- we need to reduce shipboard workload drastically, not increase it.  I can think of other, smaller, reasons why this trend is a bad idea, but quality of training and fatigue are my biggest objections.

Like most seamen subjected to second rate training conducted by fourth rate institutions in third world (oops, developing) countries, I have become deeply cynical, over the course of my career, about the whole shebang that is alleged to be maritime training. Look at India. There was a time a generation ago when maritime training was largely ship based, and followed a usually loose but overall pretty good mentorship ethos. This is not a nostalgic statement justifying the ‘good old days’ – the proof of its efficacy was the quality of the product that spoke for itself in the marketplace; Indian mariners of my generation did not blast through the glass ceiling because they were second rate.

Shipping then took this decently working system and systematically destroyed it. The advent of STCW 95 was the first stumble on the slippery slope. Compromised international regulators and corrupt domestic systems in countries like India and the Philippines together ensured continued decline. Backed by these gentle folk, Maritime Training Institutions blossomed like weeds. Dubious certificates became more important than competence. This trend has only accelerated with each STCW amendment, never mind that many of the courses that are forced on seafarers of developing countries- at their cost and time, I might add since this is my pet refrain- are absent in much of the developed world. Look at the Indian versus the British revalidation system for certificates of competency if you don’t believe me.

All this happens because everybody- from international regulators downwards- looks at maritime training as a milch cow instead of something that is indispensable to the maritime industry. The Kongsberg initiative, if it becomes a trend that I suspect it will, is the thousandth nail in the same coffin. The objective is to make mandated training cheaper for the owners; the objective needs to be, instead, that regulations are mandated carefully and any training required be executed in the best way possible.

That objective will not be met unless everybody down the line puts the training needs of the industry above the vested interests of manufacturers, the inflated egos of bureaucrats or the greed of ship owners, corrupt functionaries and training establishments. Unfortunately, changing this entrenched culture will not be easy to do.

Shipping’s training needs must be put first. All the others- from regulators to MET establishments- exist because of shipping and not the other way around. Their needs or interests- even the survival of some- is secondary. Unfortunately, as things stand today, these other interests control the entire universe of maritime training. Unfortunately, today, these inmates are in control of the asylum. Unfortunately, today, the tail is wagging the dog.

.