13 The observer of the International Chamber of Shipping and International Shipping Federation (ICS/ISF), speaking on behalf of shipowners, confirmed the industry's concern about attacks against shipping. Ships and their crews had a right to expect that their safety would not be set at risk by piracy and other violent acts. Shipowners fully recognized the legal distinction between piracy and armed robbery, but for the master and his crew the effects of an attack were equally traumatic whether it took place on the hi h seas, in territorial waters or within port limits.
The number of attacks had fluctuated over the years, but the South China Sea and the Malacca Strait area had remained dangerous waters, with far too many incidents. While both IMO and the industry had given guidance to ships on the precautionary measures they could take to deter attacks, ICS/ISF firmly believed that the principal responsibility for curbing such incidents must rest with the littoral States.
A measure of the industry's concern about piracy and armed robbery was that shipowners and seafarers' unions were in full accord that the situation remained unacceptable and that renewed efforts were needed to ensure that measures to combat attacks were effective.
A particularly worrying development was the increasing violence used in attacks against shipping. Advice within the industry was strongly against the carriage of weapons by seafarers, but the growing use of both guns and other forms of violence by pirates had given rise to substantial loss of life and physical injury. The industry would play its part in alerting ships to the potential hazards faced in certain waters, but since the pirates were shore-based the ultimate responsibility for ridding the seas of such attacks lay with administrations themselves.
14 The observer of the Intemational transport Workers' Federation (ITF), speaking on behalf of the seafarers, emphasized the degree of concensus across the industry as a whole about the required response from ships' crews, shipowners, trade unions and the Governments of those countries in whose waters attacks against merchant vessels took place.
The seafarers were particularly worried about the increasing use of violence in the reported attacks. It is not considered a prudent option for owners to respond by arming their crews and vessels. This, the seafarers felt, would only result in further violence. Unless something positive was done to arrest the increase of piracy attacks by littoral States the seafarers were afraid this ferocity would further increase.
Recognizing the traumatic impact of a piracy incident on the crew the ITF stressed the need for littoral States to make special provisions for supporting crews who have experienced piratical attacks. The seafarers also felt that all possible technical and administrative responses should be explored including the proper registration of all small craft. The seafarers expressed the opinion that the industry as a whole ought to be prepared to support Government measures to combat piracy such as rapid response units. Effective co-ordination between the various civil and military agencies and between adjoining littoral States was also felt to be essential by the seafarers.
The ITF also pledged its support for renewed industry efforts to make seafarers aware of the problem of piracy, the need for vigilance at all times and for proper and timely reporting to the appropriate authorities. However, the ITF stressed that too often the response from the littoral States was slow and unco-ordinated with little evidence of follow-up action against the perpetrators. If seafarers are to feel motivated to play their part in reducing the number of attacks and to report those that did take place they must be satisfied that those responsible will face justice.
15 The findings of the mission and the information provided by the respective Governments are summarized in the ensuing sections.
