Today we are talking about PSC on STCW requirements. This is a reasonably new initiative with some far reaching ramifications and in order to put our day's discussion in perspective I think it is necessary to briefly outline the history and reasons for the STCW Convention.

　

　

The conference met in 1978 and was attended by delegates from 72 countries. It was the largest conference ever held by IMO and the Convention, which resulted, was regarded as one of the most important maritime safety conventions ever developed.

　

The Convention was the first attempt to establish global minimum professional standards for seafarers. Previously the standards of training, certification and watchkeeping of officers and ratings were established by individual governments, usually without reference to practices in other countries. As a result standards and procedures varied widely, even though shipping is the most international of all industries.

　

When the Convention entered into force, it was expected that its requirements would ensure the competence of masters, officers and ratings of all seagoing ships and their safe operation through efficient watchkeeping. As with all IMO Conventions it reflected the highest practicable standards, which could be globally agreed at the time of its adoption.

　

But despite its broad global acceptance, it was realised by the late eighties that the Convention was not achieving its purpose. Instead it was gradually losing credibility as its acceptance widened. The main cause for this appeared to be the general lack of precision in its standards, the interpretation of which was left "to the satisfaction of the Administration". This resulted in widely varying interpretation of standards and many Parties failed to effectively administer and enforce Convention requirements. STCW certificates could no longer be relied upon as evidence of competence.

　

　

A limited review of Convention provisions was already in hand, when the Maritime Safety Committee decided, in May 1993, to give high priority to its comprehensive review. On the suggestion of Mr. William A. O'Neil, the Secretary-General of IMO, the comprehensive review was accelerated by having consultants prepare a revised text under the direction of the Sub-Committee on Standards of Training and Watchkeeping (STW). The original date for completing the revision at sub-committee level was 1996, meaning that the revision conference would probably not have been held until 1998. Under the accelerated program the conference was brought forward to June-July 1995.

　

The use of consultants and four sessions of an Intersessional Working Group of the STW Sub Committee allowed basic texts to be approved by IMO and circulated for the 1995 Diplomatic Conference within a two-year period. Although the group of consultants was kept small to allow speedy completion of its work, all regions were represented in its membership. All consultants acted as independent experts and were sponsored by Germany, The Netherlands, Mexico, Korea, Spain, the United Kingdom and the United States.

　

Organisations in consultative status, including the International Shipping Federation and the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions' also contributed to the work, as did the Arab Maritime Transport Academy, Dalian Maritime University, the National Maritime Academy of Singapore, Singapore Polytechnic and the World Maritime University. The ease of acceptance of the basic text by The Conference in June/July 1995 reflected the quality of the preparatory work.

　

Another important change meant that for the first time IMO itself was given some authority, over individual Parties. Under Chapter I, regulation I/7 Parties are required to provide detailed information to IMO concerning administrative measures taken to ensure compliance with the Convention, education and training courses, certification procedures and other factors relevant to implementation.

　

With the acceptance of STCW 95 a quite dramatic change to the manner in which IMO operates has been approved by the majority of IMO member States. This is the first time that member States' compliance with an IMO convention will be scrutinised and verified by IMO and Parties in compliance with the convention will be identified as such by IMO. By inference this means that Parties that are not so identified may not be in compliance with the Convention, which puts a great deal of pressure on all Parties to fully comply.

　

The following is an extract from an IMO press release shortly after the release of the first white list.

　

"A position on the White List entitles other Parties to accept, in principle, that certificates issued by or on behalf of the parties on the list are in compliance with the Convention.

　

It is expected that ships flying flags of countries that are not on the White List will be increasingly targeted by Port State Control inspectors. A Flag state Party that is on the White List may, as a matter of policy, elect not to accept seafarers with certificates issued by non White List countries for service on its ships.

　

If it does accept such seafarers, they will be required by 1 February 2002 also to have an endorsement, issued by the flag state, to show that their certificate is recognized by the flag state. By 1 February 2002, masters and officers should hold STCW 95 certificates or endorsements issued by the flag State. Certificates issued and endorsed under the provisions of the 1978 STCW Convention will be valid until their expiry date.

　

It was stressed at the meeting that giving "full and complete effect" to the revised Convention may not be the same for all Parties. Some may choose not to have any maritime training institutes at all and rely on recognition of certificates issued to seafarers by other states. Similarly, some Parties may only provide a limited scope of training, such as for ratings only.

　

The fact that a Party is not listed on the White List does not invalidate certificates or endorsements issued by that Party. Nothing in the STCW Convention prevents the employment of any seafarer who holds a valid certificate or endorsement issued by a Party to the Convention.

　

Nevertheless, the White List will become one of several criteria, including the inspection of facilities and procedures, that can be applied in the selection of properly trained and qualified seafarers. Countries not initially included in the White List will be able to continue with the assessment process with a view to inclusion on the list at a later stage."

　

The foregoing is an accurate summary of the status of the White List but it does not, for obvious reasons, detail the nuances and flaws in the White List process. There is no doubt that the process of panels of "competent persons", examining and reporting on a Party's submission to IMO has resulted in a considerable upgrading of many countries procedures and standards. The system however has one basic and major flaw - the panel must accept the information submitted by the Party as being factual and panels are not authorised to verify this information.

　

Following the publication of the White List there has been a certain amount of scepticism expressed regarding the inclusion of certain flags that have a long track record of less than satisfactory standards. The international community had very high expectations from the White List procedure mixed with a certain amount of apprehension as it appeared possible that some of the major crew supplying nations may not make the list. Now that the list has been published, it is apparent that some flags, with a very dubious record, have been included. Others, such as Papua New Guinea, have missed out due to technical reasons regarding the administration procedures, but they have an education and training system far superior to many on the list.

　

IMO will be considering follow up procedures to ensure that those named on the list do not rest on their laurels but will be continuously monitored.

　

　

The STCW95 Convention entered into force internationally on 1 February 1997 with transitional provisions allowing for an interval of five years before Parties were required to issue, recognise and endorse certificates in accordance with the revised Convention.

　

Although the transitional arrangements ceased on 1 February 2002 the IMO recognised that many flag States were not ready for full implementation and despite reservations by a number of Parties recommended that, until 1 August 2002, PSC not detain ships whose crew did not possess the appropriate certification as required by the revised Convention, but instead issue a caution.

　

The date for full implementation of the Convention has now well past and there is no longer any valid excuse for non-compliance. This brings us into the area of PSC and the problems and questions being faced by port State control officials when trying to enforce the more important aspects of STCW95.

　

PSC is subject to public criticism on many occasions, some of it justified and some not. Some of the more justified complaints have been associated with a less than full understanding of the Convention requirements by some port States. For example it was necessary for IMO, following a submission from Australia, to issue a circular (MSC/Circ.1030) in May this year giving guidance to port State control officers regarding the need for certificate holders to carry documentary evidence of completion of certain short courses. (It is interesting to note that an Australian flag ship was threatened with detention in a Tokyo MOU member State less than a month ago due to officers not having short course certificates.) The majority of port State control officials also require GMDSS GOC certificates to carry an STCW95 endorsement even though the GMDSS provisions of the Convention were not amended in the 1995 review. There are many other examples of misunderstandings by port State control officials creating unnecessary delays and frustrations for shipowners.

　

There is of course the other side of the card where some very well known flag States have not put in place the required systems to ensure that seafarers on their ships are appropriately qualified. There are also many ship owner/operators who show only a perfunctory interest in seafarer's qualifications.

　

The challenge facing port State control officers therefore is to determine those deficiencies that pose an immediate threat and require detention and rectification and those that are of less concern as they are related to technical non-compliance with certain provisions and do not pose any direct threat to the ship or the environment.

　

I therefore intend to look at a number of specific questions that have been raised by different authorities prior to the question and answer session scheduled following this presentation.