A “beggar-thy-neighbour” approach keeps seafarers stranded

0 comments
A “beggar-thy-neighbor” approach keeps seafarers stranded

SANDRA TSUI

Lowy Institute 3 February 2021

Some countries have banned crew rotations. Some
have tight limits. A few are open. So a crisis continues.Container, ore and oil storage at Rotterdam Port in the Netherlands (Frans Lemmens/Getty Images)Container, ore and oil storage at Rotterdam Port in the Netherlands (Frans Lemmens/Getty Images)Published 3 Feb 2021 12:00   0 Comments 

When a business manager is willing to spend US$200,000 to send home five employees whose contracts have expired and bring five colleagues to replace them on the spot, later telling a reporter the cost was the least of their worries, you can be sure a crisis is involved.

In this case, it is on the open sea, far away from the eyes of the world. But the victims of this tragedy also happen to be the people who move 90% of world trade – bringing food, medicine, fuel and other necessitites where they are demanded.

The International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF) and the International Chamber of Shipping (ICS) estimated in October that around 400,000 seafarers have been stuck on their ships and forced to work due to various Covid-19 quarantine measures imposed by governments. Little has changed since then. While seafarers’ contracts typically span four to nine months, some workers have been forced to stay with their vessels for as long as 18 months, far beyond the 11-month limit the Maritime Labour Convention (MLC) allows.

In support of their complaint, the United Nation’s International Labour Organization (ILO) ruled in December that national signatories to the 2006 MLC have breached international law by failing to protect seafarers’ basic rights such as repatriation and access to medical care.

Some may conveniently ignore the fact that seafarers, who keep the ships moving, are human beings who need to rest, see a doctor when they fall ill and see their loved ones at least occasionally.

Cancellation of flights, closing of airports and delaying of visa issuances are some of the factors that have complicated crew rotation since the coronavirus outbreak. But what most frustrates shipowners and managers who arrange crew rotations are the ever-changing rules governments have imposed on the movements of crew members.

In many cases, allowing crew changes to be carried out at a port will depend on the nationality of the crew and the ship.

For example, China – one of the biggest providers of seafarers – has until very recently permitted only their own nationals to embark and disembark vessels. Before ten seaports opened up for foreign crew exchanges in the fourth quarter last year, such rules lured many shipowners to choose Chinese seamen to work onboard their new ships that were built by and delivered at Chinese shipyards, because there would otherwise be no way to steer their new ships from the dock. India – another major supplier of crew members – have started allowing foreigners to disembark as of late July, but only opened up their ports for non-Indian seafarers to sign on vessels from late November. Ship managers, however, have said that the mandatory quarantine protocols, together with the time limit on the up-to-one-month entry permit given to crew members, have made signing on extremely challenging.

Meanwhile, the world’s fifth-largest shipping registry, Singapore, is giving priority to vessels flying its own flag to carry out crew rotations, which has effectively swayed some shipowners’ choice of ship nationality during the pandemic.

Vinay Singh, head of marine human resources of Anglo-Eastern Univan Group, which orchestrated the $200,000 exchange scheme and 26,000 other instances of crew change since last April, told me it has been easier to carry out crew changes in Europe than in Asia.

At the port of Rotterdam, Europe’s busiest seaport, crew members are exempt from mandatory quarantine when they arrive and are permitted to go ashore for medical reasons. In the UK, ships crews and masters, ship inspectors and surveyors are exempt from the mandatory 14-day quarantine.

It is perhaps unsurprising that nations with tighter movement restrictions and better results in containing the coronavirus are also those that have nearly shut their doors to foreign seafarers.

Vietnam has banned crew changes entirely. Taiwan is only allowing embarking and disembarking of national seamen or foreign crew (except mainland Chinese) from vessels owned by Taiwanese companies or flying the Taiwanese flag, but with a 14-day quarantine requirement. New Zealand has also imposed some onerous measures on crew rotation – for instance, road transport of seamen between seaport and international airport must be done within five hours, rendering crew exchange nearly impossible.https://platform.twitter.com/embed/index.html?creatorScreenName=lowyinstitute&dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-0&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1348694761138511873&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.lowyinstitute.org%2Fthe-interpreter%2Fbeggar-thy-neighbour-approach-keeps-seafarers-stranded&theme=light&widgetsVersion=ed20a2b%3A1601588405575&width=550px

While governments can hardly be blamed for being too cautious in preventing the spread of the virus, the many discrepancies in nations’ quarantine measures and visa requirements for seafarers could overwhelm ports that actually allow and facilitate crew changes.

Hong Kong, which in a short window between early June and late July permitted all types of ship to carry out crew rotations, saw 19% more cargo vessels visiting its port in July. Unfortunately, the world’s fourth-largest shipping register and seventh-busiest container port had to halt the practice after it saw several infections related to seafarers and air crew. The city now only allows vessels with cargo operations at its port to carry out crew exchanges.

Most governments understand that shipping is the backbone of the global supply chain, but some may conveniently ignore the fact that seafarers, who keep the ships moving, are human beings and they need to rest, see a doctor when they fall ill and see their loved ones at least occasionally. It’s not hard to imagine if one country does not allow crew changes, seafarers have to sign on and off somewhere else. Acknowledging shipping is essential but not facilitating crew rotations is effectively saying: “I understand this, but I am not going to allow it here. You can go to a neighbouring country and they can take care of it.”

This “beggar-thy-neighbour” mentality is not helpful in solving the crew change crisis. If half the countries don’t take their fare share, the half that permit crew changes will have to host twice as many people and therefore increase the risk and difficulties.

In December, a UN resolution and the ILO urged governments who have not yet done so to recognise seafarers as key workers without delay and to implement measures to facilitate the repatriation and rotation of seafarers.

Only 46 countries have classified seafarers as key workers so far, according to the ITF and ICS.

Hopefully, in the spirit of reciprocation at the start of a new year, nations will finally pay attention to this crisis and welcome seafarers, who bring food and medicine to their doorsteps.

Leave a Reply

SSCP   CAS-002   9L0-066   350-050   642-999   220-801   74-678   642-732   400-051   ICGB   c2010-652   70-413   101-400   220-902   350-080   210-260   70-246   1Z0-144   3002   AWS-SYSOPS   70-347   PEGACPBA71V1   220-901   70-534   LX0-104   070-461   HP0-S42   1Z0-061   000-105   70-486   70-177   N10-006   500-260   640-692   70-980   CISM   VCP550   70-532   200-101   000-080   PR000041   2V0-621   70-411   352-001   70-480   70-461   ICBB   000-089   70-410   350-029   1Z0-060   2V0-620   210-065   70-463   70-483   CRISC   MB6-703   1z0-808   220-802   ITILFND   1Z0-804   LX0-103   MB2-704   210-060   101   200-310   640-911   200-120   EX300   300-209   1Z0-803   350-001   400-201   9L0-012   70-488   JN0-102   640-916   70-270   100-101   MB5-705   JK0-022   350-060   300-320   1z0-434   350-018   400-101   350-030   000-106   ADM-201   300-135   300-208   EX200   PMP   NSE4   1Z0-051   c2010-657   C_TFIN52_66   300-115   70-417   9A0-385   70-243   300-075   70-487   NS0-157   MB2-707   70-533   CAP   OG0-093   M70-101   300-070   102-400   JN0-360   SY0-401   000-017   300-206   CCA-500   70-412   2V0-621D   70-178   810-403   70-462   OG0-091   1V0-601   200-355   000-104   700-501   70-346   CISSP   300-101   1Y0-201   200-125  , 200-125  , 100-105  , 100-105  , CISM   NS0-157   350-018  , NS0-157   ICBB  , N10-006 test  , 350-050   70-534   70-178   220-802   102-400   000-106   70-411  , 400-101   100-101  , NS0-157   1Z0-803   200-125  , 210-060   400-201   350-050   C_TFIN52_66  , JN0-102  , 200-355   JN0-360   70-411   350-018  , 70-412   350-030   640-916   000-105   100-105  , 70-270  , 70-462   300-070  , 300-070   642-999   101-400   PR000041   200-101  , 350-030   300-070  , 70-270  , 400-051   200-120   70-178   9L0-012   70-487   LX0-103   100-105  ,