PUTTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT
By Captain Tim Wilson, Director, New Zealand Maritime School
At least some of the heat and angst involved in the current qualification review consultation appears to be based on misunderstanding and suspicions of hidden agendas that may or may not actually exist. I therefore welcome this opportunity to outline some of our views directly, rather than through what others purport our position to be.
Let me state clearly that the New Zealand Maritime School has never suggested that STCW requirements should be applied to smaller restricted limit vessels. We have never suggested that the Manila amendments to STCW require an increased application of the convention and code to vessels not currently covered by this. Nor do we believe it is appropriate for STCW requirements to be applied to any mariner not currently required to meet STCW requirements under existing maritime rules.
We do, however, differ very strongly from the current Maritime New Zealand proposal in terms of the mechanism under which smaller restricted limit vessels should be legitimately excluded from STCW coverage. We have articulated this view throughout the consultation to date and will continue to do so, because we estimate there are approximately 1500 New Zealand mariners whose livelihoods and collective overseas earnings of $60-$100 million per annum depend on New Zealand remaining on the STCW white list and because we believe the current Maritime New Zealand proposal unnecessarily creates a real risk of New Zealand not making the white list.
Unlike other IMO conventions, STCW contains a control mechanism whereby full compliance is initially evaluated by an international panel of competent persons nominated by IMO member states. Continuing compliance is then established through five yearly external independent verification audits. States deemed to be fully compliant are named on the ‘white list’ approved by IMO’s maritime safety committee after evaluation by independent verification reports by competent persons and facilitated by the IMO’s secretariat.
As a result of the recent comprehensive review of STCW, all countries again have to submit full documentation establishing their full compliance with the revised requirements of the STCW convention and code. The consequences are significant.
Mariners with New Zealand certification would be unable to work on any internationally flagged vessel or on any New Zealand vessel entering an overseas port if we do not remain on the ‘white list’. So, why is the current Maritine NZ proposal to deem the entire New Zealand territorial sea plus a few additional corridors to be outside STCW coverage a problem?
The convention and code (including amendments) effectively apply to all ’seagoing vessels’ that are not naval, fishing or recreational vessels. Article 2 of the convention defines ’seagoing vessels’ as ships other than those that ‘navigate exclusively in inland waters or in waters within or closely adjacent to sheltered waters or in areas where port regulations apply.’
The operational requirements of the convention and code then apply to all ’seagoing ships’ which are then defined to operate either in ‘near coastal’ ( not uncommonly within the exclusive economic zone) or ‘unlimited’ operating areas. The provisions are intended to cover vessels of less than 500gt, but the lower size limit at which vessels cease to be a ’ship’ is not defined.
Maritime New Zealand is arguing that the entire territorial sea (waters out to 12 miles) is closely adjacent to sheltered waters and all vessel operations within this limit fall outside STCW requirements.
Our view is that this is not consistent with the natural wording or intention of the convention, the existing legislative interpretation of this in any other white listed country. Nor is it the opinion of any expert who has previously acted as competent persons in assessing applications for admission to the white list that we have discussed this with. We therefore believe the Maritime New Zealand proposal creates an unnecessary and completely avoidable risk to the majority of New Zealand mariners who operate internationally at some point of their career.
Let me be clear. STCW is intended to cover ships and very few white listed countries apply STCW to small vessels that are not ’seagoing ships.’ They do this by simply defining what is meant by seagoing and what is meant by ship.
This is the premise followed under current New Zealand certification requirements and one we believe should be continued, as it effectively limits the application of STCW to only appropriate vessel operations but without creating undue risk to our mariners.
Despite suggestions that the current Maritime NZ proposal is based on United Kingdom legislation, this does not appear to actually be the case. The actual UK legislation ( as prescribed in MSN1808 for those who wish to check this on the internet) allows only vessels of less than 24m in length to be operated up to 60 miles from a safe haven outside STCW, because they are not a ’ship’ and for vessels of any size operating both within three miles of land and 15 miles of their departure point to be operated outside STCW because they are not ’seagoing.’
This is remarkably similar in approach to that used in New Zealand under current maritime rules, where commercial vessels of less than 20m are effectively outside the STCW, as are vessels of any size operating in the existing enclosed limit.
There are pros and cons for vessel operators in either approach. Under current Maritime NZ proposals to include the coastal limit within STCW coverage, the skipper of a 14m charter vessel proceeding beyond the 12 mile limit will have to meet STCW requirements including the basic STCW package of firefighting, personal survival, personal safety and social responsibility, first aid and ship security familiarisation as pre-requisites.
They would then have to complete advanced firefighting, proficiency in survival craft and rescue boats, proficiency in medical first aid and a full GMDSS, on top of having to meet all of the existing NZOM competencies in actually operating the vessel in order to be a skipper.
But they could not do this without first having operated as a certified officer of the watch. If, as is normally the case, the engine power is greater than 750kW and the skipper is also the engineer, they will also have to be certificated as a chief engineer <3000kW (restricted to near coastal) , but will not be able to do this without first being certificated as an engineering officer of the watch (restricted to near coastal).
This is clearly completely inappropriate for the nature of the vessel, extremely expensive and adds very little to career progression and portability. Under our proposed approach, the vessel would be outside STCW coverage and appropriate competency requirements could be agreed between Maritime New Zealand and the industry.
On the other hand, we estimate there are 18 non fishing vessels of greater than 24m in length which currently have to operate within STCW requirements and which would continue to have to do so under our suggested approach but which would be able to operate outside STCW requirements under the Maritime NZ proposal.
Of these, all but four are large ships, including the Cook Strait ferries and coastal tankers, and it seems inconceivable that Maritime NZ, the operaters themselves or their insurers would allow these vessels to be operated at much below STCW requirements.
In our view, the trade off is therefore between the interests of about four ’ships’ on the margin and those of our international seafarers, and a significant number of restricted limit vessels of less than 24m in length which currenly proceed into the proposed coastal limit on the other side.
We therefore believe an approach based on the combined UK and existing New Zealand practices has much greater overall merit for the industry and removes the risk of New Zealand not remaining on the STCW white list.