Feature: Easing the seafarer’s burden

Attempts to reduce the amount of paperwork weighing down shipping have so far had limited success, but a new survey of seafarers suggests there are good reasons why efforts should not be abandoned. Dealing with the administrative burdens of both regulations and companies’ quality management systems (QMS) can now occupy a fifth of an officer’s working day and put them in danger of breaching working-time rules.
Some among the 800 Danish seafarers who took part in a survey entitled “From Craft to Control: Danish Seafarers’ Perceptions of Administrative Burdens in The Maritime Sector” see some administrative work as counter-productive, with safety, security and the environment potentially at risk as paperwork-laden officers are unable to give them their full attention.
Seafarers in the Danish survey recognised the importance and necessity of some of the administrative work they do, particularly when it involved safety and the environment. Other work was also seen as routine and something in which they had become practised.
As the survey’s fictional but typical Master says, “It is not easy to put a finger on a single specific burden that needs to be removed because the problem is more the sum of papers and forms we must fill out”.
The survey and a parallel one into the administrative burdens faced by shipping company office staff (“Administrative Burdens In Shipowners’ Offices”) were carried out on behalf of the Danish Maritime Authority (DMA), a persistent advocate at the International Maritime Organization (IMO) for a reduction in the administrative burdens created by regulations.
Among seafarers the two administrative burdens that cause most annoyance are complying with the International Ship and Port Security (ISPS) Code and QMS. The first caused annoyance because it was seen as ineffective and often unnecessary, with the requirement to post a 24-hour security guard even in “safe” ports cited as a prime example.
QMS work was said to be the most time-consuming, with the need to document “correct behaviour” perceived to be more important than “to follow through on environment-friendly or safe ship operations”, the report says.
The International Safety Management (ISM) Code, when implemented through a company’s QMS, was also a source of annoyance as it had become “over-complicated” and had developed into a “control regime” which left seafarers little scope for exercising their professional judgment and decision-making. “The system grows larger and larger and eventually becomes so incomprehensible that no-one has an overview,” the report says.
The researchers did concede, however, that some companies - usually larger ones – had “user-friendly” systems that allowed seafarers to “work smart”, entering and updating data digitally. They suggested that in online systems well-performing senior officers such as Masters and Chief Engineers could be given authority to “co-develop and co-maintain” the QMS.
Many of the seafarers surveyed also felt they were ignored when new QMS procedures were introduced, that they were the last link in the chain and had limited opportunities to provide feedback. This has led to a feeling of alienation and the belief that new rules were “constructed in an office” far from the reality of the seafarer.
There are, again, exceptions to this general criticism, with the report noting one company’s success in reducing, with the active support of its seafarers, the number of its procedures from 4,500 to fewer than 2,000.
Another source of frustration was in the vetting that some charterers, particularly oil companies, insist on before accepting a ship. Getting the paperwork right is seen as crucial but this has developed, researchers were told, into a belief that the paperwork was more important than the actual standards of the ship.
“Inspection thereby becomes the ‘control of control’, with a tendency to evaluate the quality of the control system rather than the quality of the ship and crew,” the report says.
Again, frustration was voiced by seafarers over the lack of a standard format for some information such as pre-arrival documents and at the continuing need for manual copies of data already held in digitalised form to be produced and rubber-stamped.
The parallel survey into how staff in Danish shipping company offices perceive their administrative burdens found similar frustrations, although the time spent on such work was on average lower than that at sea.
Dealing with crewing issues such as seafarers’ taxes and training and certification produced the highest levels of irritation among shore staff, while keeping the QMS up-to-date and compliant with national and international regulations with their variations in interpretation also rated highly.
Some large companies even have special units whose sole function is to analyse changing regulations and adapt them to the QMS while trying to avoid increasing the administrative burden on seafarers. Smaller companies without such resources risk the potentially costly consequences of failing to keep their QMS constantly updated.
The DMA has said it hopes to launch initiatives based on the two surveys in the Autumn. Administrative requirements, the DMA added, could be changed or a common understanding of their necessity and value created.
If it could be established, the survey of seafarers says, that an increase in administrative work results in a reduction in accidents, the burdens would be seen in a more positive light. But, it adds, “Danish safety statistics do not seem to indicate a strong relation between the two”.
The survey and its findings suggest that companies can do more to help reduce the burden on their seafarers, particularly if they are persuaded that levels of efficiency are being impaired and that safety and the environment are jeopardised by time wasted on dealing with cumbersome administration.
Companies’ ability to reduce the burdens is limited, however, by the need to stay compliant with regulations. In turn, regulators and those responsible for the implementation and enforcement of rules have to tread a fine line between being seen to be too hard or too soft.
The IMO has already promised to review the ISPS Code and last month agreed to establish a steering group to consider ways of reducing the regulatory burden.
At the same time, however, new regulations such as the Maritime Labour Convention are poised to enter into force and threaten to increase rather than ease the burden.
Source: BIMCO