In his State of the Nation Address two weeks ago, President Bongbong Marcos Jr. asserted that, “The question about the European Union’s recognition of the standards of training of Filipino seafarers has, after 17 years, finally been resolved. This development now effectively maintains the Filipino seafarer’s distinct competitive advantage in the global shipping labor market.”

Unfortunately, reality falls short of this claim.

In March 31, 2023 the European Commission (EC) extended the recognition of Filipino seafarers’ certificates thereby allowing their continued employment. It was based on an acknowledgement of the efforts done by the government to comply, not yet its results. The extension gives the government time to implement plans and programs it proposed in response to the European Maritime Safety Agency audit with the EC providing technical assistance for improvement of seafarer training and certification. Some 50,000 Filipino seafarers in European ships got a temporary reprieve, not a final resolution.

This reflects policy incoherence if not outright politicization that may be among the issues besetting maritime education in the first place. But beyond the issue of the veracity of SONA claims, the problem of seafarer training and certification is indeed an urgent policy issue.

A roundtable discussion last May at the University of the Philippines School of Labor and Industrial Relations sought to consider the issue with the aim of seeking evidence-based solutions. Stakeholders from government agencies, seafarers’ unions, maritime education institutions, and occupational safety organizations attended. The participants all recognized the importance of Filipino seafarers’ contribution to international shipping and to the domestic economy.

Identifying problems

Despite the President’s acknowledgement that the matter of EU recognition started in 2006, the problem of compliance with international standards for training of seafarers goes further back to 1964 when the Philippines became part of the International Maritime Organization. While the President has already issued a directive for the Department of Transportation and the Maritime Industry Authority (MARINA) to collaborate with other agencies in coming up with a joint implementation plan for effective administration and regulation in maritime education, progress on such a plan has been slow because MARINA recently focused its efforts to address external audit findings in the compliance with the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification, and Watchkeeping of Seafarers (STCW). The fast turnover of leadership at MARINA has also led to rapid changes in policy directions which disrupted STCW compliance assessment of maritime programs.

The maritime education curriculum is also presently overloaded. Since the competencies required by the STCW is compressed in three years, students are required to take 24 to 28 units in a semester. The number of hours for laboratory work on a particular day could also exceed eight hours. Likewise, the curriculum also overloads faculty with teaching work. 

The absence of a standardized tool for the evaluation of maritime programs confounds the problem. The current evaluation system for STCW compliance is highly dependent on evaluators’ interpretation. Previous assessment of maritime institutions also did not distinguish between accreditation and monitoring so that existing schools and new applicant schools were subjected to the same evaluation. Further, there is a shortage in the number and expertise of MARINA’s workforce. It is estimated that there are only 250 MARINA personnel involved in the nationwide implementation and monitoring of STCW compliance. Many of its workforce are not graduates of maritime education and receive training pertaining to the maritime industry only upon joining the agency. MARINA has also been unable to fill positions as government compensation remain uncompetitive against pay offered in the maritime industry.

The lack of data and information, if not its use, impairs the formulation and implementation of plans for STCW compliance. For example, recent efforts by the Philippine Association of Maritime Institutions to study the maritime curriculum was limited as data only up to 2017 is available. Onboard training capacity is also a bottleneck in the maritime curriculum. MARINA requires maritime schools to deploy 60% to 80% of their students for onboard training despite the fledgling domestic shipping industry only being able to accommodate up to 2%.

Moreover, in 2015, the 40-hour occupational safety and health training (OSH) required for safety officers onboard Philippine registered ships was reduced by the Department of Labor and Employment to a one-day course. This was justified on the basis of equivalent trainings required under the STCW convention. However, initial consultations with government agencies reveal that there are no substantial trainings offered yet in terms of the preventive aspects of OSH.

Finally, the decarbonization and net-zero target of international shipping may be an existential threat to Philippine competitiveness in the seafaring industry. The change in technology of vessels necessarily means a change in the required training and education of seafarers. Amendments to the STCW is thus inevitable and further poses a challenge to Philippine compliance to such standards.

Proposing solutions

Yet, amidst myriad complications, participants to the roundtable agreed that maritime education has room to grow, since the yearly 5,000 seafarer graduates is far from the 30,000 total projected annual labor market demand until 2026. 

A ladderized program was posed as a possible alternative which involves the introduction of STCW-required competencies to students as early as their senior high school years. Students would then have acquired sufficient competencies to become ratings after graduating from senior high school. The system would thus be able to address industry workforce demands at an earlier time. Those who desire to become officers may then acquire the competencies required by further taking and completing a bachelor’s degree. Non-bachelor’s degree holders with sufficient competencies can be employed as ratings after having completed the earlier part of a ladderized education framework. But a shift to a ladderized education system necessitates a change in the maritime industry as employers do not accept non-bachelor’s degree holders onboard.

Other degree programs, in addition to the BSME and BSMatE, that may serve other industries in the maritime sector can open alternative streams for students to be integrated into the maritime industry workforce. These industries include port operation, ship business, logistics, and ship security.

The preventive aspects of OSH must also be integrated in the implementation of maritime training and education programs. This is also in further compliance with the Maritime Labor Convention, the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, and the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships.

Urgent areas for research include a review of the current curriculum for maritime education; a comparative survey of the various maritime education frameworks adopted by other countries; and the implications of Shipping 4.0 to the seafaring industry and training. It is imperative to establish a working tripartite and consultative system of administration and management of the maritime industry coupled with a more apolitical climate. All these should be planks of a national strategic maritime plan.

The roundtable is just the beginning of a conversation and the laundry list of solutions is a small contribution to a whole-of-society effort that should in the end “solidify our country’s position as a ‘global maritime hub’ through the steady supply of competent Filipino seafarers to foreign merchant marine vessels,” as the President said in his SONA. – Rappler.com

Benjamin Velasco is Assistant Professor, UP Diliman School of Labor and Industrial Relations (SOLAIR) and Co-Convenor, Program on Alternative Development, UP Center for Integrative and Development Studies (UP CIDS AltDev).

Mikhail Aggabao is University Researcher, Center for Labor and Grassroots Initiatives of UP Diliman SOLAIR. Opinions expressed here are of the authors alone and do not reflect those of their affiliations.