No room for a second flunk

Because the Philippines had flunked the first time, a second time would have dire consequences.

We’re talking here about the second audit made by the European Maritime Safety Administration (EMSA) last April on the reported deficiencies of the Philippines on the international Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW).

The first audit was made last year, and there were harsh words in the report on the country’s non-conformance to the STCW. In August 2012, the Philippine government submitted documents that showed how it had been coping with the raised issues.

Unfortunately, in the second EMSA, the auditors were not happy with what they saw. The three outstanding deficiencies that had been outlined in the first audit were still apparently outstanding. The ball, apparently, has not moved significantly over the period after the first audit.

Caught with its pants down is the Commission on Higher Education (CHEd), which is responsible for monitoring the performance of 93 maritime schools operating in the country.

‘Fairly simple’ problems

Responding to the EMSA audit seems fairly simple if you’re a first world bureaucrat. But this is the Philippines, and responding to three basic requirements for compliance may seem like a mountain to cross if you’re a government official.

The EMSA report firstly focused on the CHEd allocation of only a handful of people to monitor operating maritime schools across the country. This was followed by the legitimate observation that there seems to be no funds allocated or available to bankroll any monitoring activity.

Lastly, and most importantly, the report noted the lack of full time assessors to conduct the evaluation of the schools. In addition, many of the part time assessors were connected with schools, thus impairing their ability to render impartial reports.

These “fairly simple” problems, however, have not been dealt with since last year, and it’s easy to understand why EMSA auditors are throwing up their hands in exasperation.

At risk

Some 90,000 Filipino seafaring workers on board European-flagged vessels are at risk of losing their jobs, and in addition, a potential loss of employment opportunities for other Filipinos arising from a EU-imposed ban.

In terms of remittances, this will mean a reduction of about $1 billion in remittances since the seafarers that could be affected by the EU ban comprise about a fourth of the total number of global shipping industry Filipino workers.

Furthermore, the ban would bring the country down a notch or more in the competitive shipping manpower market, which already is being meticulously attacked and eyed by graduates from populous countries like China, Indonesia and India.

The deadline for real change is October when the EMSA team is expected to follow up on their earlier audit this year. That’s barely four months to go. So far, only a national qua-lity standard system on maritime education, certification and training had been developed. But as for most things in the Philippines, implementation is the bigger challenge.

Unfounded optimism

Our government officials have been declaring with optimism that the country will pass the forthcoming EMSA audit, but with the progress made so far, things are far from looking like a walk in the park.

Still, with the limited time, the Philippines may hope to accomplish smaller steps, not entirely everything that our European colleagues wish to see for now, but enough for them to be assured that steps are being done that would ultimately and irrevocably lead to the desired compliance.

Revamp maritime education and training

For the longest time, this column has been harping on the need to improve maritime education and training, being the key posts in bringing the competitiveness of Filipino shipping industry workers at par to world standards.

This means not just regulating the number of students enrolling in maritime-related courses, but also the number of compliant maritime schools that offer courses and degrees. Many of the latter do not have the clout to graduate students that have the ideal practicum hours.

To keep up with global standards, our maritine students must follow the 2-1-1 method, which translates to two years of classroom education, one year of training as a cadet onboard a ship, and one more year back to school before graduating.

The 2-1-1 system has been proven to be effective in getting graduates accepted in industry jobs not only here but also abroad. If the Philippines were to hope for getting more jobs for its students, CHED should shift its standards from three years of schooling and one year cadetship onboard to the 2-1-1 system.

Understandably, this is difficult to promulgate since most of maritime schools have difficulty getting cadets onboard ships for cadetship training. Only a few good maritime schools have a tie-up with foreign principals for their cadets to train onboard their ships.

Yet, if there’s a will, there should be a way. –Rey Gamboa (The Philippine Star)