Papers by Padmanabha Krishnan
Starboard Strategies, 2019
In India ways of corruption are blocked by use of vast variety of chemical based trapping methods... more In India ways of corruption are blocked by use of vast variety of chemical based trapping methods or techniques, which involves the use of fluorescent dyes, starch powder and phenolphthalein powder, but the chemical of choice is phenolphthalein powder because it is most common, colorless, easily available and its chemistry is favorable for trapping method because it is weak acid and in unionized form it is colorless and sign of changing of colorless mode to pink indicate its ionization. Persistence of pink color during court proceedings is the major issue because, because when the court asked for proof regarding transfer of phenolphthalein and its identification, so concerning to the chemistry of phenolphthalein the pink color in ionized form is persistent for longer period if phenolphthalein is combined with hydroquinone, as well as this technique blocks the way of criminal's plea regarding the use of laxative. So the color persistency for court trials as well as no way outs for culprit, these problems can be vanished and color of phenolphthalein can be maintained for a long period time with the help of hydroquinone. Keyword: Trap case, laxative material and phenolphthalein.
Maritime training in India has an excellent international reputation and all the institutions and... more Maritime training in India has an excellent international reputation and all the institutions and training centers are
accredited institutions offering STCW-95 compliant courses. However, the capacity of these training
institutions has not been matched by the availability of sufficient training berths for significant numbers of trainees
to gain the required amount of sea-time. Whilst it is essential that Indian ratings are equipped with STCW-95
qualifications, and colored officers enter the labor market there is little point in providing formal
training in the absence of opportunities to accumulate sea time. The anomaly is that there is a shortage of skilled
seafarers in key areas such as tankers, and offshore vessels particularly on regional routes. Many companies are
flagging out because of the excessive and unrealistic controls, permits, red tape and strapping fee structure of
DG Shipping and Indian Register of Shipping. On the one hand the training berths are shrinking and on the other
hand the tonnage too shrinks ever since the reactionary regimes of Kiran Dhingra and Satish Agnithotri set their
cactus feet in the Jahaz Bhavan. The Utopian dream of Tonnage Tax showering training berths is almost a non-starter.
Maritime shipping is probably one of the oldest businesses in the world. It is also by nature per... more Maritime shipping is probably one of the oldest businesses in the world. It is also by nature perhaps the most international business. It cannot be regulated by any national law because its activities go far beyond the borders of any nation. There are many international conventions and protocols that regulate safety and security of maritime operations and protection of the marine environment. There is no international police force to ensure compliance of the provisions of these treaties. Member states of the International Maritime Organization, being parties to the instruments implement them in their role both as flag state of the ship concerned and port state where the vessel may call. The responsibilities are complementary to one another. It is the primary responsibility of the flag state to ensure that ships comply with all international safety requirements no matter where they are. It is the responsibility of the port state to ensure similar compliance by all ships operating within its jurisdiction. As per IMO, Port State Control (PSC) is the inspection of foreign ships in national ports to verify that the condition of the ship and its equipment comply with the requirements of international regulations and that the ship is manned and operated in compliance with these rules. This ensures that as many ships as possible are inspected but at the same time prevents ships being delayed by unnecessary inspections. The primary responsibility for ships' standards rests with the flag State-but port State control provides a "safety net" to catch substandard ships.
Pre-employment medical examination is compul¬sory for merchant seamen, commercial divers, and pil... more Pre-employment medical examination is compul¬sory for merchant seamen, commercial divers, and pilots. But fishermen require neither exam¬ination nor even health screening—an omission which is at variance with MOS requirements for seafarers and with occupational health practice elsewhere. One fifth of all deaths of fishermen at sea are due to undisclosed disease.
One leading specialist marine insurance intermediary recently spoke out on reported doubts about ... more One leading specialist marine insurance intermediary recently spoke out on reported doubts about the insurance industry’s ability to insure the liability for unpaid wages of abandoned seafarers under the Maritime Labor Convention 2006. We are sure reports were both inaccurate and ill-founded.
It is already an agreed principle under MLC 2006, which came into force in August 2013, that liability for the unpaid wages of seafarers currently, falls to the recruitment and placement service providers that help seafarers find employment at sea. Some have rightly argued that this is a misdirected arrow and that it is the ship-owner/employer, and not the agent, that should assume this liability.
In a positive move, it is now understood that recent tripartite talks between owners, unions and governments at the ILO headquarters in Geneva has finally addressed this issue, with talks initiated to concentrate on the specific inclusion of unpaid crew wages in the ship owner’s MLC obligation to repatriate crew in cases of abandonment.
The fact is that any cover that does not provide for the indemnification of unpaid wages fails to adequately protect seafarers against the real risk of abandonment. Effective employment protection must include crew wages, without which seafarers risk becoming the cash flow casualties of their employers’ insolvencies. It has been suggested by some industry commentators that insurance to cover unpaid wages would be unfeasibly expensive for owners, and that in any case it is only those owners who are likely to default who will need the cover. This is wrong on both counts. Firstly, some insurance policies launched earlier this year provide comprehensive cover at low cost, with premiums of as little as $50 per seafarer per year available today.
Secondly, the point about only bad owners requiring cover in respect of unpaid wages is immaterial, since the proposed requirement for cover will be mandatory on all ship-owners. Mandating the requirement in this way will force out of business those owners who - it is claimed - ‘need the cover’, as they will be unable to obtain the requisite financial security called for by MLC.
If you cannot pay your crew, you should not put your ship to sea. It is that simple. Any arguments to the contrary would serve to do our industry a disservice. Unfortunately, without the proposed amendments, there is currently no meaningful deterrent to this premise.
The fact is that affordable cover in respect of the indemnification of unpaid wages is available, and it is available now. It is in the best interests of the industry and seafarers alike that responsible owners support the ratification and early adoption of the draft amendments to MLC in this regard
The mantra that “owners who cannot pay their crew should not put ships to sea”, is a compelling one. It also provides an insight into an industry which has a rather schizophrenic view of its relationships. On one hand the globalised economy has used shipping as the conveyor belt to drive progress – but at what professional and human cost to seafarers? On the other, the economies have conveniently forgotten the plight of the ill-paid / unpaid seafarer and his family left to starvation diet.
According to experts the relatively simple notion of shipping has developed into a complex multi-layered network with many global players and stakeholders added to the original and basic “shipper-carrier-consignee” relationship.
According to a recent thought provoking piece in Lloyd’s List shipping is now at a very complex and often confused crossroads – a situation which has seen the shipping industry become a labyrinth of roles and responsibilities, of liabilities, threats and opportunities.
Overcapacity, fierce competition, volatile freight rates and hungry investors combine with a human element of seafarers, shore professionals, pirates and lawyers, et al to create a potential recipe for disaster if not managed effectively. With growing ship sizes, increasing pressures and even changing weather patterns there are seemingly so many more questions than answers.
Lloyd’s List is seemingly using its new “digital only” format to good effect, and is increasingly positioning itself as the voice of industry common-sense. The “paper”, recently assessed the issue of “how to be a good Ship-owner” and provided a host of recommended do’s and don’ts - which relate directly to the way in which the “good ship-owner” looks out for the seafarers who keep the ships moving. They stressed that a good owner “does not leave his crew stranded in Suez for six months without pay or supplies, blaming his banks for the crisis”. The good owner also “doesn’t regard the Maritime Labor Convention as a nuisance that requires minimum attention”.
Given the “good owner” test, how can ship-owners adapt to the bewildering array of today’s business pressures? The need to deliver across the seas, just-in-time, and to a schedule which would challenge modes which do not have to contend with wind, wave and pirates is an incredible challenge in itself. But to do so in a fluctuating market ridden by recurring crises with bigger ships, smaller crews and with a lengthening list of legislation, rules, regulations and demands…and with a need to turn a profit, well that requires nothing short of herculean effort to manage.
Such challenges highlight the need for the shipping industry to work together, and uppermost in this is the clear need for employers (owners) and employees (seafarers) to ensure that even in the tumultuous external world, then there’s a calm, respectful and effective relationship. It seems that sadly many are falling at this initial hurdle, even with the Maritime Labor Convention (MLC) as a template for minimum standards.
Seafarers are the life blood of the industry – but increasingly are being seen as a cost centre, rather than a major asset. According to one observer, Janusz Fedorowicz, many seafarers face recruitment based on costs rather than on proper training and experience. This would be a recipe for disaster in a staid and stable industry, within an environment such as shipping it is nothing short of staggering – and is hugely depressing to boot.
Increasingly crew is being separated from the realities of business, the cargoes they move, and are removed from the processes of shipping. This means that they are seen simply as part of the mechanics of the process, not the management of it. This in turn makes it harder for those ashore without maritime experience to truly recognize the value of good seafarers and their role in ensuring support, professional assistance and training. It is all too easy for seafarers to be seen as a problem, rather than a means to a solution.
Shipping is teetering on the brink in its relationships with its seafarers. Indeed all too often the modern seafarer has little room for exercising initiative, or demonstrating prowess and professionalism. The good Captain is the one who shuts up and delivers on time and without incident or any calls on company cash. And while such a sentiment makes business sense, it is only the real professionals that can make such a challenging role seem almost mundane and invisible.
The best crew becomes the archetypal swan, serene on the water – but frantically paddling underneath, unseen – and alas unrecognized. Indeed, there is a real danger that the industry is becoming ever more distrusting of real quality, training and experience, save for satisfying charterer demands.
There has to be a step change and a reassessment of the ship-shore relationship. It would be wholly positive that wages can be the catalyst for such revision. Owners and their shore managers should reflect on the remuneration issues, to ensure they can appreciate the real work that goes into keeping their ships running, their cargoes moving and the cash flowing. They should then ensure that they do everything possible, practicable to ensure that wages are paid and safeguarded – it is to be hoped that with MLC having come into force, then the developments and amendments slated for future will finally provide the obligations necessary to facilitate real positive change.
It is not just us trying to stress the importance of seafarers in the business of shipping. It is all about the shipping industry’s focus on the human element or about the ignorance of it.
Indian Seafarer s – an Endangered Species
Starboard Strategies, Mar 1, 2014
The Present MET in India is expensive and a majority of the
attempt made in this ... more The Present MET in India is expensive and a majority of the
attempt made in this editorial is only an impassive and
Institutes do not appear to be prepared to “trim the ship” so
impartial appraisal of the training coordinates of the maritime
that MET can cope with the challenges which the changing
industry and to make recommendations for action of the
environmental conditions are creating or have already
concerned at all the three levels. created. If these challenges are not met then a further loss of Existing problems jobs and decline in quality of services will take place and maritime expertise in India will suffer to an alarming extent.
There are three levels of policy and decision making in respect of MET: the political, the admini... more There are three levels of policy and decision making in respect of MET: the political, the administrative and the institutional level. The political level comprises the EU, national or regional governments, the administrative level consists of national maritime and higher education authorities, the institutional level is represented by MET institutions. There is also a three-level hierarchy policy making -decision making -implementation that corresponds with fairly broad aspects on the top and fairly narrow aspects on the bottom level. This report contains recommendations on all three levels. 3
That the Indian MET has not been fulfilling its customers' aspirations is everyone's concern. If ... more That the Indian MET has not been fulfilling its customers' aspirations is everyone's concern. If anything is to be done, it requires the collective will of three cornerstones of the program for the purpose of decision making, execution and implementationthe political, the administrative and the institutional elements of the MET Administration. The political level comprises the Government, the administrative level consists of DG Shipping and the institutional level is represented by Maritime Training institutions, IMU and its campuses included. There is also a three-level of hierarchy -policy making, execution and implementation that corresponds with fairly broad aspects on the top and fairly narrow aspects at the bottom level. The attempt made in this editorial is only an impassive and impartial appraisal of the training coordinates of the maritime industry and to make recommendations for action of the concerned at all the three levels.
That the Indian MET has not been fulfilling its customers' aspirations is everyone's concern. If ... more That the Indian MET has not been fulfilling its customers' aspirations is everyone's concern. If anything is to be done, it requires the collective will of three cornerstones of the program for the purpose of decision making, execution and implementationthe political, the administrative and the institutional elements of the MET Administration. The political level comprises the Government, the administrative level consists of DG Shipping and the institutional level is represented by Maritime Training institutions, IMU and its campuses included. There is also a three-level of hierarchy -policy making, execution and implementation that corresponds with fairly broad aspects on the top and fairly narrow aspects at the bottom level. The attempt made in this editorial is only an impassive and impartial appraisal of the training coordinates of the maritime industry and to make recommendations for action of the concerned at all the three levels.
Uploads
Papers by Padmanabha Krishnan
accredited institutions offering STCW-95 compliant courses. However, the capacity of these training
institutions has not been matched by the availability of sufficient training berths for significant numbers of trainees
to gain the required amount of sea-time. Whilst it is essential that Indian ratings are equipped with STCW-95
qualifications, and colored officers enter the labor market there is little point in providing formal
training in the absence of opportunities to accumulate sea time. The anomaly is that there is a shortage of skilled
seafarers in key areas such as tankers, and offshore vessels particularly on regional routes. Many companies are
flagging out because of the excessive and unrealistic controls, permits, red tape and strapping fee structure of
DG Shipping and Indian Register of Shipping. On the one hand the training berths are shrinking and on the other
hand the tonnage too shrinks ever since the reactionary regimes of Kiran Dhingra and Satish Agnithotri set their
cactus feet in the Jahaz Bhavan. The Utopian dream of Tonnage Tax showering training berths is almost a non-starter.
It is already an agreed principle under MLC 2006, which came into force in August 2013, that liability for the unpaid wages of seafarers currently, falls to the recruitment and placement service providers that help seafarers find employment at sea. Some have rightly argued that this is a misdirected arrow and that it is the ship-owner/employer, and not the agent, that should assume this liability.
In a positive move, it is now understood that recent tripartite talks between owners, unions and governments at the ILO headquarters in Geneva has finally addressed this issue, with talks initiated to concentrate on the specific inclusion of unpaid crew wages in the ship owner’s MLC obligation to repatriate crew in cases of abandonment.
The fact is that any cover that does not provide for the indemnification of unpaid wages fails to adequately protect seafarers against the real risk of abandonment. Effective employment protection must include crew wages, without which seafarers risk becoming the cash flow casualties of their employers’ insolvencies. It has been suggested by some industry commentators that insurance to cover unpaid wages would be unfeasibly expensive for owners, and that in any case it is only those owners who are likely to default who will need the cover. This is wrong on both counts. Firstly, some insurance policies launched earlier this year provide comprehensive cover at low cost, with premiums of as little as $50 per seafarer per year available today.
Secondly, the point about only bad owners requiring cover in respect of unpaid wages is immaterial, since the proposed requirement for cover will be mandatory on all ship-owners. Mandating the requirement in this way will force out of business those owners who - it is claimed - ‘need the cover’, as they will be unable to obtain the requisite financial security called for by MLC.
If you cannot pay your crew, you should not put your ship to sea. It is that simple. Any arguments to the contrary would serve to do our industry a disservice. Unfortunately, without the proposed amendments, there is currently no meaningful deterrent to this premise.
The fact is that affordable cover in respect of the indemnification of unpaid wages is available, and it is available now. It is in the best interests of the industry and seafarers alike that responsible owners support the ratification and early adoption of the draft amendments to MLC in this regard
The mantra that “owners who cannot pay their crew should not put ships to sea”, is a compelling one. It also provides an insight into an industry which has a rather schizophrenic view of its relationships. On one hand the globalised economy has used shipping as the conveyor belt to drive progress – but at what professional and human cost to seafarers? On the other, the economies have conveniently forgotten the plight of the ill-paid / unpaid seafarer and his family left to starvation diet.
According to experts the relatively simple notion of shipping has developed into a complex multi-layered network with many global players and stakeholders added to the original and basic “shipper-carrier-consignee” relationship.
According to a recent thought provoking piece in Lloyd’s List shipping is now at a very complex and often confused crossroads – a situation which has seen the shipping industry become a labyrinth of roles and responsibilities, of liabilities, threats and opportunities.
Overcapacity, fierce competition, volatile freight rates and hungry investors combine with a human element of seafarers, shore professionals, pirates and lawyers, et al to create a potential recipe for disaster if not managed effectively. With growing ship sizes, increasing pressures and even changing weather patterns there are seemingly so many more questions than answers.
Lloyd’s List is seemingly using its new “digital only” format to good effect, and is increasingly positioning itself as the voice of industry common-sense. The “paper”, recently assessed the issue of “how to be a good Ship-owner” and provided a host of recommended do’s and don’ts - which relate directly to the way in which the “good ship-owner” looks out for the seafarers who keep the ships moving. They stressed that a good owner “does not leave his crew stranded in Suez for six months without pay or supplies, blaming his banks for the crisis”. The good owner also “doesn’t regard the Maritime Labor Convention as a nuisance that requires minimum attention”.
Given the “good owner” test, how can ship-owners adapt to the bewildering array of today’s business pressures? The need to deliver across the seas, just-in-time, and to a schedule which would challenge modes which do not have to contend with wind, wave and pirates is an incredible challenge in itself. But to do so in a fluctuating market ridden by recurring crises with bigger ships, smaller crews and with a lengthening list of legislation, rules, regulations and demands…and with a need to turn a profit, well that requires nothing short of herculean effort to manage.
Such challenges highlight the need for the shipping industry to work together, and uppermost in this is the clear need for employers (owners) and employees (seafarers) to ensure that even in the tumultuous external world, then there’s a calm, respectful and effective relationship. It seems that sadly many are falling at this initial hurdle, even with the Maritime Labor Convention (MLC) as a template for minimum standards.
Seafarers are the life blood of the industry – but increasingly are being seen as a cost centre, rather than a major asset. According to one observer, Janusz Fedorowicz, many seafarers face recruitment based on costs rather than on proper training and experience. This would be a recipe for disaster in a staid and stable industry, within an environment such as shipping it is nothing short of staggering – and is hugely depressing to boot.
Increasingly crew is being separated from the realities of business, the cargoes they move, and are removed from the processes of shipping. This means that they are seen simply as part of the mechanics of the process, not the management of it. This in turn makes it harder for those ashore without maritime experience to truly recognize the value of good seafarers and their role in ensuring support, professional assistance and training. It is all too easy for seafarers to be seen as a problem, rather than a means to a solution.
Shipping is teetering on the brink in its relationships with its seafarers. Indeed all too often the modern seafarer has little room for exercising initiative, or demonstrating prowess and professionalism. The good Captain is the one who shuts up and delivers on time and without incident or any calls on company cash. And while such a sentiment makes business sense, it is only the real professionals that can make such a challenging role seem almost mundane and invisible.
The best crew becomes the archetypal swan, serene on the water – but frantically paddling underneath, unseen – and alas unrecognized. Indeed, there is a real danger that the industry is becoming ever more distrusting of real quality, training and experience, save for satisfying charterer demands.
There has to be a step change and a reassessment of the ship-shore relationship. It would be wholly positive that wages can be the catalyst for such revision. Owners and their shore managers should reflect on the remuneration issues, to ensure they can appreciate the real work that goes into keeping their ships running, their cargoes moving and the cash flowing. They should then ensure that they do everything possible, practicable to ensure that wages are paid and safeguarded – it is to be hoped that with MLC having come into force, then the developments and amendments slated for future will finally provide the obligations necessary to facilitate real positive change.
It is not just us trying to stress the importance of seafarers in the business of shipping. It is all about the shipping industry’s focus on the human element or about the ignorance of it.
attempt made in this editorial is only an impassive and
Institutes do not appear to be prepared to “trim the ship” so
impartial appraisal of the training coordinates of the maritime
that MET can cope with the challenges which the changing
industry and to make recommendations for action of the
environmental conditions are creating or have already
concerned at all the three levels. created. If these challenges are not met then a further loss of Existing problems jobs and decline in quality of services will take place and maritime expertise in India will suffer to an alarming extent.
accredited institutions offering STCW-95 compliant courses. However, the capacity of these training
institutions has not been matched by the availability of sufficient training berths for significant numbers of trainees
to gain the required amount of sea-time. Whilst it is essential that Indian ratings are equipped with STCW-95
qualifications, and colored officers enter the labor market there is little point in providing formal
training in the absence of opportunities to accumulate sea time. The anomaly is that there is a shortage of skilled
seafarers in key areas such as tankers, and offshore vessels particularly on regional routes. Many companies are
flagging out because of the excessive and unrealistic controls, permits, red tape and strapping fee structure of
DG Shipping and Indian Register of Shipping. On the one hand the training berths are shrinking and on the other
hand the tonnage too shrinks ever since the reactionary regimes of Kiran Dhingra and Satish Agnithotri set their
cactus feet in the Jahaz Bhavan. The Utopian dream of Tonnage Tax showering training berths is almost a non-starter.
It is already an agreed principle under MLC 2006, which came into force in August 2013, that liability for the unpaid wages of seafarers currently, falls to the recruitment and placement service providers that help seafarers find employment at sea. Some have rightly argued that this is a misdirected arrow and that it is the ship-owner/employer, and not the agent, that should assume this liability.
In a positive move, it is now understood that recent tripartite talks between owners, unions and governments at the ILO headquarters in Geneva has finally addressed this issue, with talks initiated to concentrate on the specific inclusion of unpaid crew wages in the ship owner’s MLC obligation to repatriate crew in cases of abandonment.
The fact is that any cover that does not provide for the indemnification of unpaid wages fails to adequately protect seafarers against the real risk of abandonment. Effective employment protection must include crew wages, without which seafarers risk becoming the cash flow casualties of their employers’ insolvencies. It has been suggested by some industry commentators that insurance to cover unpaid wages would be unfeasibly expensive for owners, and that in any case it is only those owners who are likely to default who will need the cover. This is wrong on both counts. Firstly, some insurance policies launched earlier this year provide comprehensive cover at low cost, with premiums of as little as $50 per seafarer per year available today.
Secondly, the point about only bad owners requiring cover in respect of unpaid wages is immaterial, since the proposed requirement for cover will be mandatory on all ship-owners. Mandating the requirement in this way will force out of business those owners who - it is claimed - ‘need the cover’, as they will be unable to obtain the requisite financial security called for by MLC.
If you cannot pay your crew, you should not put your ship to sea. It is that simple. Any arguments to the contrary would serve to do our industry a disservice. Unfortunately, without the proposed amendments, there is currently no meaningful deterrent to this premise.
The fact is that affordable cover in respect of the indemnification of unpaid wages is available, and it is available now. It is in the best interests of the industry and seafarers alike that responsible owners support the ratification and early adoption of the draft amendments to MLC in this regard
The mantra that “owners who cannot pay their crew should not put ships to sea”, is a compelling one. It also provides an insight into an industry which has a rather schizophrenic view of its relationships. On one hand the globalised economy has used shipping as the conveyor belt to drive progress – but at what professional and human cost to seafarers? On the other, the economies have conveniently forgotten the plight of the ill-paid / unpaid seafarer and his family left to starvation diet.
According to experts the relatively simple notion of shipping has developed into a complex multi-layered network with many global players and stakeholders added to the original and basic “shipper-carrier-consignee” relationship.
According to a recent thought provoking piece in Lloyd’s List shipping is now at a very complex and often confused crossroads – a situation which has seen the shipping industry become a labyrinth of roles and responsibilities, of liabilities, threats and opportunities.
Overcapacity, fierce competition, volatile freight rates and hungry investors combine with a human element of seafarers, shore professionals, pirates and lawyers, et al to create a potential recipe for disaster if not managed effectively. With growing ship sizes, increasing pressures and even changing weather patterns there are seemingly so many more questions than answers.
Lloyd’s List is seemingly using its new “digital only” format to good effect, and is increasingly positioning itself as the voice of industry common-sense. The “paper”, recently assessed the issue of “how to be a good Ship-owner” and provided a host of recommended do’s and don’ts - which relate directly to the way in which the “good ship-owner” looks out for the seafarers who keep the ships moving. They stressed that a good owner “does not leave his crew stranded in Suez for six months without pay or supplies, blaming his banks for the crisis”. The good owner also “doesn’t regard the Maritime Labor Convention as a nuisance that requires minimum attention”.
Given the “good owner” test, how can ship-owners adapt to the bewildering array of today’s business pressures? The need to deliver across the seas, just-in-time, and to a schedule which would challenge modes which do not have to contend with wind, wave and pirates is an incredible challenge in itself. But to do so in a fluctuating market ridden by recurring crises with bigger ships, smaller crews and with a lengthening list of legislation, rules, regulations and demands…and with a need to turn a profit, well that requires nothing short of herculean effort to manage.
Such challenges highlight the need for the shipping industry to work together, and uppermost in this is the clear need for employers (owners) and employees (seafarers) to ensure that even in the tumultuous external world, then there’s a calm, respectful and effective relationship. It seems that sadly many are falling at this initial hurdle, even with the Maritime Labor Convention (MLC) as a template for minimum standards.
Seafarers are the life blood of the industry – but increasingly are being seen as a cost centre, rather than a major asset. According to one observer, Janusz Fedorowicz, many seafarers face recruitment based on costs rather than on proper training and experience. This would be a recipe for disaster in a staid and stable industry, within an environment such as shipping it is nothing short of staggering – and is hugely depressing to boot.
Increasingly crew is being separated from the realities of business, the cargoes they move, and are removed from the processes of shipping. This means that they are seen simply as part of the mechanics of the process, not the management of it. This in turn makes it harder for those ashore without maritime experience to truly recognize the value of good seafarers and their role in ensuring support, professional assistance and training. It is all too easy for seafarers to be seen as a problem, rather than a means to a solution.
Shipping is teetering on the brink in its relationships with its seafarers. Indeed all too often the modern seafarer has little room for exercising initiative, or demonstrating prowess and professionalism. The good Captain is the one who shuts up and delivers on time and without incident or any calls on company cash. And while such a sentiment makes business sense, it is only the real professionals that can make such a challenging role seem almost mundane and invisible.
The best crew becomes the archetypal swan, serene on the water – but frantically paddling underneath, unseen – and alas unrecognized. Indeed, there is a real danger that the industry is becoming ever more distrusting of real quality, training and experience, save for satisfying charterer demands.
There has to be a step change and a reassessment of the ship-shore relationship. It would be wholly positive that wages can be the catalyst for such revision. Owners and their shore managers should reflect on the remuneration issues, to ensure they can appreciate the real work that goes into keeping their ships running, their cargoes moving and the cash flowing. They should then ensure that they do everything possible, practicable to ensure that wages are paid and safeguarded – it is to be hoped that with MLC having come into force, then the developments and amendments slated for future will finally provide the obligations necessary to facilitate real positive change.
It is not just us trying to stress the importance of seafarers in the business of shipping. It is all about the shipping industry’s focus on the human element or about the ignorance of it.
attempt made in this editorial is only an impassive and
Institutes do not appear to be prepared to “trim the ship” so
impartial appraisal of the training coordinates of the maritime
that MET can cope with the challenges which the changing
industry and to make recommendations for action of the
environmental conditions are creating or have already
concerned at all the three levels. created. If these challenges are not met then a further loss of Existing problems jobs and decline in quality of services will take place and maritime expertise in India will suffer to an alarming extent.
The terrorists did not. Counter-terrorism experts and government officials interviewed by Time say that for all the relative calm since Sept. 11, America's luck will probably run out again, sooner or later. "It's going to be worse, and a lot of people are going to die," warned a U.S. counter-terrorism official. "I don't think there's a damn thing we're going to be able to do about it."
India has built up a magnificent maritime history and tradition for several decades even much before the rise of European maritime powers. In ancient period, Indian ships used to sail across many international high seas for trading purposes with other Asian and Middle East countries. But after the advent of British rule, the indigenous shipping industry was considerably discouraged due to preferential treatment given to the British ships and restrictive British navigational systems.
The Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Bill 2016 which repeals five obsolete British statutes on admiralty jurisdiction in civil matters, namely,
(a) Admiralty Court Act, 1840
(b) Admiralty Court Act, 1861,
(c) Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act, 1890,
(d) Colonial Courts of Admiralty (India) Act, 1891, and
(e) the provisions of the Letters Patent, 1865,
Applicable to the admiralty jurisdiction of the Bombay, Calcutta and Madras High Courts.
What is Admiralty Maritime Law of India ?
The Admiralty law governs maritime questions and offenses.
It is a body of both domestic laws governing maritime activities and private international law governing the relationships between private entities that operate vessels on the oceans.
The project, referred to as the Campbell Bay Trans-Shipment Hub (CBTH), is premised on a hub- and-spoke container trans-shipment operation concept.
The CBTH concept envisages a terminal of 400 acres with an annual capacity of 3.5 million TEUs (hub). From CBTH, coastal ports and terminals would primarily be served by feeder barge service (spokes).The CBTH project could be operational by 2022.
This report informs a broader assessment of the overall feasibility of the CBTH project.
Unless otherwise stated, the opinions provided herein are those of and they do not necessarily reflect the views of APA or the Canadian federal government.
This report should be treated as confidential as it may contain material deemed commercially sensitive.
Executive Summary
Introduction
The Adani Port Authority (APA) has identified an opportunity to develop a container trans-shipment hub to serve markets on the Canadian West Coast, including along the Fraser River, along the North West United States (together the Pacific North West, or PNW), and from there, further inland, including the US Mid-West.
The project, referred to as the Port Adani Trans-Shipment Hub (APA), is premised on a hub- and-spoke container trans-shipment operation concept.
The APA concept envisages a terminal of 400 acres with an annual capacity of 3.5 million TEUs (hub). From APA, coastal ports and terminals would primarily be served by feeder barge service (spokes). The APA project could be operational by 2022.
This report informs a broader assessment of the overall feasibility of the APA project.