Norway and the MLC, 2006 Haakon Storhaug

23.04.2012

Objective of presentation

• To provide participants with an understanding of the principles

underlying the implementation of the Maritime Labour Convention in

Norway

• This will be illustrated using the questions circulated by the Maritime

Health Conference, in order of importance.

– Shipowner

– Seafarer

23.04.2012

Shipowner

• Will the flag state adopt MLC’s definition of a ship owner? How will you prevent technical problems when the crew employer is not the ship owner?

– Norway as a ratifying state must as a matter of course adopt the definition of “shipowner” of the MLC, 2006

– Fundamental principle of the MLC: One party responsible for ensuring decent working and living conditions on board

• The role of the shipowner is the most significant innovation of the MLC

– The ISM Company will be the designated shipowner

23.04.2012

Shipowner: why ISM?

• IMO is «lead legislator» for the maritime industry

– Adoption of ISM Code in the 1990’s

• Close relationship between IMO and ILO instruments

– Complement each other, eg

• safe manning,

• rest hours

– MLC is fourth pillar along with SOLAS, MARPOL and STCW

• National laws and regulations

• Shipowner «vs» employer

23.04.2012

National laws and regulations

• Norway’s Ship Safety and Security Act (SSA) clarified the definition «shipowner» as the ISM Company.

– Act covers:

• Safety at sea

• Marine environment protection

• Security

• Seamen’s Act will be aligned with the SSA definition, and

– «Joint and several liability»-provision for the shipowner

23.04.2012

Shipowner - employer

• Second part of the question: “How will you prevent technical problems

when the crew employer is not the shipowner?»:

1. «Employer» will no longer be defined/regulated by ILO

Conventions when MLC enters into force

2. The need for ultimate responsibility to ensure decent working and

living conditions on board led to the use of the term «shipowner»

rather than «employer»

– Often more than one employer on board. Which of them would be the

ultimate responsible party on board?

23.04.2012

Shipowner - conclusion

• A separate MLC shipowner would upset the Safety Management System

– It could blur the lines of authority and communication on board and between shore and ship

• one of the main purposes of the ISM Code

– Could lead to separate «IMO-seafarers» and «ILO-seafarers»

– Measures adopted (by the shipowner) to ensure ongoing compliance could not be part of the ISM safety management system

• Choosing a different company would break with national legal traditions and precedence

23.04.2012

Who is a seafarer?

• Norway adopts the definition of seafarer of the MLC, 2006

• Some exemptions probable:

– General exemptions

• Possibly personnel on offshore service vessels

– Case by case

• Consultations are currently underway

23.04.2012

MLC and medical certificate

• Question: Will the new “ILO-IMO International Guidelines for Medical

Examination of Seafarers” lead to change in the recognition of

medical certificates?

– Norway will implement the recently adopted joint IMO/ILO guidelines

– In the medium to long term changes will be made to the way medical

certificates are issued.

• Medical certificate in accordance with STCW Manila Amendments is

covered by transitional provision in regulation I/15 (STCW.7/Circ.16)

23.04.2012

MLC and medical certificate

• Question: Will you go for national or mutual recognition?

– Mutual recognition beyond the European Economic Agreement is not a

realistic option for the foreseeable future.

23.04.2012

MLC and medical certificate

• Question: Will there be changes in approval and quality assurance of

medical examiners?

– Norway is considering implementing a quality assurance program

• No firm conclusion reached yet as to which program.

23.04.2012

Occupational safety and health

• Question: Is preventive occupational health services in the maritime

industry planned?

– What the MLC requires is already implemented:

• Norway has policies and regulations in place and,

• the shipowner (ISM Company) is required to have a shipboard

system

23.04.2012

Delegation to Recognized Organizations

• Norway has a well-established system for delegation of authority to

RO’s

• RO’s are also responsible for ISM Certification for Norwegian vessels

• Since Norway designates the ISM Company as «shipowner» in the

MLC context, RO’s will also be given responsibility for issuing the

Maritime Labour Certificate to Norwegian-flagged ships

– Measures in DMLC part II can therefore be part of the overall ISM

system

23.04.2012

Delegation to RO’s

• Question: Will the flag state give precise instructions for how to comply with the 14 certification points, or will it be up to the shipowners to come up with proposals?

• Yes to both parts of the question:

– RO’s will be instructed as to how to perform inspections for each of the 14 areas

– Shipowners will have to draw up the DMLC part II for their ship based on the procedures they themselves have developed.

• Some guidance will be provided by the Norwegian Maritime Authority

23.04.2012

MLC standard A4.2 Shipowner’s liability

• Question: Will the flag state accept that P&I coverage is sufficient for

compliance recognizing the P&I systems limitations (no coverage

when the club provisions are not complied with, no direct access for

seafarers etc.)?

• Answer: Documentation of P&I coverage is sufficient to indicate

compliance with standard A4.2

– However, if the shipowner cannot actually fulfil his respnsibilities with

regard to standard A4.2, he is in breach of the MLC and is still liable for

any legitimate claims seafarers may have.

23.04.2012