DGS tightens manning requirements for foreign ships on Indian coastal trade

India’s maritime regulator, the Directorate General of Shipping (DGS) has tightened the manning  norms for ships operating on the Indian coast, making it mandatory for them to hire more Indian trainees and crew. The move comes as a response to Indian shipping’s longstanding gripe that many more sea berths are needed for trainees graduating from Indian maritime establishments for them to be able to pursue their careers. 

Although it has been mandatory, since 2011, for foreign vessels operating in Indian waters to hire a minimum number of Indian crew, the DGS has shortened the licence period in a ‘shipping development’ circular last week. In that circular, put up on the DGS website, Deputy DG V Rajendran acknowledges the “acute shortage” of on board training slots and says that, with the new rules, foreign ships licenced to operate in India for 30-90 days need to hire Indian crew to the extent of one-third of their complement as per the Safe Manning requirements, or a third of the number of crew deployed, whichever number is higher. If the licence period exceeds 90 days, half the crew should be Indian. The earlier periods for similar licencing were 90 and 180 days respectively.

In a  move that should give heart to the scores of cadets who are unable to find sea berths, the DGS directive says that one third of the crew engaged must be trainee cadets, distributed equally, as far as possible, between deck and engineering cadets.

India licences foreign ships to operate in Indian waters only if Indian ships are unavailable, and after approval from the DGS on a case to case basis. For many years, Indian cadets have struggled to find training berths on ships- a requirement for them to complete their training. Indian Ratings graduating from Pre-Sea training have been similarly hard hit.  At a time when India wants to increase its global market share of shipping manpower by two percentage points to around 9, the DGS move is a step in the right direction. Enforcement of the new rule will be key, however, many observers say.

“Any step taken for improvement of on-board training slots is good,” MD of V Ships India told the newspaper Livemint. “But the practicality of carrying out such a stipulation has to be discussed with people who are actually doing the job.”

The new rule comes into effect immediately from January 18. “A need has been felt to review the earlier rule keeping in view the acute shortage of on-board training slots and the need to create more opportunities for on-board training,” says the circular. The maritime regulator acknowledges that many countries impose crewing requirements on foreign ships licenced to ply in their coastal waters and it is “only appropriate” that similar crewing requirements are imposed on ships engaged in shipping and related activities in Indian coastal waters.

.

.

Philippine Government clamps down on oldest and largest maritime school

Courses stopped, 13,000 students hit.

The largest and oldest maritime college in the Philippines has been forced to close down its maritime education programmes for failing to comply with local and international standards. The Philippine State Commission on Higher Education (CHED) asked the 63-year-old Manila based Philippine Maritime Institute (PMI) to discontinue maritime education courses that catered to 3,500 deck and marine engineering graduates annually, prompting severe protests from students who are enrolled at PMI and have now been asked to switch to other colleges. Rattled by these developments, students, teachers and parents hit by the ban will hold protest rallies at CHED later this week.

CHED claimed on its Facebook page yesterday that a Quezon City judge has upheld its decision, denying a PMI petition for a temporary restraining order against the closure of the two courses.

PMI, established in 1948, is the largest maritime institute in the country. Its three campuses had come under CHED fire in recent times for a drop in the quality of education; CHED Director Julito Vitriolo said the closure decision was reached after the school failed to rectify deficiencies pointed out by CHED since 2006, involving shortcomings related to infrastructure and faculty. 

Many, however, see the CHED move as fallout of pressure by the European Maritime Safety Agency- EMSA- that has threatened to withdraw recognition of Philippine STCW certificates, a move that has rattled the MET administration in the country and precipitated a crackdown on maritime colleges. The fear is that thousands of Filipino seafarers would be out of jobs if the EMSA de-recognition threat became a reality. 

“We took action instead of causing problems for future seafarers who might not be accepted because of their qualifications,” Vitriolo commented.

CHED says that the two maritime programmes of PMI Colleges (Degree programs in Marine Transportation and Marine Engineering) would be closed 'in view of the consistent failure of the school to comply with the standards of said programmes in accordance with STCW and CHED requirements'. CHED has reportedly cracked down on tens of other maritime schools across the Philippines. It says that it would close down 'three more substandard maritime schools' soon. 

PMI had reacted angrily to the closure, saying that the CHED order was 'unfair and baseless'. It says that it has addressed "all non-compliances raised in recent audits such as facilities improvement and faculty development, including the installation of two full mission ship's bridge simulators in two of its campuses".

Meanwhile, affected students enrolled at PMI have asked the Commission on Higher Education to reconsider its decision to close the two programmes; Student council official Randy Padilla said in a press conference that CHED should first examine the effects of the closure order on students and teachers. “We were not properly informed of the order, for it was only announced two weeks after enrolment started,” he said, adding that students were confused and frustrated by the late announcement. He said that no assistance had been given by either CHED or PMI for transfers to other institutes after the closure order, adding that the ban will have serious financial and other repercussions on trainees' careers. “Other schools require a one-year residency to graduate, thus the closure will add a semester to a transferree from PMI,” he said. 

Padilla claimed that 13,000 students have been forced to shift programmes or transfer to other schools. Another student council official- engineering student Jovan Hebayan- told the Philippine Inquirer that almost half these students might be forced to drop out of school due to financial difficulties as most of the schools that offer similar courses charge twice as much as PMI.

“Why should we suffer and pay for the lapses of either CHED or PMI management? We must not foot any bill but rather be given consideration by both CHED and PMI management,” he said.

.

.

Madras High Court rules on Maritime Course jurisdiction.

Chennai, November 24 The Madras High Court has set aside two notices of the Director General of Shipping (DGS) that sought to limit the power of the Uthandi based Indian Maritime University. Justice S Manikumar was making a ruling on petitions filed by Mr. C. Jothikumar of the Maritime Institutes' Association and the International Maritime Academy. The Court's ruling appears to indicate clearly that the IMU should be, in its opinion, the sole authority for approval, affiliation and regulation of marine courses.


Media reports carried in the Hindu and the Times of India quote Justice Manikumar of the High Court saying that the impugned notices, which were in the form of executive instructions purported to be issued in exercise of statutory provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act, could not override statutory provisions of the IMU Act. While passing judgement on the writ petitions, Justice Manikumar said that institutions such as the AICTE, MCI and DCI were statutory bodies created and empowered to grant recognition, approve courses, permit intake, etc, but the DGS was not specifically created to do so.


The DGS notices were issued in April and May of this year, after which petitions had been filed in Chennai asking that these notices be quashed. The petitioners had pleaded to the court that IMU's 'power of affiliation, approval of courses and regulations, supervision of member institutes of the petitioner’s association and of the petitioner institute' be not interfered with, as these powers arose from the IMU Act. This, according to the Maritime Institutes' Association and the International Maritime Academy, included regulating the intake of students to Maritime Education and Training institutions, Pre Sea and Post Sea training and fixing eligibility criteria for students, all of which they said should be in the IMU's domain.


The petitioners claimed that the DGS had issued notices that restricted the powers of the IMU; the formation of a 'Monitoring and Implementation Committee' (MIC) was also mooted, with representation from the DGS and IMU. The MIC was proposed to, amongst other things, look at new approvals and additional capacities for MET courses. The petition claimed that the DGS was a subordinate officer under the Union Shipping Secretary whereas the Vice Chancellor of IMU was an independent authority. Justice Manikumar agreed with the petitioners, saying that executive instructions issued under the statutory provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act could not override statutory provisions of the IMU Act, and that the DGS was not specifically empowered to grant recognition of institutes or approve courses or additional intake. Doing so would infringe upon the rights of the University as set out in the IMU act, in the court's opinion. The DGS could not usurp the powers of the IMU, Justice Manikumar said. "The contentions that the DGS is a regulatory body for the entire maritime education cannot be countenanced."
.


.