Op-Ed: A closer look at MLC 2006

Philip C. Schifflin

By Philip Schifflin, Jr., Esq., Director, Center for Mariner Advocacy, The Seamen’s Church Institute

NOTE: While the amendments outlined in this op-ed have not yet entered into force. The period for member states to express formal disagreement runs through June 23, 2024. If all goes well, the amendments are expected to enter into force December 23, 2024.

The Special Tripartite Committee for the Maritime Labor Convention met in May of 2022 to consider 12 potential amendments to the Maritime Labor Convention, 2006 (MLC 2006). MLC 2006 is the international instrument central to protecting the rights of seafarers, it has currently been ratified by 104 countries representing in excess of 96% of the world’s tonnage.   

Eight of these amendments dealt with issues that arose or were aggravated by the COVID pandemic. Of these eight, five were approved, but two of the five that were approved were altered during deliberations in a fashion that likely makes them less effective than the original proposals.

Overall, eight of the 12 proposals were approved. Six were uncontroversial and were approved with minor changes. These included: 1) ensuring that PPE would be properly sized; 2) that water would be provided free to all seafarers; 3) a new reporting requirement on deaths at sea to better understand the causes and trends; 4) a requirement for seafarers to be made aware of their rights to compensation if an employment opportunity ceases to be available after they are already traveling to the vessel; 5) reinforcing a seafarer’s right to come ashore to receive medical care; 6) expanding the definition of “shipowner” to include “registered owner” to avoid vessels being detained or cited for a mere technical violation. 

The other two approved proposals attracted much more debate and amendments before being approved. The first of these proposals was focused on assisting abandoned seafarers. One of the challenges seafarers face in abandonment cases is countries not allowing them to be repatriated due to fear of the vessel being left with no crew aboard and the resulting safety concerns.

The original proposal would have required those countries to arrange for a replacement crew, so the abandoned seafarers could be repatriated. But several countries expressed concern about how this requirement would be administered and funded. To address these concerns, the proposal was altered to read that port states, flag states, and labor-supplying states should cooperate to ensure all MLC 2006 rights and entitlements are provided to abandoned seafarers. While this amendment was welcome, it addressed the problem in a less direct fashion. It will be worth monitoring how effective this amendment proves to be in remedying the underlying concern.

The second contested proposal sought to provide free internet access to seafarers. The proposal placed this obligation on shipowners while the vessel was at sea and on countries while it was in port or at anchorage. Shipowners and some countries raised concerns about whether the proposal was achievable from an IT infrastructure perspective and if it could be achieved affordably.

The IT infrastructure concerns were addressed by adding language to the proposal that included caveats like “where available” and “so far as is reasonably practicable.” The cost issue was addressed by replacing “free” with a mandate that any charges be “reasonable in amount.” This was certainly less than what was hoped for by those who advocate for seafarers. However, it is an incremental step in the right direction, and will hopefully help lay the foundation for free internet access to all seafarers in the near future.

The other four amendments to MLC 2006 were not approved for various reasons. Two proposals were debated at length and may have been ultimately approved, but the committee simply ran out of time. Of these, one proposal focused on seafarer repatriation issues, while the other focused on a firm term limit for seafarer employment contracts. Both issues needed further discussion, so the committee decided to take up these two proposals at the next meeting in 2025. The final two amendments were ultimately withdrawn and replaced by resolutions.

The first of these sought to seek additional guarantees for seafarers that are employed by another entity on behalf of the shipowner. Shipowners felt they already had this obligation and resolved to always sign employment agreements and be contractually responsible. The seafarer group was agreeable to this, and the resolution was adopted. The second sought to increase the wages that abandoned seafarers could claim from the vessel’s surety from four to eight months. Consensus could not be reached on this issue, so the decision was made to pass a resolution establishing a workgroup to study the issue and make recommendations for the committee to consider at future meetings.

The adopted proposals will certainly improve seafarer well-being; however, some of the most severe challenges that seafarers faced during the COVID pandemic have not yet been adequately addressed.  Hopefully the committee can reach consensus on the remaining issues at its 2025 meeting.  We must never forget how seafarers were mistreated during the pandemic; it is critical that the rights of this globally essential workforce be better protected in times of crisis.