Hacia la descontaminación del “Rio Bogotá” una tarea pendiente

Finding quality labour to operate the ships involved in global maritime trade should be a central aspect of recruitment efforts aimed at attracting seafarers into the shipping industry. To achieve the needed quality, seafarers must be given appropriate training. There are many categories of facilities used in the training of seafarers (Horck 2008) even though not all are considered as statutory (Bloor & Sampson 2009) due to the difference in training requirements and periods for ratings and officers (Bonnin et al. 2004). There are over 90 internationally

55

recognised METs in more than 60 countries (Popescu & Varsami 2010) which may be private or state-owned (Bloor & Sampson 2009). These METs usually form a small part of the entire educational structure in their respective countries and hence will often have to endure limited budgetary allocations (Veenstra 2002). The funding problems of METs is a challenge in countries like China and the Philippines where most of them are either directly or indirectly owned by the state (Zhao & Amante 2005). Zaar and Hammarstedt (2012) is of the view that by increasing funding for METs, governments will be able to raise interest in the seafaring career among young people. The poor state of MET facilities has come to light in the midst of relevant research on seafarers (see for example, Couper et al. 1999) which suggests that the much discussed shortage of ship officers has much to do with the quality of training and resources (BIMCO/ISF 2010; Lewarn 2012; Li & Wonham 1999a).

The core reason for the existence of MET facilities is to supply quality manpower for the shipping industry (Demirel & Mehta 2009) through the provision of requisite maritime training (Gekara 2008, 2009). Thus, Magramo et al. (2010a) argue that the quality of instruction and competency of the professional instructors is an important factor towards producing high quality graduates who will eventually become officers to operate modern ships. Additionally, developing quality ship officers as per industry standards is a time-consuming and laborious exercise (Chen 2004; Lin, Wang & Chiang 2001) which demands commensurate sacrifice in the form of investment in training from major industry stakeholders, but this is not forthcoming (Galić, Lušić & Pušić 2012). Also, Pourzanjani and Ali (2008) examined the role of seafarers onboard and found it is becoming increasingly sophisticated due to evolving technology. An ever pressing need exists for training to be of a high quality in order to impart the requisite skills expected of today’s seafaring workforce. Hence, this stresses the need for teachers of high quality in METs who are abreast of the latest technology onboard ships in order to equally produce competent seafaring graduates (Eler et al. 2009). However, the profit motive (not applicable to some countries) of METs endangers the drive towards quality as large

56

numbers of students are admitted not for their cognitive ability (Zhao & Amante 2005) but rather the revenue to be made from them. Also, the lack of government promotion for MET training programmes have coerced many of them to lower admission standards and qualifications required of entrants in order to boost intake numbers (Gekara 2009).

Considering that students with poor entry results could encounter difficulties with learning; which is one of the major predictors of attrition among students in higher education training(Adamson & McAleavy 2000; Rickinson & Rutherford 1995), METs need to find a more expedient strategy to increase cadet admission figures. Even so, the literature (see for example, Gekara 2008, 2009; Gould 2010) suggests that increasing intake numbers is not a problem for METs when compared to the high attrition rates after students are admitted.

2.5.2.1 METs and shipowners – need for collaboration

Unfortunately, the challenge of poor training is not only limited to METs (classroom aspect of the seafarer training); since full compliance as per the requirements under the Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping (STCW) 1995 (revised Manila Convention 2010) is not met by all shipping companies during the sea time training of cadets (Barsan 2007). Poor funding means that METs in countries like the Philippines and China are unable to afford training vessels or use obsolete ones. These METs therefore rely on shipowners for the provision of practical training to cadets (Zhao & Amante 2005). To improve the quality of training for cadets, there is a need for increased collaboration between METs and shipowners to ensure that shipping industry employers have access to adequately trained employees. Bonnin et al. (2004) posit that such collaboration must also be extended to the seafarer labour unions and other maritime authorities. Thus, quality seafarer education can be achieved through effective collaboration among stakeholders of the shipping industry. This helps to reduce the occurrence of maritime accidents as competent officers emerge out of well-trained industry entrants (Demirel & Mehta 2009; Ziarati, Ziarati & Acar 2011). Since METs serve as an industry entry point for

57

seafarers, they have a role to play in addressing the quality of seafarers trained for the future maritime labour pool (Zaar & Hammarstedt 2012).

Access to quality maritime education is an important factor that influences and can limit the supply pipeline of future seafarers. Despite such an awareness, there is still a lack of close and consistent collaboration between academic institutions and the end users of their products; namely the shipping companies that employ their graduates. Consistent collaboration between these two key groups of stakeholders is important to ensure that cadets receive the kind of training relevant to the dynamic changes in shipboard operations, the working environment and the shipping industry in general (Deloitte 2011). The absence of collaboration between training institutes and shipowners is further evidenced in the reported difficulty that METs endure to secure berths onboard ships for the compulsory 12/6 months (12 months for deck cadets and 6 months for engineer cadets) sea training required of cadets (Barsan 2007). The implication of such a situation is the entry of fewer cadets into mainstream onboard training for future officer positions. This may eventually lead to the formation of wrong perceptions among cadets about seafaring as a career; since the training climate created as a result of a collapse in coordination among METs and employers could be discouraging to trainees (Gekara 2008).

The lack of collaboration between the educators and employers of cadets and other factors related to onboard conditions could be highlighted as key reasons for the high attrition among them. In traditional maritime nations for instance, an increasing number of cadets who finally secure training berths on ships exit during the first sea experience (Gekara 2009) due to the unfamiliar nature (Gould 2010) of the seafaring occupation. The lack of collaboration between METs and other parties connected to the training of seafarers creates dissatisfaction among cadets and eventually culminates in high attrition – disturbingly at the ‘sunrise’ stage of the cadetship (Gekara 2007; Gekara 2006). The difference in interests of major stakeholders connected to the cadetship was found to be responsible for the lack of

58

collaboration among them (Gekara 2009). Thus, both the employers and trainers of seafarers will therefore need to realign their objectives in relation to training strategies towards a more workable model for the hiring and recruitment of seafarers.

To achieve an effective alliance between METs and the end users (shipowners) of their products (cadets), Obando-Rojas, Gardner and Naim (1999) proposed the model in Figure 2.1 as a panacea. The model suggests that shipping companies should not just collaborate with METs but they must be more committed and involved in the funding of the training as well. Also, there is a need for an adequate flow of vital information between shipping industry employers and METs on the category of seafarers needed. The entrance, training and employment of seafarers should entail an integration of all relevant elements (policies and information) to ensure that cadets with the appropriate psychological characteristics and skill sets are recruited to meet the labour needs of industry employers.

Figure 2.1: Merchant officer ‘ideal’ training supply-chain

Source: Obando-Rojas, Gardner and Naim (1999, p.45)

NEW ENTRANTS WASTAGE REDUCED BY SELECTING HIGH CALIBRE RECRUITS ACCORDING TO MINIMUM PHYSICAL AND EDUCATIONAL ENTRY STANDARDS

INFORMATION FLOW (CAREER STRUCTURE/OPPORTUNITIES)

CADETS OFFICER

MARTITIME TRAINING ESTABLISHMENT

EDUCATION AND TRAINING PIPELINE

END CUSTOMER

INFORMATION FLOW (DEMAND/SKILLS)

TIME COMPRESSION IN EDUCATION PROCESS VIA MODULARISATION/IT-BASED TRAINING ON

BOARD/SIMULATOR TRAINING

EDUCATION PROCESS FUNDED BY END CUSTOMER SHORTER LEAD-TIME IN EDUCATION OF OFFICERS HIGH PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS

OFFICERS TRAINED IN CORE SKILLS

FURTHER SPECIALISED TRAINING ACCORDING TO END CUSTOMER REQUIREMENTS

NUMBER OF OFFICERS TRAINED AS PER DEMAND OF END CUSTOMER

59

De Silva, Stanton and Stanton (2011) discovered that issues such as inadequate commitment to training programmes on the part of shipowners and lack of multiple career opportunities have resulted in a human resource challenge for maritime labour firms whose main business is to supply qualified seafarers to the growing global fleet. It is very important that shipowners view the training of seafarers as a primary responsibility under the lens of corporate morality. They need to be actively involved in the training of seafarers (Barsan 2007). To this end, Zhao and Amante (2005) argued that shipowners need to bear greater responsibility towards the realisation of a competently trained seafarer workforce through the provision of training berths and sponsoring of trainees (Bonnin et al. 2004). Studies on corporate social responsibility (CSR) in the maritime industry also recommend that the provision of training needs to form the nucleus of recruitment strategies among shipowners (DNV 2004; Fafaliou, Lekakou & Theotokas 2006).