# C_2012367EN.01000101.xml

| 27.11.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 367/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.11.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 367/1

---

Communication from the Commission notifying Member States about certain shortcomings in compliance by the Philippines’ system on training and certification of seafarers with the requirements of the STCW Convention

(Text with EEA relevance)

2012/C 367/01

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Directive 2008/106/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on the minimum level of training of seafarers (1), and in particular Article 20(2) thereof,

1

Whereas:

| (1) | Under Regulation I/10 of the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978 (STCW Convention), as revised in 1995, State Parties may recognise by endorsement certificates of competency as well as certificates of proficiency granted to masters and officers on tankers and gas carriers, which have been issued by another State Party, provided that the recognising party has verified that the recognised Party complies with the Convention. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Under Regulation I/10 of the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978 (STCW Convention), as revised in 1995, State Parties may recognise by endorsement certificates of competency as well as certificates of proficiency granted to masters and officers on tankers and gas carriers, which have been issued by another State Party, provided that the recognising party has verified that the recognised Party complies with the Convention.

| (2) | Under European Union law the recognition of certificates issued by third countries for STCW purposes is granted at the level of the Union. In fact, under Directive 2008/106/EC Member States may decide to endorse the mentioned seafarers’ certificates issued by a third country only if that country has been recognised through a Commission decision, further to a procedure laid down in the same Directive. The Commission decision stems from an assessment of the education, training and certification system in the third country as regards compliance with the requirements of the STCW Convention. This assessment is based on the information collected and on inspections carried out by the Commission, assisted by the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA). |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Under European Union law the recognition of certificates issued by third countries for STCW purposes is granted at the level of the Union. In fact, under Directive 2008/106/EC Member States may decide to endorse the mentioned seafarers’ certificates issued by a third country only if that country has been recognised through a Commission decision, further to a procedure laid down in the same Directive. The Commission decision stems from an assessment of the education, training and certification system in the third country as regards compliance with the requirements of the STCW Convention. This assessment is based on the information collected and on inspections carried out by the Commission, assisted by the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA).

| (3) | Under the former regime established by Directive 2001/25/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 4 April 2001 on the minimum level of training of seafarers (2), Member States could recognise third countries for STCW purposes on a pure bilateral basis and such recognitions, which are still valid in conformity with Article 19(5) of Directive 2008/106/EC, were published in the Official Journal of the European Union. Under this former regime Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom recognised certain types of certificates issued by the Philippines (3). These recognitions may be used by all Member States. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Under the former regime established by Directive 2001/25/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 4 April 2001 on the minimum level of training of seafarers (2), Member States could recognise third countries for STCW purposes on a pure bilateral basis and such recognitions, which are still valid in conformity with Article 19(5) of Directive 2008/106/EC, were published in the Official Journal of the European Union. Under this former regime Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom recognised certain types of certificates issued by the Philippines (3). These recognitions may be used by all Member States.

2

Official Journal of the European Union

3

| (4) | In accordance with Article 21(1) of Directive 2008/106/EC, all recognised (under the former or the present regime) third countries have to be reassessed at least every five years, in order to check if they continue to comply with the relevant criteria set out in Annex II to the Directive (mainly requirements provided in the STCW Convention), and whether the appropriate measures have been taken to prevent fraud involving certificates. As provided in Article 20 of Directive 2008/106/EC, if such countries no longer comply with the Convention, the Commission notifies the Member States the reasons for non-compliance. Recognition may then be withdrawn according to a procedure set out in that Directive. Until the decision of withdrawal is adopted by the Commission, Member States may still endorse certificates issued by the involved third countries. Once the decision is taken, no further certificates can be endorsed, while the endorsements issued before the date of decision remain valid until their expiry. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

In accordance with Article 21(1) of Directive 2008/106/EC, all recognised (under the former or the present regime) third countries have to be reassessed at least every five years, in order to check if they continue to comply with the relevant criteria set out in Annex II to the Directive (mainly requirements provided in the STCW Convention), and whether the appropriate measures have been taken to prevent fraud involving certificates. As provided in Article 20 of Directive 2008/106/EC, if such countries no longer comply with the Convention, the Commission notifies the Member States the reasons for non-compliance. Recognition may then be withdrawn according to a procedure set out in that Directive. Until the decision of withdrawal is adopted by the Commission, Member States may still endorse certificates issued by the involved third countries. Once the decision is taken, no further certificates can be endorsed, while the endorsements issued before the date of decision remain valid until their expiry.

| (5) | Against this background, in 2006 the Commission started the reassessment of the education, training and certification system of the Philippines by means of an EMSA inspection carried out in March of that year. This first inspection revealed several deficiencies which were followed-up by two further inspections, in April 2010 and March 2012 respectively. The 2010 inspection, in particular, revealed, on the one hand, significant shortcomings, while, on the other hand, noteworthy progress with respect to the 2006 inspection. The main deficiencies remaining at that time regarded: the legislation did not meet all the standards of the Convention on requirements for certification of seafarers, in particular as regards the possibility for officers to have access to management positions without having attended specific training as required by the Convention; insufficient on-board training, in particular for cadets spending their time at sea as remunerated ratings; an incomplete quality standards system, not covering all the branches of the administration in charge of the STCW-related activities for which the Convention requires a quality standards system; the lack of procedures to implement the quality standards system; lacking or poor monitoring of schools by the competent administrations, confirmed by the significant shortcomings also detected in schools; missing, insufficient or not properly used equipment in schools (such as simulators for deck officers); non-compliant, often seriously non-compliant, training practices in schools. |
| --- | --- |

(5)

Against this background, in 2006 the Commission started the reassessment of the education, training and certification system of the Philippines by means of an EMSA inspection carried out in March of that year. This first inspection revealed several deficiencies which were followed-up by two further inspections, in April 2010 and March 2012 respectively. The 2010 inspection, in particular, revealed, on the one hand, significant shortcomings, while, on the other hand, noteworthy progress with respect to the 2006 inspection. The main deficiencies remaining at that time regarded: the legislation did not meet all the standards of the Convention on requirements for certification of seafarers, in particular as regards the possibility for officers to have access to management positions without having attended specific training as required by the Convention; insufficient on-board training, in particular for cadets spending their time at sea as remunerated ratings; an incomplete quality standards system, not covering all the branches of the administration in charge of the STCW-related activities for which the Convention requires a quality standards system; the lack of procedures to implement the quality standards system; lacking or poor monitoring of schools by the competent administrations, confirmed by the significant shortcomings also detected in schools; missing, insufficient or not properly used equipment in schools (such as simulators for deck officers); non-compliant, often seriously non-compliant, training practices in schools.

| (6) | The described deficiencies have been regularly brought to the attention of the Philippines’ authorities by the Commission, assisted by EMSA, while the assessment of the Commission and the consequent requests of specific remedial actions were forwarded to the same authorities by letters of 27 February 2009, 4 February 2010, 6 May 2011 and 26 December 2011. In particular, by its letter of 6 May 2011, the Commission requested the Philippines’ authorities to provide substantial evidence demonstrating that the deficiencies identified had been or were being corrected. |
| --- | --- |

(6)

The described deficiencies have been regularly brought to the attention of the Philippines’ authorities by the Commission, assisted by EMSA, while the assessment of the Commission and the consequent requests of specific remedial actions were forwarded to the same authorities by letters of 27 February 2009, 4 February 2010, 6 May 2011 and 26 December 2011. In particular, by its letter of 6 May 2011, the Commission requested the Philippines’ authorities to provide substantial evidence demonstrating that the deficiencies identified had been or were being corrected.

| (7) | By letters of 10 May 2009, 13 July 2010, 19 August 2011 and 25 January 2012, the Philippines provided information and evidence concerning the corrective actions that they had completed or undertaken to address the mentioned shortcomings. In particular, their letter of 19 August 2011 was accompanied by a very large set of documents aiming to substantiate those remedial actions, particularly with respect to deficiencies in the field of legislation and missing equipment. |
| --- | --- |

(7)

By letters of 10 May 2009, 13 July 2010, 19 August 2011 and 25 January 2012, the Philippines provided information and evidence concerning the corrective actions that they had completed or undertaken to address the mentioned shortcomings. In particular, their letter of 19 August 2011 was accompanied by a very large set of documents aiming to substantiate those remedial actions, particularly with respect to deficiencies in the field of legislation and missing equipment.

| (8) | By the actions substantiated in their letter of 19 August 2011 and its attachments, the Philippines’ authorities appeared to have addressed the following shortcomings: those related to legislation, in particular certification requirement for management positions; those related to on-board training of cadets spending their time at sea as remunerated ratings; the shortcomings related to the quality standard system; those related to the procedures for school-monitoring. The files forwarded by the Philippines’ authorities also included a set of documents proving the purchase of equipment, or the making of other arrangements (e.g., lease contracts) aimed to provide schools with simulators. All the mentioned remedial actions needed to be checked on the spot. |
| --- | --- |

(8)

By the actions substantiated in their letter of 19 August 2011 and its attachments, the Philippines’ authorities appeared to have addressed the following shortcomings: those related to legislation, in particular certification requirement for management positions; those related to on-board training of cadets spending their time at sea as remunerated ratings; the shortcomings related to the quality standard system; those related to the procedures for school-monitoring. The files forwarded by the Philippines’ authorities also included a set of documents proving the purchase of equipment, or the making of other arrangements (e.g., lease contracts) aimed to provide schools with simulators. All the mentioned remedial actions needed to be checked on the spot.

| (9) | Therefore, in March 2012, EMSA inspected the Philippines again, mainly in order to check the implementation of the remedial actions regarding the administration reported in the documents submitted to the Commission in August 2011. Maritime education and training institutions were not inspected by EMSA at this stage. The documentary evidence on training institutions supplied by the Philippines in 2011 will be checked in the course of a further EMSA inspection, planned for the beginning of 2013. As a matter of fact, since both the deficiencies and the remedial actions in this respect did not only regard the availability of equipment but also their proper use by the education and training institutions spread over the country, and since a congruous period of time is needed to familiarise with such equipment, the Commission has considered more appropriate to inspect them at a later stage. |
| --- | --- |

(9)

Therefore, in March 2012, EMSA inspected the Philippines again, mainly in order to check the implementation of the remedial actions regarding the administration reported in the documents submitted to the Commission in August 2011. Maritime education and training institutions were not inspected by EMSA at this stage. The documentary evidence on training institutions supplied by the Philippines in 2011 will be checked in the course of a further EMSA inspection, planned for the beginning of 2013. As a matter of fact, since both the deficiencies and the remedial actions in this respect did not only regard the availability of equipment but also their proper use by the education and training institutions spread over the country, and since a congruous period of time is needed to familiarise with such equipment, the Commission has considered more appropriate to inspect them at a later stage.

| (10) | On the basis of the documents received and the inspections carried out by EMSA, some conclusions may be drawn as regards compliance by the Philippines with the requirements of the STCW Convention. |
| --- | --- |

(10)

On the basis of the documents received and the inspections carried out by EMSA, some conclusions may be drawn as regards compliance by the Philippines with the requirements of the STCW Convention.

| (11) | In particular, the recent actions undertaken by the Philippines’ government have brought the country's regulatory framework in line with the requirements of the STCW Convention on the certification of seafarers and the quality standard system to be implemented by the administration. However, it also appears that administrative practices are still not in line with this new regulatory framework. As a result, there are still deficiencies at the level of the administration, which are described below. |
| --- | --- |

(11)

In particular, the recent actions undertaken by the Philippines’ government have brought the country's regulatory framework in line with the requirements of the STCW Convention on the certification of seafarers and the quality standard system to be implemented by the administration. However, it also appears that administrative practices are still not in line with this new regulatory framework. As a result, there are still deficiencies at the level of the administration, which are described below.

| (12) | Regulation I/6 of the Annex to the STCW Convention requires training and assessment of seafarers to be supervised and monitored in order to secure that programmes, methods and media of delivery ensure that the prescribed standards of competence are achieved. On the contrary, the inspection of March 2012 revealed that, in the Philippines, monitoring of education and training institutions does not ensure that programmes, methods and media of delivery are up to standard, since this monitoring appears to be carried out mainly by means of checklists targeting equipment, while the use of such equipment and the methodology and content of education and training are not adequately checked. This lack of effective and independent monitoring and rule-enforcing in education and training institutions also emerged on the occasion of the former EMSA inspections and was mirrored in the shortcomings detected at the schools’ level, relating to programmes, methods, use of equipment and the absence of equipment itself. Furthermore, the EMSA inspections and the analysis of the evidence submitted also suggest that in the Philippines there is still the possibility of conflicts of interests when the competency of candidates to STCW certificates is assessed. Although in December 2011 a new procedure has been adopted in this respect, it is not yet ensured that candidates for a certificate are examined by persons not having an interest in a positive outcome of their examinations. |
| --- | --- |

(12)

Regulation I/6 of the Annex to the STCW Convention requires training and assessment of seafarers to be supervised and monitored in order to secure that programmes, methods and media of delivery ensure that the prescribed standards of competence are achieved. On the contrary, the inspection of March 2012 revealed that, in the Philippines, monitoring of education and training institutions does not ensure that programmes, methods and media of delivery are up to standard, since this monitoring appears to be carried out mainly by means of checklists targeting equipment, while the use of such equipment and the methodology and content of education and training are not adequately checked. This lack of effective and independent monitoring and rule-enforcing in education and training institutions also emerged on the occasion of the former EMSA inspections and was mirrored in the shortcomings detected at the schools’ level, relating to programmes, methods, use of equipment and the absence of equipment itself. Furthermore, the EMSA inspections and the analysis of the evidence submitted also suggest that in the Philippines there is still the possibility of conflicts of interests when the competency of candidates to STCW certificates is assessed. Although in December 2011 a new procedure has been adopted in this respect, it is not yet ensured that candidates for a certificate are examined by persons not having an interest in a positive outcome of their examinations.

| (13) | The different inspections have also revealed that, at the level of the education and training institutions, the degree of compliance can vary considerably. Some schools are well known by the European industry and in some cases under its control. As mentioned, EMSA will inspect the education and training institutions again in 2013. |
| --- | --- |

(13)

The different inspections have also revealed that, at the level of the education and training institutions, the degree of compliance can vary considerably. Some schools are well known by the European industry and in some cases under its control. As mentioned, EMSA will inspect the education and training institutions again in 2013.

| (14) | In conclusion, there is a clear constant trend in the Philippines as regards ensuring the full compliance with the requirements of the STCW Convention. However, this degree of compliance has not been achieved yet. Should this trend slow down and should full compliance with the requirements of the STCW Convention not be achieved in a reasonable time-span — also considering the time that has already elapsed since the first inspection — then, the withdrawal of EU recognition of the Philippines in relation to its training and certification system of seafarers should be fully taken into consideration. |
| --- | --- |

(14)

In conclusion, there is a clear constant trend in the Philippines as regards ensuring the full compliance with the requirements of the STCW Convention. However, this degree of compliance has not been achieved yet. Should this trend slow down and should full compliance with the requirements of the STCW Convention not be achieved in a reasonable time-span — also considering the time that has already elapsed since the first inspection — then, the withdrawal of EU recognition of the Philippines in relation to its training and certification system of seafarers should be fully taken into consideration.

| (15) | Since Directive 2008/106/EC does only allow for the recognition or withdrawal of recognition of national maritime education and training systems, and given that some individual schools in the Philippines are controlled by shipowners based in the Union, Member States should consider integrating those schools into their national education and training system. |
| --- | --- |

(15)

Since Directive 2008/106/EC does only allow for the recognition or withdrawal of recognition of national maritime education and training systems, and given that some individual schools in the Philippines are controlled by shipowners based in the Union, Member States should consider integrating those schools into their national education and training system.

| (16) | Finally, since it appears that one of the main obstacles for the Philippines to achieve STCW compliance is the lack of technical qualified human resources in charge of school-monitoring, especially at regional or local level, Member States might be willing to assist the authorities of that country in developing the needed capacity in this field, |
| --- | --- |

(16)

Finally, since it appears that one of the main obstacles for the Philippines to achieve STCW compliance is the lack of technical qualified human resources in charge of school-monitoring, especially at regional or local level, Member States might be willing to assist the authorities of that country in developing the needed capacity in this field,

HAS ADOPTED THIS COMMUNICATION:

| 1. | The Commission draws the attention of the Member States to the shortcomings mentioned in recitals 11, 12 and 13. It invites Member States involved in technical assistance to Philippines to focus their efforts on those matters. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Commission draws the attention of the Member States to the shortcomings mentioned in recitals 11, 12 and 13. It invites Member States involved in technical assistance to Philippines to focus their efforts on those matters.

| 2. | The Commission considers that the Philippines’ system for education, training and certification of seafarers does not fully comply at this stage with the requirements of the STCW Convention. In particular, Philippines’ maritime education and training institutions are not properly monitored by the administration and the STCW requirements regarding programmes, methods and media of delivery are not effectively enforced. Equally, the Commission considers that independence of assessors in the process of certification of seafarers is not yet ensured. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Commission considers that the Philippines’ system for education, training and certification of seafarers does not fully comply at this stage with the requirements of the STCW Convention. In particular, Philippines’ maritime education and training institutions are not properly monitored by the administration and the STCW requirements regarding programmes, methods and media of delivery are not effectively enforced. Equally, the Commission considers that independence of assessors in the process of certification of seafarers is not yet ensured.

| 3. | The Commission recognises the serious character of the efforts made by the Philippines’ government in 2011 and 2012. It also recognises that, as a result of those efforts, there has been considerable progress in the regulatory framework for certification of seafarers and in the organisation of the administration, in order to comply with the requirements of the STCW Convention. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Commission recognises the serious character of the efforts made by the Philippines’ government in 2011 and 2012. It also recognises that, as a result of those efforts, there has been considerable progress in the regulatory framework for certification of seafarers and in the organisation of the administration, in order to comply with the requirements of the STCW Convention.

| 4. | The Commission intends to request EMSA to carry out a further inspection in the Philippines in 2013, aiming at checking the presence in the maritime education and training institutions of the equipment allegedly procured according to the documents sent in August 2011, and that such equipment is being used according to the requirement of the STCW Convention. More generally, this inspection will be aimed to verify whether the education and training practices in these institutions are in line with the requirements of the STCW Convention. The 2013 inspection will also target the administration, in order to ascertain that the shortcomings on monitoring still detected in 2012 have been addressed and that the quality standards system is being implemented. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Commission intends to request EMSA to carry out a further inspection in the Philippines in 2013, aiming at checking the presence in the maritime education and training institutions of the equipment allegedly procured according to the documents sent in August 2011, and that such equipment is being used according to the requirement of the STCW Convention. More generally, this inspection will be aimed to verify whether the education and training practices in these institutions are in line with the requirements of the STCW Convention. The 2013 inspection will also target the administration, in order to ascertain that the shortcomings on monitoring still detected in 2012 have been addressed and that the quality standards system is being implemented.

| 5. | The present Communication is addressed to Member States and will be referred to the Committee on Safe Seas and the Prevention of Pollution from Ships. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The present Communication is addressed to Member States and will be referred to the Committee on Safe Seas and the Prevention of Pollution from Ships.

Done at Brussels, 26 November 2012.

For the Commission

Siim KALLAS

Vice-President

---

(1)  OJ L 323, 3.12.2008, p. 33.

1

(2)  OJ L 136, 18.5.2001, p. 17.

2

(3)  OJ C 155, 29.6.2002, p. 11; OJ C 268, 7.11.2003, p. 7; OJ C 85, 7.4.2005, p. 8.

3

---