Ongoing discussion with INSA on the subject of Indian seafarers and more . . .

From Anil Devli/INSA:-

"A few points from INSA (Indian National Shipowners Association) to provide
Indian shipping's perspective on this issue.

The usage and utility of armed guards has been debated much as various
international fora including at the IMO who has finally come out with a position
on the use of Armed Guards, as have other international associations or agencies
such as BIMCO, ICS, and ISF. The use of armed guards on merchant vessels was
discussed at the 89th session of the IMO in May 2011 and interim guidance on the
employment of privately contracted armed security personnel on board ships
transiting the high risk piracy area was approved.

The use of such PCASP is not considered as an alternative to Best Management
Practices (BMP) and other protective measures. Placing armed guards on board as
a means to secure and protect the vessel and its crew is only an additional
measure at best, and something which all Indian ship owners would do in
discussion and in consultation with the Master of the vessel. However, much of
this is academic since we are awaiting permission from the GoI to employ such
Privately Contracted Armed Security Personnel (PCASP). We have been told that
such a policy should be released soon. Incidentally, it is not unknown for
tankers to have used PCASP's on board their vessels.

However, while the usage of PCASP's are an interim measure, INSA has always
advocated the use of our Naval Personnel, (trained commandos) who would be
posted on Indian flag vessels in order to secure the safety of the crew, the
cargo and the vessel. The comfort factor to the Indian seafarer of having
somebody from his own armed forces guarding him is immense but equally important
is the fact that having our own Navy guarding our ships ensures that the
national security angle within our ports and our coastal waters is also secured.
INSA hopes to see a positive comeback from the Indian government on this.

It would be erroneous to assume that some ship owning company is always at fault
whenever an Indian seafarer is in peril. As it is incorrect to suggest that ship
owners and ship managers are comfortable with seafarers on board being the
collateral damage. On the contrary, Indian flag ship owning companies have
shared a long relationship with its crew – with several of them rising from the
rank of trainee cadets over the years.

What in fact has broken this bond and increased attrition rates within the
Indian shipping industry by facilitating large migration of Indian seafarers to
foreign flag companies – is Indian government's policy of differential taxation.
The wages of an Indian seafarer on board Indian flag vessel are subject to tax
whereas those paid for doing a similar voyage on a foreign flag vessel is tax
free. By incentivizing, this policy has fueled the drain from Indian flag ships
to foreign flag vessels.

In this context too, INSA has demanded several times that the tax treatment for
Indian seafarers on Indian flag ships should be on par with that on foreign flag
but we have yet to see the government do something about this.

The casualty in all of this is the Indian seafarer and the Indian ship owner.
These two are the only entities left holding the baby. There has been little
hesitation in certain quarters to term Piracy as a "business" since every
stakeholder seems to be raking in money – from the underwriters who charge
additional premiums to the negotiators, insurers, security companies and of
course the pirates. It is the seafarer who faces personal risk and a responsible
ship owning company who has to attempt and resolve the issue at the earliest and
in the best possible manner.

While our Navy has done an excellent job in controlling piracy within the
coastal zone of India and has been extremely active in tackling pirates and
their vessels in the Indian Ocean region, we at INSA believe that it is time for
the Indian government to escalate this to the United Nations Security Council.
An international force under the aegis of the United Nations against the scourge
of Piracy is the only definitive answer.

INSA believes that the media can play an extremely important role in building
public opinion that would make action by United Nations Security Council
inevitable. However, other than a few articles on piracy, one does not see much
policy shaping or opinion creating endeavours by our media. We at INSA would be
more than happy to share information/data with the media as we appear to be in
consonance on the core issues – safety of Indian nationals, future of shipping,
trade, economy and above all national security. "

+++

Original article as well as my response to INSA are here:-

http://www.moneylife.in/article/another-piracy-attack-on-fairchem-bogey-the-thre\
at-to-national-security-and-economic-growth-just-gets-bigger/19097.html

+++

Dear Mr. Devli/INSA, thank you for writing in, thank you for reaching out, and thank you for the points brought up.

A full response shall be provided to you on INSA address after consulting with the editors of MONEYLIFE.

I would like to respond interim as follows;-

# On armed guards, in the specific case of the FAIRCHEM BOGEY, which as you know is an American controlled ship operating under the Marshall Islands FOC, there were armed guards on board till the 18th of August. they were then withdrawn because SALALAH anchorage was considered 'safe'.

# However, on the larger issue of armed guards onboard merchant ship, taking into account a variety of issues including lifeboat capacity, accomodation, line of command, inter-personal issues, port state issues, much still remains to be done. A strong flag state like India can, if it chooses to, bulldoze its way on this subject if it wants to.

# To blame the exit of Indian seafarers from Indian flag to foreign flag only for reasons of taxation is to miss the woods for the trees. This is another subject which can be debated at length.

# The media is not some sort of tap, to be switched on and off at will, as your last para suggests. In the first instance, INSA and its members will need to open themselves up for much more scrutiny from the media, on a variety of issues like:-

=how many INSA members are also owners/operators of foreign flag/FOC vessels.
=where is INSA on wage negotiations with Indian seafarers.
=why are Indian seafarers on Indian ships not treated as "employees" by INSA members, but instead, kept on contractual basis.
=what is INSA's position on citadels and non-armed responses onboard Indian flag ships.
=what is INSA's position on additional insurance as well as compensation for Indian seafarers on Indian ships who end up in trouble of any sort including piracy.
=what is INSA's position on the RPS Rules 2005 from DGS, which acts as a direct counter-punch to anything that INSA expects wrt employing Indian seafarers?

=Most of all, what is INSA doing to encourage media to interact with Indian seafarers on Indian ships, along the lines of what, for example, the Indian Armed Forces are doing lately?

There is a lot that INSA can and should do, instead of just picking on one aspect - taxation. Today Indian seafarers on Indian flag ships are not given shore leave in Indian ports, they are treated like rubbish by the vast variety of "authorities" who are inter-acting with ships in port, the big issue of still keeping seafarers on contractual "wages" instead of on employment is ofcourse mentioned.

Thank you for writing in. I would certainly wish to take these issues forward, but please look within - when was the last time INSA came out strongly on issues pertaining to the way shipping is being destroyed in India, especially Indian flag?

The answer, Mr. Devli, lies in the simple fact that most of the INSA members have more ships under foreign / FOC flag than under Indian. So obviously, where do the real interests lie?

Warm regards/Veeresh Malik

++++

Some home truths about INSA (Indian National Shipowner's Association):-

# Still going out to lunch on the SS LOYALTY

# New membership very difficult almost impossible.

# No forms of other membership for national interest like inland waters, port craft, dredgers, offshore vessels, etc.

# Most members have foreign flag ships.

# Terms of employment for floating staff are sweatshop era.

# Want media support but unwilling be transparent.

# No clear position on issues like cabotage.

As stated before, INSA has a credibility issue, but refuses to accept it.

++++

what's quality of life like in your experience, onboard?

Recent developments in mercantile maritime matters worldwide, certainly when in the so-called developed countries and possibly also elsewhere, wherever IMO's writ allegedly runs, tend to also bring out two aspects, neglected or simply getting worse without contest, for far too long:-

1) The quality of life onboard, including accomodation, food, recreational facilities, communication/internet and safe manning. Add to that the kind of care given by the owners for small things like cabin linen/towels, and you get the idea.

2) The real truth behind the ownership and operation of the ship including beneficiary ownerships as well as other details often kept hidden from complement and port state authorities. This is having impacts on seafarers way beyond simple criminalisation.

In other words, it is even more important now than ever before, to be aware of as much as possible before signing up to go onboard a ship. Even if you have been with the company for a long time. Things are changing very rapidly in the real world, and working for the shipping fleets, especially those registered in offshore tax havens, is not as simple as it used to be - matter of fact it is, to give an example, as dangerous as taking a lift on a dark night in an unregistered can going through certain parts of India.

This writer has come across more than a few cases lately, where seafarers suffered because they didn't take basic precautions in advance, and here are some which stand out:-

# Reach on board and discover that cabin accomodation on what was obviously a very shoddily built ship meant that even the top-4 officers shared a toilet. Which may not sound like a terribly bad deal, but what makes it worse is if the single toilet itself keeps packing up all the time, and simply can not get fixed.

# The messing onboard was on some 500/- rupees or equivalent per day pattern, which worked fine as long as the supplies were taken from the more reasonable parts of the world. However, stranded alongside in a port where there was a civil war ashore meant the sum of money did not really manage to do the needful, and for some time the Master went out of pocket till he signed off.

# The actual hidden beneficiary ownership of a particular ship was traced back to a person whose nationality and pending issues were not acceptable in a port the ship called. After some time the ship was released and sailed on, but the Master was held back, in jail, for about 7 months before he was able to buy his own wy out by himself.

# There are, ofcourse, increasingly more frequent cases of owners abandoning vessel and complement on board, not just due to piracy but also for a variety of other reasons. This happens through registered and unregistered agents, and you can not expect too much help from the authorities in such cases.

It is, therefore, increasingly apparent that you as Indian seafarers will have to look after your own interests. Make your own checklist before you sign on the dotted line, or stick with the well reputed companies, which have adherences and policies way better than what the authorities require of them. They may not pay as much, or may be more stringent on documentation and qualifications, but in the forthcoming turbulence in the shipping world and world overall - certainly worth it.

Tug JUPITER VI (Jupiter 6) and the latest position (Pelican Marine/Mumbai)

The Supreme Court of India took another step to prod the increasingly sleepy Indian administration towards doing their duty. The Honourable Courts have been at the forefront of what is called "judicial activism" for some time now, and matters have finally reached the doors of our babu log at Jahaz Bhavan, DG Shipping.

 

In a far-reaching decision, the Supreme Court permitted the family members of the missing tug JUPITER VI, to withdraw and take an interim compensation without prejudice to their rights of more compensation. As had been reported previously, this had been challenged by the owner's agents, with support from the DG Shipping.

 

The JUPITER VI was (or still is) an anchor handling tug which had a ship named the SATSUNG in tow for scrapping from WALVIS BAY towards India when she vanished in the middle of the Indian Ocean in September 2005 with with 10 Indians and 3 Ukrainians onboard  Like in the case of the REZZAK with 25 Indians onboard, the agent for the crew in both cases was the Mumbai based PELICAN, at that stage. At a later stage, James MaCintosh as representatives for the owners came on the scene,

 

Briefly, this is what is known about the JUPITER VI/JUPIER 6:- (kind courtesy http://users.skynet.be/p.woinin/sjup6.htm)

 

Built in 1975 by "Brodogradiliste Tito" at Mitrovica (Yard number 925) Gross tonnage 323 or 299, thus normally not a SOLAS ship, not subject to the ISM code. It indicates also that it was a rather small tug for a long ocean operation. It could be that the tonnage had been artificially kept low in order to escape SOLAS rules, but the list of previous owners shows only slight variation in the tonnage, the largest one being when the ship was under Philippines register (447gt). No owner will require to increase a tonnage, but the only pictures available suggest anyway large tug.
Tug/Anchor Handling/Supply , IMO n° 7391745, Gross tonnage 299 GRT, Netto tonnage 85 NRT
Lenght 39,93m(32,19), Beam 10,14m, Depth 4,611m(5,31)
Fighter fighting and salvage capabilities 
Main engine: B&W ALPHA type 16V23LU, total power 4690 bhp, 2 propellers with 4 blades
Bow thruster of 300 bhp
Generators: 2 diesels 
Speed 13,5kn, bollard pull 65 tons. 
July 2004: Harbour tug "SEA HUSKI" of Trinidad, damaged by fire was bought by "Jupiter Shipmanagement Inc" at Mumbai (IND), renamed JUPITER 6
Owner: PELMAR Shipping & Engineering Pvt Ltd, has an office in Mumbai.
Management: reported to be a company located in India or PELMAR itself? Crewing agent: Pelican Marine, Mumbai
Flag: ST.VINCENT & GRENADINES ( Previously reported as MARSHAL Islands & JAMAICA)
P&I: Unknown, it is not sure there was a P&I 
CLASS: Unknown
Crew: 3 Ukrainians, 10 Indians

 

+++

 

 

The JUPITER 6 left Cuba in November 2004 towing the bulker ITHOMI (Also called SATSANG, POINTING). Called Port of Spain, Trinidad, left 6 January 2005 and reached Fortaleza in Brazil on 18 March 2005. The tow made an average speed of 0.7 knots, not taking into account the eventual stop due to engine breakdown or other. There is also a strong current in the opposite direction north this part of the coast of South America, but almost no strong winds. After a short call, the tug left Fortaleza on 19 March and reach Walvis Bay in Namibia only three and a half months later, on 1 July 2005. The average speed during this crossing of the South Atlantic was 1.3 knots. Engine problems can be assumed to have delayed the vessel as it went to dry dock for extensive repairs.

 

The tug left Walvis Bay on 9 August 2005 and sent its last position on 5 September 2005: 35.52 S 23.26 E with as final destination the shipbreaking yard of Alang near Bhavnagar in the Indian state of Gujarat. An intermediate call in Mauritius was probably foreseen. On 7 September a large low centred on the Orange Free state provoked heavy thunderstorms. A sattelite picture shows that the associated troughs could have brought high wind from NE then NW in the area where the tug was sailing on 6 September. The suggestions that the JUPITER 6 could have been the victim of a pirate attack are ridiculous. These were never reported off South Africa, and the bad weather itself would discourage piracy. But it is well known that freak waves associated with a depression frequently occurs near the edge of the Agulhas bank.

 

On 25 September the towed ITHOMI was found drifting by bulker POSEIDON drifting in position by 37.48 S 28.59 E or 25.59 E. The tug SMIT AMANDLA was sent to recuperate the vessel. It found the tow line snapped and indication that two emergency towing wires had been rigged. Which means that the crew had a hard time to keep the ITHOMI in tow. On 8th October a distress signal from the ship emergency beacon (EPIRB) was received from the position 35,12S 24,17E. A plane was sent and observed traces of oil and some floating wreckage. The EPIRB was somehow recuperated and found to have manually activated. Remain the mystery of the cellular phone call from Namibia. One sailor phoned when the ship called Walvis bay in August 2005, and on 23 and 24 June 2006 one relative received a phone call from the same phone. She tried to call back but nobody answered. It is possible that the phone had been stolen or lost, and somebody in Namibia tried to use it.

Here follows a list of the crewmember prepared on basis of internet information.
BULGARU Y. Master(?), Ukrainian
ZELENETSCIY O. Chief Officer(?), Ukrainian
TKACH S. Chief Engineer (?), Ukrainian
KUMAR Raj, 2nd officer from India 
HOLIDATHAGOTI Hussein, crewmember from Lakshadweep, his mother died in November 2005
KATTAMPALLY Jose Matthew, electrician from the Indian state of Kerala
JAGOTHI Ibrahim Eduruman, crewmember from India
FAIKAGE Hassan, 20 year old, crewmember fron India
KOLUGEDORU Ali, crewmember, his father died around 30-6-2006
EDURUMANJAGOTHI Ibrahin, crewmember, his father died begin 2006
DAS Shri Subhas, cook from Calcuta.
MATHEW Jose, crewmember from India
PRAVIN Pandey, crewmember from Uttar Pradesh province, India.

Besides the crew from the Indian state of Kerala, 4 others are from Minicoy in the Lakshadweep islands, one from Calcuta and apparently one from the Uttar Pradesh province.

 

Apparently the Management did not provide much since the disappearance of the tug, otherwise the relatives would not have used the net to publish their desperate situation. The crew manager advised the Indian relatives only one month after it had lost contact with the crew.

 

It is almost certain that the tug was either sunk by bad weather, a large unexpected wave could have flooded the engine through an open door, or was rammed by the tow itself. Then some damage could have been found on the bow of the ITHOMI, a report from the SMIT AMANDLA would be welcome here. The most important clue remains poorly studied, the manual activation of the EPIRB 33 after the disappearance of teh tug. One report indicates that the battery life of the EPIRB is only 90 hours, thus it was not self-activated by sea water if the tug sank around the 5 September. One possibility is that the EPIRB remained afloat was likely found by a passing low freeboard ship, possibly a fishing boat that was fishing or sailing the area, but did not want to report its own position. But another and more distressing possibility was that the tug boat had been disabled by heavy seas around the 5 September and lost communications due to lack of electric power or wet instruments. As she was not so far from well frequented sailing routes, with plenty provisions the crew could have hoped to get help from a passing ship. This could be supported by a single piece of information made available by the owners "One fact so far not known was that a ship named Caroline reported sighting Jupiter 6 on 12/9 but no radio contact could be extablished, the position was in the proximity of the last reported position but without a tow. The owners were in a hurry to reach the scrap yard in India as they already had the next charter, a lucrative one, in place in the oil fields off Bombay.".

 

+++

 

What is more important here is the role of the owners/agents (Pelican Marine of Mumbai) and that of the Directorate General of Shipping. Following this case closely, it is apparent as day, that both these entities supported and continue to support each other in trying to ensure delay in payment of even interim compensation to family members of the complement onboard. To quote from the report in the Times of India:-

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/After-SC-prod-shipping-firm-pays-Rs-13cr-damages/articleshow/9304622.cms

 

"The bench interrupted him and said, "All these exhaustive provisions are not working. That is why these petitions are before us. The implementation of the act is lax. Why are these provisions not resorted to by the government during the numerous cases of pirate attacks on ships? Why is it only on paper?" The court also asked the Directorate General of Shipping to detail steps taken since 2006 to improve the fate of seamen and seafarers. 

In the petition, relatives alleged that they were stonewalled by the Centre, which had all along refused to divulge whether or not steps were being taken to collect information about the whereabouts of the missing crew."

 

+++

 

It is time that the office of the DG Shipping started taking a more pro-active role in protecting seafarers. Suggestions received include:-

 

# Indian seafarers to be sent on ships by RPS agents only if beneficial ownership is known. With the increasing investigations on all matters to do with tax havens, this is very important. In this case, for example, it has long been suspected that Pelican were owners as well as agents for this tug but ownership was hidden behind ofshore tax havens.

 

# Indian seafarers to be sent on ships by RPS agents with DGS authorisation only if full details of P&I, Class, insurance and adherence of vessel to all Indian and vessel flag state laws are adhered to. Safe Manning to be as per Indian standards, not as per flag, since some flags have abysmal safe manning certifications.

 

# Minimal compensation in case of any injury or loss of life by way of secured bank guarantees or insurance covers, be provided for in advance, before the Indian seafarer joins the said ship through RPS agents - and copies be provided to next of kin.

 

If just these three small steps could be taken, it would be a beginning, otherwise DGS can continue to listen to more raps on the knuckles from the Supreme Court in future.

 

+++

 

To the family members of the JUPITER VI, we extend our hand of support, and wish you more success.

 

+++