RISK4SEA, a specialized platform focused on providing advanced analytics, data, and Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) related to Port State Control (PSC) in the maritime industry, has announced the preliminary results and CiC intensity Index on Crew Wages and Seafarer Employment Agreements.
The Concentrated Inspection Campaign (CiC) aimed to create awareness within the shipping industry about the requirements on crew wages and seafarer employment agreements (MLC, 2006); and to verify that ships comply with these requirements. The Campaign (CiC) was launched during autumn for Crew Wages and Seafarer Employment Agreements (MLC, 2006) compliance under the following regimes:
- Paris Memorandum of Understanding (Paris MoU)
- Tokyo Memorandum of Understanding (Tokyo MoU)
- Black Sea MoU
The inspection campaign period was conducted from 1st September 2024 to 30th November 2024. This Concentrated Inspection Campaign, was conducted in parallel with regular PSC Inspections, meaning that when a PSCO boarded a vessel for inspection, apart of the checklist for the regular PSC inspection, followed an additional CiC Checklist, framed by a list of 10 additional questions focusing on CiC subject (Crew Wages, SEA and MLC implementation).
- Please see Annex A for the Inspection Checklist
- Please See Annex B for the list of CiC related Deficiency Codes, corresponding to each question
- Please See Annex C for the methodology used to calculate the CiC Intensity Index
The following outline the findings related with CiC per MoU under review for the total period of the Campaign.
| MoU | Ports with Inspections | # PSCIs | Total # DEF | # CiC DEF | % CiC DEF | % CiC DEF L12M | CiC Intensity Index % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Paris MoU | 384 | 2209 | 6113 | 352 | 5.8% | 2.6% | 120% |
| Tokyo MoU | 269 | 4370 | 11231 | 627 | 5.6% | 2.2% | 159% |
| Black Sea | 18 | 480 | 2005 | 13 | 0.6% | 0.5% | 28% |
As an overall result all participating MoUs had increased percentages on CiC Related Deficiencies.
Ports with Higher CiC Intensity Index
The following are the Top 10 ports with higher CiC intensity Index for Paris MoU (sorted by Higher CiC Intensity Index)
|
Port |
Country |
CiC Period (01/09/2024 – 30/11/2024) |
% CiC DEF L12M |
CiC Intensity Index % |
|||
|
# PSCIs |
Total # DEF |
# CiC DEF |
% CiC DEF |
||||
|
Algeciras |
Spain |
27 |
32 |
7 |
21.9% |
3.2% |
578% |
|
Venice |
Italy |
18 |
116 |
4 |
3.4% |
0.8% |
314% |
|
Riga |
Letonia |
31 |
53 |
3 |
5.7% |
2.1% |
166% |
|
Antwerpen |
Belgium |
79 |
393 |
15 |
3.8% |
1.6% |
142% |
|
Gent |
Belgium |
26 |
184 |
8 |
4.3% |
1.8% |
141% |
|
Rotterdam |
Netherlands |
61 |
156 |
9 |
5.8% |
2.7% |
111% |
|
Vancouver |
Canada |
45 |
214 |
7 |
3.3% |
1.6% |
107% |
|
Hamburg |
Germany |
44 |
154 |
5 |
3% |
1.7% |
93% |
|
Constanta |
Romania |
59 |
312 |
7 |
2.2% |
2.0% |
12% |
|
Burgas |
Bulgaria |
33 |
163 |
4 |
2.5% |
2.2% |
10% |
The top 5 CiC Related deficiencies marked in Paris MoU during CiC Period as Follows:
|
# |
Deficiency Code & Description |
Detainable DEF. |
Non Detain. DEF |
Total DEFs |
|
1 |
01220 Seafarers’ employment agreement (SEA) |
27 |
272 |
299 |
|
2 |
01308 Records of seafarers’ daily hours of work or rest |
5 |
93 |
98 |
|
3 |
18203 Wages |
3 |
76 |
79 |
|
4 |
01139 Maritime Labour Certificate |
4 |
50 |
54 |
|
5 |
18204 Calculation and payment of wages |
5 |
16 |
21 |
The following are the Top 10 ports with higher CiC intensity Index for Tokyo MoU (sorted by Higher CiC Intensity Index)
|
Port |
Country |
CiC Period (01/09/2024 – 30/11/2024) |
% CiC DEF L12M |
CiC Intensity Index % |
|||
|
# PSCIs |
Total # DEF |
# CiC DEF |
% CiC DEF |
||||
|
Sydney, NSW |
Ausralia |
33 |
75 |
4 |
5.3% |
0.7% |
647% |
|
Ningbo |
China |
37 |
142 |
10 |
7.0% |
1.0% |
629% |
|
Ho Chi Minh City |
Vietnam |
85 |
41 |
9 |
22.0% |
3.1% |
602% |
|
Incheon |
South Korea |
45 |
103 |
16 |
15.5% |
2.3% |
575% |
|
Vostochny |
Russia |
39 |
135 |
9 |
6.7% |
1.3% |
428% |
|
Yantai |
China |
38 |
203 |
7 |
3.4% |
0.7% |
395% |
|
Qingdao |
China |
41 |
174 |
4 |
2.3% |
0.5% |
384% |
|
Lianyungang |
Chian |
41 |
159 |
6 |
3.8% |
0.9% |
325% |
|
Tanjung Perak |
Indonesia |
30 |
17 |
4 |
23.5% |
5.7% |
313% |
|
Shanghai |
China |
112 |
344 |
20 |
5.8% |
1.5% |
285% |
The top 5 CiC Related deficiencies marked in Tokyo MoU during CiC Period as Follows:
|
# |
Deficiency Code & Description |
Detainable DEF. |
Non Detain. DEF |
Total DEFs |
|
1 |
01220 Seafarers’ employment agreement (SEA) |
30 |
345 |
375 |
|
2 |
18203 Wages |
9 |
114 |
123 |
|
3 |
01139 Maritime Labour Certificate |
1 |
101 |
102 |
|
4 |
01331 Collective bargaining agreement |
1 |
41 |
42 |
|
5 |
18204 Calculation and payment of wages |
4 |
22 |
26 |
The following are the Top 5 ports with higher CiC intensity Index for Black Sea MoU (sorted by Higher CiC Intensity Index) followed by the other major ports which showed a different approach during CiC.
|
Port |
Country |
CiC Period (01/09/2024 – 30/11/2024) |
% CiC DEF L12M |
CiC Intensity Index % |
|||
|
# PSCIs |
Total # DEF |
# CiC DEF |
% CiC DEF |
||||
|
Trabzon |
Turkey |
13 |
70 |
2 |
2.9% |
0.5% |
491% |
|
Batumi |
Georgia |
28 |
81 |
2 |
2.5% |
0.6% |
304% |
|
Chornomorsk |
Ukraine |
18 |
49 |
2 |
4.1% |
2.0% |
102% |
|
Kulevi |
George |
12 |
2 |
2 |
100.0% |
0.0% |
100% |
|
Bartin |
Turkey |
6 |
33 |
1 |
3.0% |
0.0% |
100% |
|
Novorossiisk |
Russia |
159 |
852 |
0 |
0.0% |
0.3% |
-100% |
|
Izmail |
Turkey |
20 |
53 |
0 |
0.0% |
5.7% |
-100% |
|
Samsun |
Turkey |
32 |
78 |
0 |
0.0% |
0.6% |
-100% |
|
Tuapse |
Russia |
47 |
254 |
0 |
0.0% |
0.1% |
-100% |
|
Odesa |
Ukraine |
12 |
58 |
0 |
0.0% |
0.7% |
-100% |
The top 5 CiC Related deficiencies marked in Black Sea MoU during CiC Period as Follows:
|
# |
Deficiency Code & Description |
Detainable DEF. |
Non Detain. DEF |
Total DEFs |
|
1 |
01220 Seafarers’ employment agreement (SEA) |
1 |
20 |
21 |
|
2 |
18203 Wages |
2 |
6 |
8 |
|
3 |
09235 Fitness for duty – work and rest hours |
– |
4 |
4 |
|
4 |
01307 Minimum hours of rest |
– |
4 |
4 |
|
5 |
01139 Maritime Labour Certificate |
1 |
2 |
3 |
Annex A : Fire Safety Concentrated Inspection Campaign (CiC) Questionnaire
The List with the CiC questions is as follows:
|
No |
Description |
Yes |
No |
Detention |
|
1. |
Is the Seafarers’ Employment Agreements (SEA) signed by both the seafarer and the shipowner or a representative of the shipowner?? |
|
|
|
|
2. |
Is the seafarer able to access information regarding their employment conditions on board? |
|
|
|
|
3. |
Are standard forms of SEAs and parts of any applicable collective bargaining agreements, subject to Port State Control (PSC) inspections under Reg. 5.2, available in English? |
|
|
|
|
4. |
Does the SEA include all the required elements specified in the MLC 2006 Standard? |
|
|
|
|
5. |
Do particulars included in the seafarers’ employment agreement comply with MLC, 2006 requirements? |
|
|
|
|
6. |
Are wage or salary payments made to the seafarer at no greater than monthly intervals? |
|
|
|
|
7. |
Have seafarers been given a status of accounts and wages paid on at least a monthly basis? |
|
|
|
|
8. |
Are wage or salary payments in accordance with any applicable CBA or SEA? |
|
|
|
|
9. |
If payments made to a seafarer include deductions, are they in accordance with MLC Convention? |
|
|
|
|
10. |
A. Is a certificate or documentary evidence of financial security, issued by the financial security provider, available on board in the event of compensation for death and long-term disability? B. Is a certificate or documentary evidence of financial security, issued by the financial security provider, available on board in the event of the repatriation? |
|
|
|
All of above items may lead to Detention if the findings are not on the satisfaction of PSCO.
Annex B : Fire Safety Concentrated Inspection Campaign (CiC) corresponding Deficiency Codes
Deficiency Codes Related to Inspection Campaign
|
|
Finding |
Related PSC codes |
|
1 |
Is the seafarer given a SEA signed by both the seafarer and the shipowner or a representative of the shipowner? |
01139, 01140, 01220 |
|
2 |
Is the seafarer able to access information regarding their employment conditions on board? |
01220, 01306, 1307, 01308, 01331, 01336, 01337, 09234, 09235, 09236, 18201, 18202, 18203, 18204, 18205, 18299 |
|
3 |
Are standard forms of SEAs and parts of any applicable collective bargaining agreements, subject to Port State Control (PSC) inspections under Reg. 5.2, available in English? |
01220, 01221, 01308, 01331, 01336, 01337, 09234, 09236, 18101, 18102, 18201, 18204 |
|
4 |
Does the SEA include all the required elements specified in the MLC 2006 Standard? |
01220, 01307, 01308, 01331, 01336, 01337, 09234, 09236, 18101, 18102, 18201, 18202, 18204, 18205, 18299 |
|
5 |
Do particulars included in the seafarers’ employment agreement comply with MLC, 2006 requirements? |
01220, 01221, 01331, 01336, 01337, 09236, 18202, 18204, 18205, 18299, 18406 |
|
6 |
Are wage or salary payments made to the seafarer at no greater than monthly intervals? |
01139, 01140, 01220, 01221, 01331, 18203 |
|
7 |
Have seafarers been given a status of accounts and wages paid on at least a monthly basis? |
01331, 18203, 18204, 18205 |
|
8 |
Are wage or salary payments in accordance with any applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) or SEA? |
01139, 01140, 01220, 01221, 01331, 18203, 18204 |
|
9 |
If payments made to a seafarer include deductions, are they in accordance with MLC Convention? |
01139, 01140, 01221, 01331, 18204 |
|
10 |
a. Is a certificate or documentary evidence of financial security, issued by the financial security provider, available on board in the event of compensation for death and long-term disability?
b. Is a certificate or documentary evidence of financial security, issued by the financial security provider, available on board in the event of repatriation? |
|
The listed items if identified as Deficiencies on board, are descripted by a set of Deficiency Codes ( a question may create more than one Deficiency Codes as findings).
Annex C : CiC Intensity Index Methodology
To assess the CiC Intensity Index a simple methodology has been applied based on the % share of CiC Deficiency Findings before the CiC period (namely, the Last 12 months) and the period where CiC is being applied.
The CiC corresponding Deficiency codes that are listed in Annex B (in relation to the CiC Questions) have been analysed for these periods under review (L12M before the CiC and the CiC Period)
The methodology is very simple to determine the CiC Intensity ion any port in relation with CIC related deficiency codes and findings.
The CiC Intensity Index is calculated as follows
CIC Intensity Index = { [B – A]/A }%
A = CIC Deficiency Codes Share % (of Total Deficiencies in any given port) for the Last 12 Months (L12M), i.e. the period September 2022 til August 2023.
B = CIC Deficiency Codes Share % (of Total Deficiencies in any given port) for September
Explanation and Meaning
The higher the percentage of CIC Intensity Index, the higher the focus (i.e. intensity) on the CiC related Questions and Corresponding Findings.
