Seafarer crisis worsens as war drags on

THE war in Ukraine has now been raging for 5 weeks and the toll on human misery mounts up.

As this column pointed out 3 weeks ago, the conflict is having a massive impact on seafarers from Ukraine and Russia, who together make up nearly 15 per cent of the global shipping industry's workforce and often sail on the same ships. Since then, the situation has only got worse, much worse.

The number of ships now stuck in Ukrainian ports in the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov is about 140, including 1 Singapore-flagged products tanker. According to a joint briefing last week by the International Transport Workers' Federation (ITF) and International Chamber of Shipping (ICS), about a thousand crew members are still on these vessels.

ICS secretary-general Guy Platten and ITF general secretary Stephen Cotton detailed what was being attempted in very dangerous conditions to either evacuate crew or resupply them with food and water, and also with bunkers for auxiliary machinery.

They stressed that, even where ships could be reached while the ports were under attack, lack of food and water was a life or death issue for everybody in the port cities. Giving priority to seafarers in such circumstances is a difficult ask.

Nevertheless, it appeared that a huge amount is being done to support Ukrainian seafarers and, crucially, their families. Families are being evacuated to neighbouring countries and seafarers are joining them there when they "come home" on leave.

One small chink of light in all this, is that so far there appears to have been no trouble on ships reported where crews include seafarers from both Russia and Ukraine.

Clearly the ITF and ICS are doing all they can, much of it low-profile behind the scenes, to alleviate the situation. And several seafarer welfare organisations have gone into overdrive.

Both Platten and Cotton stressed how they are working with flag states. To some extent, the needs are the same as for the still-ongoing Covid crisis. Seafarers need to be treated as key workers and crew changes must be facilitated.

Cotton told The Business Times that Singapore's government had been among the leaders in this regard. In an interesting sign of how the Ukraine crisis is pushing aside (temporarily) long-standing disputes he also praised Panama, which ITF regards as a "flag of convenience", for its diplomatic efforts at the International Maritime Organization (IMO).

In fact, IMO has been quick to react to the situation, holding an extraordinary session of its Council on Mar 10 and 11 to "address the impacts on shipping and seafarers of the situation in the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov".

The IMO Council issued a very strongly worded condemnation of Russia's actions. It "deplored" Russia's attacks aimed at commercial vessels, and "their seizures, including search-and-rescue vessels, threatening the safety and welfare of seafarers and the marine environment".

Take measures to mitigate harm

It recalled a statement by the IMO secretary-general Kitack Lim, which expressed his "grave concern" regarding the spillover effects of the military action in Ukraine on global shipping, and logistics and supply chains, in particular, the impacts on the delivery of commodities and food to developing nations, and the impacts on energy supplies; and highlighted that ships, seafarers and port workers engaged in legitimate trade should not be collateral victims in the political and military crisis.

Of course, ships, seafarers and port workers absolutely have become collateral damage. It is thought that 5 seafarers have been killed on their ships so far, but the impact on the lives of many people throughout the shipping industry has been immense.

The harsh reality is that statements from IMO cannot stop a war and, as it has turned out, the United Nations agency has been unable to implement a measure that would have helped ships in the war zone.

The Council agreed to "encourage the establishment, as a provisional and urgent measure, of a blue safe maritime corridor to allow the safe evacuation of seafarers and ships from the high-risk and affected areas in the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov to a safe place, in order to protect the life of seafarers, ensure the mobilisation and commercial navigation of vessels intending to use this corridor by avoiding military attacks and protecting and securing the maritime domain".

The Council, "taking into account the sensitivities of the matter, invited the secretary-general to collaborate with the relevant parties and take necessary immediate actions to initiate the establishment and support the implementation of a blue safe maritime corridor in the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov and keep member states informed of developments and report to the next session of the Council".

That proposal sounded good and would have been excellent if it could have been implemented. Unfortunately, as Cotton and Platten explained, there is no prospect of blue safe maritime corridors being established while hostilities continue.

So the onus at present remains on all bodies involved in shipping - owners, unions, flag states, maritime welfare organisations - to continue to take what measures they can to mitigate the harm being done to seafarers.

That is a moral duty, but it will also keep to a minimum the dislocation caused by the tragic events still unfolding in Ukraine.