International Convention on Standard of Training, Certification & Watch keeping for Fishing Vessel Personnel: Department of Transport briefing

Meeting report

Briefing by Department of Transport

Mr Mthunzi Madiya, Acting Chief Director, Department of Transport (DoT) said the purpose of the presentation was to brief the Committee on the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watch Keeping for Fishing Vessel Personnel, 1995 (herein called STCW-F Convention), and also to request the Committee to approve the accession to the STCW-F Convention.

The background for the request was that an estimated 24000 lives were lost worldwide annually during fishing operations. This had led the United Nations’ specialised agency, the International Maritime Organisation (IMO), to realise the need for a response to the safety crisis in the fishing industry. In 1995, the IMO had adopted the STCW-F Convention, which had come into force in September 2012.This Convention addressed training and certification standards for skippers and watch keepers on fishing vessels of 24m and more. It would also contribute to the reduction of casualties and improve the poor safety record of the global fishing industry. South Africa intended to become a party to the Convention..

It was necessary for South Africa to become a party to the convention. If South Africa became a member, her standards of training, certification and watch keeping for fishing vessel personnel would be internationally recognized. It would also enable South African fishers to exploit and explore career opportunities both locally and internationally.

The aims of the STCW-F Convention were to set standards of certification and prescribe minimum training requirements on all fishing vessels.

The strategic focus of the Convention was that, apart from being in line with the National Development Plan (NDP), it would also improve the training of fishers. The Convention recognised skills shortages and the high level of risks involved with fishing activities and as such, it sought to improve the working conditions for fishers working on fishing vessels.

Accession to the Convention would have no financial implications for the government, except a minor increase in workload for the South African Maritime Safety Authority (SAMSA). Although SAMSA was working currently on implementing some regulations, it would mean that it would replace them with the new Convention.

Consultation has taken place with the industry stakeholders through workshops. On 25 June 2012, the western region had been consulted; on 26 June, the southern region had been consulted; on 27 June, the eastern region had been consulted and on 28 June, the inland region had been consulted. Many training institutions had also been consulted, such as SAMSA, Project Maritime Training, the School of Shipping, Sea Harvest and the Cape Peninsula University of Technology, the South African Maritime Training Academy (SAMTRA), the Transport Education and Training Authority (TETA), the Academy of Maritime Medicine, the Bargaining Council for the Fishing Industry, Premier Fishing and the Transnet National Ports Authority (TNPA). Government departments like the South African Qualifications Authority (SAQA) had been consulted for the recognition of all sea qualifications, including STCW-F. The Departments of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Trade and Industry and Justice, Crime Prevention and Security were also consulted. The Portfolio Committee on Transport had been briefed on the amendment on 9 June 2015. Comments had also been received from state law advisors.

He asked the Select Committee to approve the accession to the STCW-F Convention.

Discussion

The Chairperson thanked the presenter and said that he anticipated that the Department would take them through the Convention itself and highlight some salient points. He asked the Department if they were ready to do that or prefered to go through it by way of questions.

Mr Madiya said that questions would suffice.

The Chairperson said he had looked at the Convention when it was given to them last week in its electronic version, and asked the Committee how they wanted the proposals to proceed. He also invited them to ask questions on the power point presentation made by the Department of Transport, if they had any.

Mr S Mthimunye (ANC, Mpumalanga) asked why it had taken so long for the Convention to be recognized, considering that it had been entered into in 1995, consultation had been done in 2005, only to be recognised in 2012..

Mr Madiya responded that the process involved a certain number of countries having to form a quorum before it could be recognized. However, in 2005 a quorum had not been reached, and it had taken until 2012 to be reached and the Convention recogniszed.

Mr Pumlani Mbeki, Deputy Director: Legal Manager, Policy in Legislation, DOT, also commented on the issue and said that ten years was a reasonable time considering that countries had internal processes which they had to attend to, which could take one to two years. The respective countries would then form an opinion after considering the pros and cons, before ratifying the Convention.

The Chairperson added that there were many disputes involved in the maritime industry, such as who was responsible and in what waters? This could make countries carefully interrogate any of the conventions to make sure that by acceding to it, they were not binding themselves to many of the competitors within the maritime industry. He gave an example of shipping vessels that went into waters claimed by another country, where they fished and did a range of other things. He also gave an example of where sea animals had been caught and brutally killed. Having these examples in mind, countries would like to carefully interrogate a convention to make sure that they were not signing a document that might result in these atrocities or their continuance.

From the presentation, the Chairperson noted that two elements were important for South Africa as a nation -- the training and preparedness of people to make sure that they were safe while they were at the sea.

Mr Mthimunye asked for clarification on what date the Convention had been entered into and its recognition.

Mr Madiya answered that it had been entered into in 1995 and recognised in 2012, making it 17 years.

Expanding further on what the Chairperson had said, Mr Matiya said that countries would like to make sure that committing to any training would not compromise their workforce. The countries would also look at the benefits accruing to them so that they did not jeopardise their opportunities. The countries would look at their capacity to make sure that once they acceded to a particular convention, they had their education system in place in order to train the required people, according to the IMO requirement. This whole process could take lot of time before the specific number of countries required would be reached.

Mr Mbeki pointed out that the document had actually been first presented, or initiated, in 1989 before its adoption in 1995 by the IMO.

Mr W Faber (DA, Northern Cape) asked how many fishermen out of the estimated 24 000 lives lost annually, were South Africans. How did the regulations South Africa have on ground with regard to fishing compare with those in the proposed international Convention.

Mr Madiya said that they did not have the number of how many South Africans died during fishing operations, but they would contact SAMSA and forward the exact number to the Committee.

Mr Mbeki added that getting the exact number would not be easy, as the industry at that time was not regulated. Secondly, he said it involved a lot of risk. Thirdly, concerns about the health and safety of fishermen had been raised. He said that South African fishermen were exploited by foreign countries -- in terms of remuneration, they were paid less money. This made it difficult to ascertain the number of South African fishermen who died, considering that most South African fishermen had lived amongst other countries and vice versa during this period, and there had been no regulation.

The Chairperson said that the Committee needed to be convinced that through acceding to the Convention, they were saving lives. On the point of the exploitation South African fishermen, he said that there were women among the fishermen, and he would like to know how adequate protection and responsibility would be provided, and how the country would be able to regulate this industry considering the risks involved. The Committee wanted to be careful and ensure that through acceding to the Convention, they were mitigating the problems listed. Framing his question clearly, the Chairperson asked if there were punitive measures against fishing vessels that contravened or ignored the provisions of the Convention. He gave an example of an experience from the Scandinavian countries, where there was simply a status quo, where international regulations were ignored.

The Chairperson also asked about the level of preparedness. As a Committee, they would not proceed with the accession to the Convention unless the nation and the industry were prepared and ready to provide the required skills to the people affected.

Mr Madiya said that with the support of SAMSA, they had the capacity and expertise to implement the Convention. SAMSA was responsible for the safety, education and qualification of any maritime-related activity, and was ready for the implementation.

On the question about punitive measures, he said that all acceding countries should be able to honour the Convention and its requirements. If any vessel came into South African waters, as a signatory to the Convention it would have the jurisdiction and capacity to request that particular vessel to have the minimum standards as prescribed by the IMO through the Convention. The legal arm, through SAMSA, was available to make sure that people that came into South African water complied with the Convention.

Adding to the issue of punitive measures, Mr Mbeki said the best punitive measures were to attach the ship if there was any violation and not allow it to leave South African waters.

On the issue of protection, Mr Madiya said that it was the responsibility of the keeper or captain of the vessel to make sure that everybody on board the ship was protected.

The Chairperson, still on punitive measures, related the experience South Africa had had with a ship from Indonesia. Its condition was such that the punitive measure of confiscating it was not worth it. He also said that part of the articles of the Convention allowed states/countries to hold accountable states/countries that released a ship into the waters where action against the ship owner had not been strong enough. In relation to this, he asked if the Shipping Act was sufficient enough to empower the nation to assert its authority, or whether it needed amendment.

Mr Mbeki said that there was the Merchant Shipping Amendment Bill which sought to align itself with international standards already in place.

The Chairperson asked how long it would take.

Mr Mbeki said that the Bill had to pass through many departments and so it might take three to four months to get to Parliament.

The Chairperson urged the Department to keep to their promise, as they would want to see the process unfolding sooner than later. The Secretary would record that they had promised that within three or four months, amendments would come.

The Chairperson thanked the Department for the presentation and asked the Members of the Committee whether they could on that basis present the memorandum for the accession to the NCOP.

The Committee Members agreed.

The Chairperson said that they would report to the NCOP that the Select Committee on Economic and Business Development, having considered the request for approval by Parliament of the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watch Keeping for Fishing Vessel Personnel, 1995 (STCW-F) referred to in terms of Section 231 (2) of the Constitution, recommends that the House approves the said Convention in the exploratory memorandum.

Mr Mbeki asked who they could liaise with.

The chairperson said they can liaise with the secretary Ms Grace Dinizulu. The Chairperson also asked the Department to provide a list of countries that had acceded to the Convention.

Adoption of minutes

The Chairperson said that Members had before them the minutes of the meeting dated 9 June 2015, in which they had received briefing by the National Youth Development Agency (NYDA) on its functional programmes and its alignment to government policy. The members present were Mr Mthimunye, Ms Dikgale, Mr Londt, Mr Vawda and Mr Makue.

The Committee had resolved that the NYDA should first of all submit its annual performance plan for 2015/16 and the 2014/15 financial report. Secondly, the NYDA should provide the Committee with a report detailing its work and achievements in the provinces. Thirdly, the NYDA should also furnish the Committee with the Price Waterhouse Coopers (PWC) turnaround report. Fourthly, the NYDA should provide the Committee with the mitigation plans designed to address the service displayed risk.

Mr Mthimunye moved the adoption of the minutes. They were seconded by the Chairperson and adopted.

Committee matters

The Chairperson reminded the Committee that their next meeting would be in the third term. He thanked them for cooperating very well, even while he was merely acting chairperson. He had been communicating with the chairperson of the National Assembly (NA) about some oversight that might happen during the period of their recess, and some interesting events were being arranged by the Department of Trade and Industry. He urged them not to be surprised when they were contacted. He said that they were negotiating with the entities that they intended to do the oversight on.

There were two bills which need to be processed as soon as possible, one on liquor and the other on gambling, which he said were not related to each other. They were exploring the possibility of bringing in people from the National Gambling Board. He reminded them that national gambling happened in the provinces, since every province had a National Gambling Board. The NA had suggested that it was important for the Committee to participate, since the leadership of the Gambling Board would be present.

The Chairperson said that during their debate on transport, they had noticed with deep concern the number of accidents caused by drivers under the influence of liquor. As such, the Liquor Bill had been strongly lobbied by the Minister of Transport and Minister of Social Development because of the social consequences of alcohol abuse in society. He doubted the possibility of having one meeting with the NA because of the number of people involved in the trade.

In conclusion, the Chairperson said that he had noticed that the highest paid CEO in South Africa was the CEO of SA Breweries, followed by the CEO of the British American Tobacco company, and then by the one who sold insurance policies for those who died because of the abuse of liquor. This had been raised so that the Members would be aware of the responsibility they had to regulate the behaviour of citizens in so far as the abuse of liquor was concerned.

The meeting was adjourned.