Whole of government approach?

THE mantra of “whole of government” approach has become a favorite quote among government officials when giving updates on the progress of the activities to curb the spread of the Covid-19 virus. The swift response of the government, through the imposition of community quarantines with its various shades from enhanced community quarantine (ECQ) to a modified ECQ (MECQ) and the restriction of international flights to and from this archipelago, has gained the suppport and recognition of various sectors. And as they receive such commendation, government officials do not fail to make that attribution to the “whole of government” approach.

To some extent, decision-making, at the highest level of authority demonstrates a keen desire to be proactive and responsive with the pertinent agencies providing the regular updates on the latest government directives and information. That there are conflicting statements the public and the stakeholders can easily disregard such statements as the government instantaneously straightens things out.

The government, however, may have laid aside the “whole of government” approach in dealing with a very important maritime sector, that of seafaring. Department Order No. 211-A, issued by the Department of Labor and Employment (DoLE), highlighted the obligation of the shipowner and the manning agency to assume the cost of repatriation of all Filipino seafarers, possibly to put to rest all questions related thereto. The DoLE rightly referred to this archipelago’s having signed the Maritime Labour Convention 2006 (MLC 2006), which stipulates that shipowners must bear the financial burden of repatriation, an obligation which the Philippines must perform based on the priciple of “pacta sund servanda.”

Nonetheless the impact of the DOLE Order on the continuous employability of Filipino seafarers may have to be reviewed. The MLC 2006 did not foresee the magnitude of the Covid-19 pandemic in respect of the number of seafarers to be repatriated and the health protocols for virus testing, quarantine and personal protective equipment. The MLC 2006 did not envision the scale of repatriation that is now unfolding.

This archipelago, which prides itself of deploying thousands of seafarers, has to deal with the huge number of shipboard manpower that are returning. The surge in the number of overseas Filipino workers (OFWs), both land-based and sea-based, continues to fill up local quarantine facilities; at the same time results to longer queues in the testing protocol. These, obviously, increase the associated costs of the repatriation process, an unexpected circumstance, indeed. With the DoLE issuance, shipowners are expected to reassess the competitive edge of the Filipino seafarer over other nationalities..

How about the “whole of government” approach within the context of the seafaring sector? It is not lost to those in government that seafarers are considered “essential workers;” they move the world. From this archipelago’s perspective, seafarers undeniably contribute to enhancing the quality of life of their Filipinos as they enable a wider part of the population to gain access not only to the basic necessities such as food and shelter but also to education, health and recreation facilities, which in turn empower Filipinos to make better choices among the many opportunities that come their way. Moreover, the seafarers foreign exchange remittance helps improve the balance of payments of this archipelago.

Repatriation is at the end of the process of promoting and marketing the Filipino seafarer. Maritime education and training, certification, documentation, maritime safety and security concerns and condition of works all come into play in making the Filipino seafarer competitive. These factors fall within the regulatory sphere of various agencies, which are expected to take a “whole of government” approach in resolving matters relating to the seafaring sector. The cited factors are interconnected; not one to be considered as stand alone functions of any agency.

There are no practical experiences from which to draw conclusions and guide the government was dealing with repatriation issues. No one prepared for this, not even the MLC 2006. Therefore, it may be of significance to ask: Were all possible scenarios considered to minimize the impact of the application of MLC 2006 and that of the DoLE order? What options could be adopted by those marketing the Filipino seafarer to assure shipowners that the former is still the best choice? Related to these: Why give much attention to implementing the STCW Convention if the MLC2006 implementation adversely impacts on the marketability of the Filipino seafarer?

Still, this archipelago remains confident that shipowners will prefer Filipino seafarers. It is up to the government with its “whole of government” approach to come up with a coherent policy and strategy to support the continuous deployment of Filipino seafarers.