Promoting maritime human resources

WHAT is the maritime Philippines? Rather, what makes the Philippines a maritime nation? The easy answer would be to cite the archipelagic character of the country with its thousand islands.

An immediate opinion is certain: the thousands of Filipino seafarers who help make the national economy afloat with their billion-dollar remittances make the Philippines a maritime nation. The next question that comes to mind is: Who constitutes the human resources of the Philippine maritime industry?

Before the issuance of Presidential Decree 474, which created the Maritime Industry Authority (Marina), the administration of then-president Ferdinand E. Marcos not only focused on the development and expansion of the Philippine merchant fleet but also the expectation of creating job opportunities for the country’s human resources. Specific attention was given to Filipino seafarers, who were seen as successors-in-waiting of the crew from the developed maritime countries. In due time, Filipinos displaced other nationalities in the global seafaring sector.

Except on occasions where the theme touches on the subject of shipbuilding and ship repair, naval architects and those who work in the shipyards do not command the same attention and recognition as those extended to seafarers. Port workers and ship agents who provide services to the ships, passengers and shippers appear faceless and unremarkable to deserve notice.

And there is also the view by some observers that the contribution and hard work of seafarers who man domestic merchant fleets are underrated. Domestic seafarers are most deserving of receiving commendation for ensuring there is available sea transport within the archipelago. The government and shipowners highlight the deployment of bigger and faster ships in interisland routes, although they rarely talk about how well the crew has safely navigated the ships.

Integral to the government’s initiatives of creating jobs is preparing the country’s human resources through education and training programs that correspond to employers’ requirements. This explains the serious attention given to the education, training, and qualification of seafarers who need to satisfy the international standards for seafarers according to the STCW Convention.

For the other maritime workers, no international standards exist; education and training for them are left to the Commission on Higher Education (CHEd) and the Professional Regulations Commission (PRC) for the baccalaureate programs and the Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (Tesda) for those in technicalvocational skills. For those who wish to join the merchant marine profession, it is now the Marina that takes charge of their educational program up to the examination and certification.

Such structure continues to baffle observers as the core function of education is generally vested in CHEd; Marina, on the other hand, as flag administration, has the primary mandate of developing the Philippine merchant fleet.

The seafaring sector plays an important role in this archipelago’s economy, which explains the keen interest in sustaining the primacy of Filipino seafarers in world shipping. One can only hope the government will re-think the most important reason why the Philippines ratified the STCW convention, i.e., to be able to deploy competent seafarers on its national merchant fleet. With the dwindling number of Philippine ships engaged in international waters, has this archipelago accepted the shift of its status to that of a shipboard laborsupplying country?

In that case, the vision of PD 474 of a competitive Philippine merchant fleet has all been forgotten.