Flag of convenience operators taking a back seat in defending against piracy

The registries of Panama, Liberia, Bahamas and other so-called flags of convenience (“FOCs”) rank among the largest commercial shipping fleets in the world. Yet, they are practically invisible in protecting the ships flying their ensigns against pirate attacks.

FOCs are defined as ships registered in foreign countries in order to avoid taxes and safety regulations.

One of the world’s largest mariner advocacy groups is taking a hard line against ship owners’ failure to defend the lives of their sailors.

In a statement issued this week, the International Transport Workers Federation (“ITF”) has taken a position against sending ships through the pirate infested waters off East Africa unless “exceptional circumstances” are in effect. To send vulnerable ships into deadly waters is a case of willful neglect with potential legal ramifications, the statement reads.

The ITF classifies exceptional circumstances as the following:  1) a vessel transiting alone within close proximity to an armed naval vessel or as part of a convoy or, 2) a vessel is of low risk (high freeboard, high speed, trained crews) with “adequate” defense measures.

While the statement fails to define what such “adequate” measures may be, it strongly opposes arming commercial ships for defense purposes.

"We, and many others, also want to see the end of what's virtually an open secret in shipping that many of the world's largest ship registers have provided not one vessel to patrol an ocean that can only be made safe by an increase in the number of warships needed to aggressively patrol and police it,” said ITF Maritime Coordinator Steve Cotton. “I am not aware of a single flag of convenience country that is acting in this way to protect the ships that are supposedly their responsibility.”

Cotton is correct in his overall assessment of the lack of FOC participation in naval coalitions such as EU NAVFOR (European Union) or CTF 151.

Contributing to the risk is the lack of a uniform international policy of standards for defending commercial ships. While some nations have been proactive in supplying warships to patrol deadly waters, others such as FOCs not only fail to provide escort vessels but are not shy in asking the international community for protection.

When it comes to deploying armed security details, many cut rate carriers stand fast, citing the industry mantra of “escalation of violence” as an excuse not to support such a policy.

Perhaps that position masks the true reason for opposing arming commercial ships: the cost. Estimates to put an eight person armed team aboard a ship for one week run as high as $165,000 USD.

Other arguments against arming ships include liability concerns if crew members are injured or killed as well as innocent fishermen harmed when mistaken for pirates.

The ITF went on to recognize the financial burdens placed upon ship owners in providing shipboard security but cited the legal and moral responsibility in protecting their employees.

According to the International Maritime Organization, between January to September of this year, 160 piracy incidents were reported off the coast of Somalia, including 34 hijacked vessels. Over 450 mariners were taken hostage.