Seafarers need a modified bill of rights to include piracy defense, Part 2

Why is more not being done to protect lives? The bottom line is money. Mobilizing qualified security guards for high risk areas is not like providing day laborers. Some companies must believe that this is like ordering an AB, QMED or GUDE from a cut-rate FOC manning agency. When they ask maritime security providers for availability and price quotes with five day notice in a difficult remote location, they don't realize that this is different than price comparing in a shopping mall. A company will literally send a crew unprotected through deadly waters because they balk at spending an extra $2,000 per day for security. As a result, they may end up paying much more down the road if the ship gets hijacked. For example, one super tanker company recently paid Somali pirates $9.6 million ransom.

One anonymous kidnapping and ransom (K & R) insurance expert says:

It's the charter contracts - the shippers are stuck between paying a set rate to the owners, and then because of over capacity, having to compete downwards on price against who knows how many other competitors? Last year, it got so bad for the box ship trade between Europe and Asia, some firms were willing to deliver cargo back to their home port as long as the charterer paid for the bunker fuel - it was THAT bad.

At the 2006 Maritime Labour Convention, the International Labour Organisation (ILO) adopted a so-called seafarers’ “Bill of Rights” that entitles them to minimal living conditions, rest periods and medical care. Port-state authorities would have more leeway in detaining vessels for violating these standards.

Nowhere in this bill does it state that companies must provide a minimum of anti-piracy self-defense measures, as it was written a few years before piracy came to the forefront. Now is the time to incorporate such a policy for ratification into the national laws of IMO member states. Just as seafaring nations are required to follow SOLAS and MARPOL rules, so, too, must they be forced to provide crews with the highest levels of protection.

As to the aforementioned idea of a letter of indemnity, it's a nice concept in theory only, says the aforementioned K & R expert:

I love the idea of the disclaimer, but it's never going to happen - everyone is a hypocrite here, including the people who represent the seafarers. The Pinoy labor folks may protest, as does Manilla, but they aren't staying home - they are still putting out to sea. Just like Bimco authorized a new charter contract that allows the ship master to determine that for safety reasons he's got to divert - that was from March this year? I think TWO companies have incorporated the change - bottom line, no one wants to lose business.

Put more succinctly:

These guys are all like "ladies of the night" who know they should demand a
condom be used, but go "bareback" so as not to lose a client.

1 2