Port based welfare services for seafarers:

A further analysis

(Addendum to the Summary Report)

By Erol Kahveci

Seafarers International Research Centre, Cardiff University

Prepared for the ITF Seafarers’ Trust

2007

The arguments and views expressed in this report are the author’s and not

necessarily those of either the ITF Seafarers’ Trust or the Seafarers

International Research Centre.

2

Preface

This document is an addendum to the summary report on the port based

welfare services for seafarers, which was published in July 2007. The

summary report contained the main findings of the study and provided simple

descriptive statistics supported by first person accounts. This document

however, makes further contribution to the summary report in three ways:

1) It provides additional information on: research methods; demographic

characteristics of the respondents; important port based welfare

services; seafarer centres (buildings dedicated to seafarer welfare, at

or close to the port); and seafarers’ communications with family and

friends whilst at sea.

2) It provides a further analysis on contacts with seafarer welfare workers

coming to seafarers’ centres or missions, and shore leave. This

analysis takes the form of cross tabulation between different variables.

In the section where seafarers’ contacts with welfare workers aboard

their vessels are analysed, these contacts were set against the voyage

cycle and trading regions of their ships, the nationality of seafarers and

the organisation of the welfare workers. The section on shore leave

examines seafarers’ shore leave within the context of numbers of port

calls over 30 days, voyage cycles and trade regions of their ships. The

section also examines the influences on seafarers preventing them

from going ashore at every port. Possible influences examined include:

workload when the ship in port; port turnaround times; lack of

information about the port area; lack of transport; difficulties in getting a

shore pass from authorities; lack of visa; and the expense of going

ashore. Again, these possible influences are analysed against the

voyage cycles of ships and their trading regions.

3) This document provides the seafarers’ degree of agreement or

disagreement with seven different statements on ship and port based

welfare facilities, access to communication facilities and spiritual and

emotional needs. Their responses to these statements are overlapped

3

with what they had said in response to some parallel questions

throughout the survey and interviews, which were reported in some

detail in the summary report. In order to prevent the summary report

becoming repetitive this section was not included in the original report.

This document also contains an executive summary and recommendations for

the ITF seafarers’ Trust and the ITF. However, it should be noted that this is

not a separate document and it is written with the aim of providing some

additional information and data analysis to the original summary report.

Therefore it needs to be read alongside the original project summary report as

an addendum to it.

4

Executive summary

Important port based welfare services for seafarers

• Communication facilities (international phone, phone cards and

internet) and transport (to shops, town and seafarer centre) are the most important port based welfare services for seafarers. These are followed by personal counselling, place of worship and a port based medical clinic.

Contact with seafarers’ welfare workers coming from seafarers’ centres or missions

• The overwhelming majority of seafarers did not see any ship visitors coming from seafarer centres or maritime ministries aboard their vessels.

• Voyage cycles and trade regions of their ships played a very important role in seafarers having contact with a seafarer welfare worker aboard their ships.

• Ships involved in short-sea trade seemed to be visited by ship visitors more often than many other voyage types. However, ships involved in this trade on average visited over five ports a month, so when set against the number of port visits made by vessels under this category, proportionately seafarers working in this trade were not visited as often as it appeared.

• Seafarers working aboard deep-sea crossing vessels, either with few port calls or intense port calls, were more likely to see ship visitors during their current contracts. These vessels called in hub-ports where ship visiting by seafarer welfare workers was better coordinated.

• Seafarers working on vessels trading around Africa, Latin America, the Caribbean, the Adriatic, Black Sea, the Mediterranean, and the Indian subcontinent were in general less likely to have ship visitors aboard their vessels.

• As far as regions where relatively higher ship visits are concerned, there are differences amongst the countries in particular regions. In descending order, the UK, Germany, Australia, the US, Hong Kong and Taiwan were the countries where there seemed to be more ship visiting from seafarer centres and maritime ministry personnel.

• Ship visitor’s familiarity with the crew and ship seemed to play an important role - the data suggests that ship visitors were more likely to visit vessels that they were familiar with.

• It is evident from the data that ship visitors are more likely to visit a ship if the crew is made up from certain nationalities.

• When the ship visitors visit a ship they had contact with a limited number of seafarers onboard.

5

Shore leave

• On average, regardless of their voyage cycle, seafarers called at four (4.34) ports over a 30 day period. However, there were differences when voyage cycles are taken into account. Seafarers working aboard vessels involved in short sea trade called at just over 5 ports over a 30 day period. This was as low as two port calls for seafarers aboard vessels involved in deep-sea trade with few port calls.

• Seafarers were also asked to list the names of the ports they called at over a 30 day period and a further analyses of this data showed that 3,644 sailors made 13,267 port calls. This highlights the very low shore leave opportunities for seafarers despite visiting many ports (64 per cent of the seafarers said they had not had shore leave for a considerable length of time – see the summary report, pp.31-4).

• A combination of different factors was influential on seafarers not being able to go ashore: their workload when they were in port, the port turnaround times of their ships and a lack of information about the port area were very influential. These were followed by a lack of transport and difficulties in getting a shore pass from the port authorities. The lack of a visa for the countries they visited and the expense of going ashore were not regarded as influential as the other factors listed above.

• The high significance of workload in preventing seafarers going ashore was uniform across the different voyage cycles and different world regions where they sailed. Port turnaround times did not alter much either when similar factors of voyage cycle or trade regions were taken into account.

• ‘Lack of information about the port area’; ‘Lack of transport’; and ‘Difficulties in getting a shore pass from authorities’ were influential on seafarers not going ashore in every port. Their influence varied considerably when the world regions where seafarers’ vessels worked were taken into consideration.

Communication with family and friends whilst on board

• Although access to a satellite phone was not a problem for the majority of seafarers, the location of the phone (i.e. on the bridge and in ship’s office) prevented many of them having a conversation in pri vate.

6

Statements

• Fifty-six per cent of the respondents either strongly disagreed or disagreed with the statement of “There are enough welfare facilities aboard my current ship”.

• The next statement was of a similar nature but focused on welfare facilities in ports visited by seafarers and read as “There are enough welfare facilities in ports visited by my current ship”. Sixty-seven per cent of the seafarers either strongly disagreed or disagreed with this statement.

• One of the strongest opinions was expressed in response to “shore leave is currently inadequate to access port based welfare services”. Seventy-two per cent of the seafarers either agreed or strongly agreed with this statement.

• In response to “seafarers have adequate opportunities to discuss emotional problems aboard ship” 38% of seafarers either disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement.

• Only 10% of the seafarers either agreed or strongly agreed with “Aboard my vessel seafarers have adequate access to means of communication with home”.

• “In the ports my vessel visits seafarers have adequate access to means of communication with home”. In response to this, 75% of the seafarers either strongly disagreed or disagreed.

• “While I am working at sea my spiritual needs are met”. The majority of the seafarers either strongly disagreed or disagreed with this statement (54%).

7

Research methods

The seafarer survey questionnaire and semi-structured in-depth interviews:

Stratified sampling (i.e. designing the sampling frame prior to selection to ensure that the sample proportion from any particular national equals their population proportion within the global seafarer labour market) was applied to the top 20 maritime labour supplying countries. These countries together provide 85 per cent of the world’s seafarers. The sample target is based on one per cent representation so, in total, a return of 4,158 survey questionnaires was expected. The details of nationality distribution, the proposed and the actual returned number of survey questionnaires can be seen from Table 1 below.

Table 1: The top 20 seafarer supplying countries and number of seafarers who responded to the survey questionnaire

Nationality Frequency Valid Percent

Proposed 1% representation

Returned questionnaires

1 Philippines 132314 27.1 1323 1417 2 Russia 40871 8.4 409 379 3 Ukraine 40305 8.3 403 419 4 China 30855 6.3 309 164 5 India 23861 4.9 239 320 6 Indonesia 17761 3.6 178 147 7 Poland 17254 3.5 173 175 8 Turkey 15277 3.1 153 210 9 Greece 14216 2.9 142 101

10 Burma/ Myanmar 10830 2.2 108 62 11 Syria 10273 2.1 103 48 12 Romania 10081 2.1 101 80 13 Latvia 9552 2.0 96 49 14 Bulgaria 9502 1.9 95 70 15 Croatia 7893 1.6 79 21 16 Korea, South 5946 1.2 59 18 17 Egypt 5828 1.2 58 27 18 Netherlands 4387 0.9 44 33 19 Italy 4295 0.9 43 35 20 Taiwan 4265 0.9 43 17

Total 415,566 85.1 4,158 3,792

Note: for frequency and valid per cent, the SIRC Global Seafarer Labour Market Survey 2003 was used as a source

8

As can be seen from the table above there is a small difference between the proposed one per cent representation and the number of returned questionnaires. The vessels and the companies were identified through the SIRC Global Seafarer Labour Market Survey 2003 which was based on the analyses of a collection of crew lists from the major maritime port authorities around the world. As the crew lists revealed the nationalities of seafarers aboard vessels, it provided the initial target list for the ships and companies to be contacted for the nationality based seafarer survey. Due to the global nature of the survey and also the nature of the ship (a moving residential/work environment) it was difficult to predict how many of the crew onboard would reply to the questionnaire. Altogether, 6 months was allocated for the survey and at the halfway point the number of returned questionnaires was around 30 per cent. Therefore it was necessary to send more questionnaires out than the original, proposed number (i.e. one percent of the total number of seafarers in a particular nationality group). By the cut off date there were slightly more returned questionnaires from some nationalities and slightly less from others. However, given the complicated logistics involved in the organization of the survey and the nature of the survey group, the overall response rate was satisfactory and the number of returned questionnaires was very close to the originally proposed number (see Appendix 1 for Seafarer Survey Questionnaire).

Summary demographics Table 1 above summarised the number and nationalities of the seafarer respondents to our survey. Of those included in the survey, 53 per cent were employed on deck, 40 per cent in the engine room and 7 per cent in the galley. Fifty-one per cent were ratings. Of the rest 17 per cent were senior officers, 21 per cent junior officers, 9 per cent petty officers and 2 per cent were cadets. See table 2 for a further breakdown of ranks and departments of the respondent seafarers. Table 2: Department and rank of Seafarers Senior

officers Junior officers

Petty Officers

Ratings Cadets Total

Deck 356 373 123 1021 58 1931 (53%) Engine room

263 392 153 634 15 1457 (40%)

Galley - - 52 203 - 255 (17%) Total 619 (17%) 765 (21%) 328 (9%) 1858

(51%) 73 (2%) 3643(100%)

N=3,643

9

A further data analysis Important port based welfare services for seafarers The summary report looked at the important port based welfare services for seafarers and documented changes over the last 10 years by comparing the findings of the 2006 survey with the results of 1996 MORI ‘Seafarers’ Living Condition Survey’. This section however, concentrates on the important port based services for seafarers according to whether they regard these services “important”, “neither important nor not important” and “not important” (see table 3). Table 3: How important each port based welfare service is for seafarers (percentage of seafarers who said it was ‘important’; ‘Neither/nor’ or ‘Not important)

Services Important %

Neither important

nor not important %

Not important

%

Transport to shops/town (n=3601) 85 6 9 International phone (n=3591) 81 17 2 Transport to seafarers centre (n=3527) 72 20 8 Cheap phone cards (n=3617) 70 19 11 Internet access (n=3588) 68 22 10 Personal counselling services (n=3481) 57 37 6 Place of worship (n=3453) 53 42 5 Port based medical clinic (n=3,202) 44 42 14 Reading room/library (n=3,007) 17 26 57 Video/book exchange (n=2965) 15 42 43 Organised sightseeing (n=2971) 13 52 40 Meeting local people (n=2681) 10 69 21 Sports facilities (n=2453) 10 35 55 Money exchange (n=2449) 9 32 59 Onshore accommodation (n=2290) 9 37 54

Communication (international phone, phone cards and internet) and transport (to shops, town and seafarer centre) are the most important port based welfare services for seafarers. These are followed by personal counselling services, place of worship and port based medical clinic. The same pattern is persistent whichever of the three options considered. However, there is a need to comment on some of the high response rates on undecided (neither agree nor disagree). Port based welfare services such as meeting local

10

people (69%) and organised sightseeing (52%) have the largest category of undecided seafarers. This could be related to the limited time the seafarers have when their ships are in port rather than seafarers not wanting the use of these services. A further detailed analysis also showed that as far as the use of port based telephone facilities are concerned (including availability of cheap phone cards) the majority of the seafarers in the undecided category came from certain nationality groups, including the Dutch, Greek, and Italian. These seafarers, as well as having relatively shorter contracts, sailed around Europe where they could have regular contact with their family and friends via their mobile phones. Contact with seafarer welfare workers coming from seafarers’ centres or missions When seafarers were asked “when did you last see a seafarers’ welfare worker (from a seafarer centre or mission) aboard your vessel during your current contract?”, 72 per cent of them said that they have not seen any seafarers’ welfare worker aboard their ship during their current contract. Only six per cent said that they saw a ship visitor during the previous week; 13 per cent saw one during the previous month and nine per cent over a month ago (see table 4). Table 4: When did you last see a seafarers’ welfare worker (from seafarer centre or missions) aboard your vessel during your current contract Per cent Not seen any (n=2623) 72 Seen one during the last 7 days (n=218) 6 Seen one during the last month (n=476) 13 Seen one over a month ago (n=327) 9 N=3644 Seafarers on average were into their fifth month of their current contracts at the time of the survey and in this respect the data provided here needs a further comment. Nineteen per cent (n=694) of the seafarers said that they saw a ship visitor during the last 4 weeks, but only nine per cent over a month ago – this is during their current contract which on average covers a further four months. From the outset, this might appear to be contradictory because it might be expected that seafarers were more likely to see a ship visitor over a five month period. In other words it would be more likely to expect the number of seafarers to be higher in the category of ‘seen a ship visitor over a month ago’. However, a close examination of the data shows that voyage cycles and the trading region of their ships played a very important role in seafarers having contact with a seafarer welfare workers aboard their ships (see Table 5).

11

Table 5: Voyage cycle, trading region and seeing a ship visitor aboard

Not seen any (n)

Saw one during the last 7 days (n)

Saw one during the previous 4 weeks (n)

Saw one over a month ago (n)

Short Sea (n=1020) UK, Irish Sea, North Sea (n=703) 511 78 71 43 North Sea, Bay of Biscay, Iberia (n=224) 138 20 30 36 Adriatic (n=41) 39 0 0 2 Rest of Europe (Intra Europe) (n=52) 30 7 3 12 Deep-sea with intense port calls (n=729) Far east/ Gulf / Europe (n=482) 322 48 46 66 Far East/N America/Europe (n=125) 73 19 13 20 Europe / Latin America (n=33) 26 1 0 6 Europe / North America (n=89) 48 8 14 19 Deep-sea with few port calls (n=619) Intra Asia / Persian Gulf (n=73) 54 2 13 4 Asia / South Africa / Latin America (n=82) 75 0 0 7 Latin America / Africa (n=43) 43 0 0 0 Asia / Oceania (n=120) 40 0 70 10 Far East/N America/Europe (n=301) 167 9 115 10 Regional Trade (n=547) Mediterranean (n=152) 112 2 17 21 Black Sea (n=201) 185 0 4 12 Caribbean (n=27) 27 0 0 Intra Asia (n=92) 57 2 8 25 Central America (n=40) 40 0 0 0 Middle East / Indian subcontinent (n=35) 35 0 0 0 Changeable voyage pattern (n=401) 319 22 54 6 World-wide (n=328) 282 0 18 28 TOTAL (n=3644) 2623 218 476 327

12

Table 6: Voyage cycles by region and percentage of seeing a ship visitor Not seen

any Saw one during the last 7 days

Saw one during the previous 4 weeks

Saw one over a month ago

Short sea (n=1020)

n=718 70%

n=105 10%

n=104 10%

n=94 4%

Deep sea with intense port calls (n=729)

n=469 64%

n=76 10%

n=73 10%

n=111 16%

Deep sea with few port calls (n=619)

n=383 62%

n=11 2%

n=194 31%

n=31 5%

Regional Trade (n=547)

n=456 %83

n=4 1%

n=29 5%

n=58 11%

Changeable voyage pattern (n=401)

n=319 80%

n=22 5%

n=54 13%

n=6 2%

World-wide (n=328)

n=282 86% 0 n=18

5% n=28 9%

Average (n=3644)

n=2623 72%

n=218 6%

n=476 13%

n=327 9%

Table 5 above demonstrates the voyage cycle of the vessels in detail against seafarers seeing a ship visitor aboard in our sample group. Table 6 looks at the same data but provides the average percentage of seeing a ship visitor aboard against general voyage patterns. There are some emerging patterns here. As we can see from table 6, seafarers working aboard deep-sea vessels, either with few port calls or intense port calls, were more likely to see a ship visitor during their current contracts at the time. However, this is not a coincidence. Vessels involved in deep-sea in these two categories were in mainly liners and leg of their voyages involved calling at regional hub-ports of the globe (such as Bremerhaven and Hong Kong) where, as suggested by the data, seafarers welfare workers from seafarers centres or missions were better coordinated in ship visiting. However, ships involved in world -wide trade (the vessels in this category were mainly tramp ships), ships with changeable voyage patterns and ships involved in regional trades were less likely to see a ship visitor aboard their vessels. Although vessels involved in the short sea follow the average pattern, what is striking in this category is that they are more likely to be visited by ship visitors more often. As can be seen from Table 5 there are six broad categories of voyage cycles. However, close examination of the sub-regional categories listed under the general voyage cycles sheds a different light to the analysis provided in Table

13

6. As far as the vessels involved in short sea trade are concerned, the data suggests that ship visitors are more likely to visit the same vessel again and again instead of visiting different vessels. As we shall see later in more detail, seafarers working aboard short sea vessels on average visit 5.36 ports a month. Despite the high number of port calls, 70 per cent of the seafarers had not seen any ship visitor aboard their vessels. Further examination of the data also shows that there are differences according to the ports that their vessels call at. Short sea vessels calling in British and German ports are more likely to see a ship visitor aboard their vessels. Vessels involved in deep sea trade with intense port calls after a deep sea crossing in general are more likely to see a ship visitor. The seafarers working aboard these vessels on average visited 3.84 ports a month. Again, the ports that these ships visit are highly significant. As can be seen from table 6, ships involved in this trade do not get as many ships visitors in a regional category where Latin America is involved. Again, relatively high ship visitors aboard these vessels are directly related to these ships overwhelmingly visiting the Far East, North America and Europe. Particularly when they visit Hong Kong, Taiwan, the east cost of the United States, the UK and Germany. Although vessels involved in deep-sea trade have the least number of port calls over a monthly period (2.21), seafarers working aboard these vessels saw more ship visitors aboard their ships than any other seafarers in our sample group. There are also differences when we look at the sub-regional trades in this category. For example, 43 (all) seafarers working aboard ships trading between Latin America and Africa did not see any ship visitors aboard their vessels. Only seven out of 75 seafarers working aboard ships involved in Asia/South Africa/South America trade saw a ship visitor. Seafarers trading between the Far East, North America and Europe and between Asia and Oceania were more likely to see a ship visitor. Overall, seafarers working aboard vessels involved in regional trade are less likely to see a ship visitor, despite visiting just over 3 ports a month on average. In this category, 40 seafarers working ships trading in Central America, 35 trading between the Middle East and the Indian subcontinent and 27 working in the Caribbean did not see any ship visitor. The Black Sea region is only slightly better as far as ships visitors are concerned as 16 out of 201 seafarers saw ship visitors aboard their vessels. As emphasised above, seafarers working aboard vessels trading world-wide and with changing voyage patterns were not likely to see a ship visitor aboard their vessels. Ships in these trades on average visited 2.58 ands 2.38 ports respectively. Are the nationalities of seafarer playing an important role in having a ship visitor aboard their vessels? A further analysis of the data suggests that the nationality of seafarers has an impact.

14

Table 7 below illustrates seafarers who saw a ship visitor aboard their vessels against their nationalities, and it shows a disproportionate distribution. The data suggests that seafarers with European origin are more likely to see a ship visitor. The language barriers and other cultural factors could have played an important role in this. Table 7: Seafarers’ nationality and seeing a ship visitor aboard

Nationality N N= who saw a ship visitor

% who saw a ship visitor

1 Netherlands 33 25 76 2 Croatia 21 15 71 3 Italy 35 22 63 4 Greece 101 50 50 5 Bulgaria 70 33 47 6 Poland 175 79 45 7 Latvia 49 21 43 8 Philippines 1417 499 35 9 Taiwan 17 5 29

10 Romania 80 21 26 11 India 320 65 20 12 Russia 379 64 17 13 Ukraine 419 70 17 14 Indonesia 147 22 16 15 Korea, South 18 2 11 16 Turkey 210 16 8 17 China 164 12 7 18 Burma/ Myanmar 62 0 0 19 Egypt 27 0 0 20 Syria 48 0 0

In summary, regardless of the voyage patterns of their ships, the overwhelming majority of seafarers did not see any ship visitors coming from seafarer centres or maritime ministries aboard their vessels. There is an uneven distribution of ship visitors; for example, seafarers working vessels trading around Africa, Latin America, the Caribbean, the Adriatic, Black Sea, the Mediterranean and the Indian subcontinent in general were less likely to have ship visitors aboard their vessels. As far as regions where relatively higher ship visits are concerned, there are differences amongst the countries in particular regions. As emphasised above, in descending order the UK, Germany, Australia, the US, Hong Kong and Taiwan were the countries where there seemed to be more ship visiting from seafarer centres and maritime ministry personnel. From the outset, ships involved in short sea

15

trade seemed to be visited by ship visitors more often than many other voyage types. However, ships involved in this trade on average visited over 5 ports a month, so when set against the number of ports visits made by vessels under this category, proportionately the seafarers working in this trade were not visited as often as it looked. The other striking pattern for the ships involved in short sea trade is that, again as emphasised earlier, ship visitors seemed to be visiting the same vessels. Despite calling at so many ports in a month, 70 per cent of these seafarers did not see any ship visitors. Only 4 per cent of seafarers in this trade saw a ship visitor over a month ago. In comparison to the other voyage cycles, this percentage is particularly low. This also reinforces the idea that ship visitors were more likely to visit the vessels that they are familiar with. The ship visitor’s familiarity with the crew seems to be playing an important role. The data suggests that ship visitors visited same vessels regularly. Again, it is evident from the data that ship visitors are more likely to visit a ship if the crew is made up from certain nationalities. This could also be the function of ship visitors visiting the vessels that they were familiar with. It needs to be emphasised that this data by no means reflects the number of ship visits done by port welfare workers. The data reflects the number of seafarers who saw a ship visitor aboard their vessels. As we have seen in response to “when did you last sea a seafarers’ welfare worker (from seafarer centre or missions) aboard your vessel during your current contract?” 72 per cent of the seafarers said ‘not seen any’. Perhaps it would be safe to assume that ship visitors, despite visiting ships, reach only a limited number of crew. The other area explored by the study was the organisations of the welfare workers. Seafarers who said they saw a ship visitor aboard their vessels (n=898) were asked whether they knew what organisation the seafarers’ welfare worker was from that they saw aboard their vessels, only 4% of them said that they did not know about his/her organisation. 41% said that the ship visitor they saw aboard their ship was from Apostleship of the Sea; 37% said he/she was from Mission to Seafarers and 5% said he/she was from the German Seamen’s Mission (see Table 8). Thirteen per cent of the seafarers said the ship visitor was from Seamen’s Mission. However, this needs some further comments. The term “Seamen’s Mission” seemed to be used as generic concept to indicate that the ship visitor was from a Christian maritime organisation. This could be any of the three Christian maritime organisations mentioned here or any other not mentioned, such as British and International Sailors’ Society; Finnish Seamen’s Mission and so on. However, it should be emphasised that overall seafarers were very accurate about the ship visitors’ organisation, in fact in many cases seafarers mentioned not only by the name of the organisation but also the name of the ship visitor as well (i.e. Father xx; Chaplain xx; and Deacon xx). Perhaps this indicates that seafarers were very familiar with the ship visitor they saw

16

aboard their vessels and they were regularly visited by the same seafarer welfare workers. As emphasised earlier this data also reinforces the argument that seafarer welfare workers were more likely to visit ships that they were familiar with. Table 8: Seafarers’ welfare workers’ organisation Seafarers’ welfare workers’ organisation Percentage Apostleship of the Sea (n=368) 41 Mission to Seafarers (n=332) 37 Seamen’s Mission (n=117) 13 German Seamen’s Mission (n=45) 5 I do not know (n=36) 4 N=898 Seafarer centres (buildings dedicated to seafarer welfare at or close to the port) Seafarers were asked whether they thought it important to have seafarer centres in ports that they visited. Table 9: Do seafarers think it is important to have a seafarer centre in the ports that they visit? Percentage Yes (n=2013) 58 No (n=1458) 42 n=3471 As can be seen from Table 9, six out of 10 seafarers said that it was important to have a seafarer centre in the ports that they visit. Shore-leave It is important to set the shore-leave within the context and examine it against the number of port calls seafarers make within a certain period of time. Seafarers in our sample group were asked about how many port calls their ship made during the previous 30 days. As emphasised in the previous sections of this report, the number of port calls varied according to the voyage cycle of their ships. The table 10 below demonstrates the number of port visits against the voyage cycle.

17

Table 10: Number of port visits over 30 days by seafarers and voyage cycle of ships Number of port visits

Short sea

(n=1020)

Deep sea

intense (n=729)

Deep sea Few

(n=619)

Regional (n=547)

Changeable (n=401)

World wide

(n=328)

1 - - 116 5 - 43 2 - 67 337 188 238 171 3 37 133 93 203 111 66 4 135 283 78 128 41 49 5 400 163 - 23 15 2 6 372 59 - 4 - - 7 55 31 - 4 - - 8 17 - - - - - 9 16 - - - - - Total/ Average number of port calls per seafarer

5548 5.36

2834 3.84

1381 2.21

1667 3.03

1048 2.58

789 2.38

N= 3644; Average number of port calls: 4.34 On average, regardless of their voyage cycle, seafarers called at four (4.34) ports over a 30 day period. However, as can be seen from Table 10, there are differences when voyage cycles are taken into account. Seafarers working aboard vessels involved in short sea trade called just over 5 ports over a 30 day period, this was as low as two port calls for seafarers aboard vessels involved in deep-sea trade with few port calls. Seafarers were also asked to list the names of the ports they called at over a 30 day period. Further analyses of this data showed that they made 13,267 port calls (this number may contain many instances of the same port, as a port could be visited over and over again by seafarers). This highlights the very low shore leave opportunities for seafarers. In order to identify the influences causing seafarers to not be able to go ashore at every port, seven possible factors were listed and seafarers were asked to rate them from 1 to 5. In this scale, numbers corresponded to “1=not very influential” to “5=very influential”. Seafarers were asked to mark one number for each of the 7 factors. The table 11 below shows the average scale points for each factor.

18

Table 11: In general, how influential are the following on not being able to go ashore at every port Scale point “1=not very influential” to “5=very influential”

1 2 3 4 5

Average scale point

Workload when the ship is in port (n=3602)

7 41 87 396 3071 4.8

Port turnaround times (n=3451) 26 58 151 455 2761 4.7

Lack of information about the port area (n=3507)

263 425 133 572 2114 4.1

Lack of transport (n=3508) 448 401 269 680 1710 3.8

Difficulties in getting shore pass from authorities (n=3374)

421 387 259 654 1647 3.8

Lack of visa (n=3206)

419 1372 614 420 402 3

The expense of going ashore (n=3516)

301 1454 1570 77 114 2.5

A combination of different factors was influential on seafarers not being able to go ashore: their workload when they were in port, the port turnaround times of their ships and a lack of information about the port area were very influential (average score points for these were above 4 out of 5). These were followed by a lack of transport and difficulties in getting a shore pass from the port authorities (both average scale points we 3.8) and their influence on seafarers not being able to have shore leave was relatively lower than the three other factors listed above (namely, workload, turnaround times and lack of information). The lack of a visa for the countries they visit (with average scale point of 3) and the expense of going ashore (with average scale point of 2.5) were not regarded as influential as the other factors listed above (see table 11). The high significance of workload in preventing seafarers going ashore was uniform across the different voyage cycles and different world regions where they sailed. In a sense this data could be interpreted as that the workload of seafarers when they are in port does not alter much whether they are in highly mechanised ports or in less mechanised ports. Port turnaround times did not

19

alter much either when similar factors of voyage cycle or trade regions were taken into account. ‘The expense of going ashore’ regardless of where seafarers sail had very little influence on seafarers not being able to have shore leave in every port. However, ‘Lack of information about the port area’; ‘Lack of transport’; and ‘Difficulties in getting shore pass from authorities’ were influential on seafarers not going ashore in every port. Their influence varied considerably when the world regions where seafarers’ vessels were taken into consideration (see Table 12). Table 12 broadly distinguishes six different voyage cycles for the seafarers who responded to the survey. Lack of information about the port area overall had a score of 4.1 out of a possible 5 in influencing seafarers shore leave regardless of their voyage cycles. For seafarers whose vessels are involved in short-sea trade around Europe and deep-sea with intense port calls (mainly sailing around Far East, Europe and North America) lack of information about the ports they call was below the average score. Their average scores were 3.5 and 3.6 respectively. There might be two interconnected reasons for this, first by visiting the same ports regularly seafarers could become familiar with the port and surrounding areas and second the information about the port might have been available to seafarers in the ports in Europe, North America and the Far East. However, for seafarers involved in deep-sea trade with few port calls; regional trades; changeable voyage patterns and worldwide the lack of information about port areas had a relatively high impact on their shore leave. Their average scores were 4.3; 4.5; 4.5 and 4.4 respectively. These scores were higher than the average score of 4.1. The regions where these seafarers sailed included Mediterranean; Africa; Black Sea; Intra Asia; Central America; Middle East; Indian subcontinent and Latin America; . These regions seemed to have had the most ports which seafarers did not have information about. Subsequently this had a negative impact on seafarers’ shore leave opportunity in these regions. Furthermore, seafarers who sailed around the Middle East and Indian subcontinent; and Latin America and Africa were particularly lacking information about the ports in these world regions and had the highest average of 4.6 out of possible maximum scale of 5. Lack of transport in the port area overall had a score of 3.8 out of 5 in influencing seafarers’ shore leave - regardless of their voyage cycles. As was the case with the lack of information, seafarers involved in short-sea voyages around Europe and deep-sea crossings with intense port calls were relatively less influenced by the lack of transport. Their average scores were 3.3 and 2.4 respectively. Seafarers aboard ships with world -wide and changeable voyage patterns were similar to the overall average scores which were 3.9 and 3.8 respectively. However, seafarers aboard ships with deep-sea passage and few port calls; and ships involved in regional trade regarded lack of transport more influential on not being able to have shore leave. Their average scores were the same at 4.5 which was well above the overall score

20

of 3.8. These seafarers mainly sailed around Intra Asia; Persian Gulf; Latin America; Africa; Mediterranean; Black Sea; and the Indian Subcontinent. Difficulties in getting a shore pass from authorities overall had a score of 3.8 out of five in influencing seafarers shore leave. However, seafarers involved in short sea trade around Europe experienced a relatively low impact of availability of a shore pass, as their average overall score was 3.2. This was particularly low for seafarers sailing around the UK, Irish Sea and North Sea as their average score was 3. On the contrary seafarers sailing around Asia, South Africa, Latin America, Middle east and Indian Subcontinent had expressed the view that difficulties in getting a shore pass from authorities was very influential in seafarers not being able to have shore leave. These were also the world regions where seafarers did no t see many ship visitors aboard their vessels. This could well be the result of authorities being strict about shore based personnel going aboard vessels in their ports including ship visitors from seafarer centres or maritime ministries. What is striking here is that although with the average score of 3 “The lack of a visa for the countries they visit” is relatively less influential on seafarers not being able to go ashore, the data indirectly indicated the extent of this problem. Having a valid visa for the countries that their ship is going to visit is almost a precondition for seafarers before their contract is issued. Despite this it is still reported as a problem. However, the real extent of the problem was documented when seafarers were interviewed in their home societies who were between contracts. They emphasised that in particular difficulties in getting US visa made difficult for them to get their next contracts at sea.

21

Table 12: Influence of trade regions on shore leave

Seafarers were also asked to comment on the impact of the ISPS Code on their shore leave. In response to this, seafarers reported that the ISPS Code is interpreted differently in different world regions. It was frequently emphasised that they experienced difficulties in the US although many other countries were singled out. However, countries in Europe seem to be less restrictive as far as shore leave is concerned with the exception of some of the Baltic countries. Specific references were made to difficulties experienced in Poland. Seafarers from Islamic counties in our sample particularly had the opinion that they were singled out and the ISPS Code made it difficult for them to go ashore.

Lack of information about the port area

Lack of transport

Difficulties in getting shore pass from authorities

Overall average 4.1 3.8 3.8 Short Sea 3.5 3.3 3.2 UK, Irish Sea, North Sea 3.5 3.2 3.0 North Sea, Bay of Biscay, Iberia 3.5 3.3 3.1 Adriatic (n=41) 3.4 3.2 3.2 Rest of Europe (Intra Europe) 3.4 3.5 3.5 Deep-sea with intense port calls 3.6 3.4 3.9 Far east/ Gulf / Europe 3.5 3.7 4.0 Far East/N America/Europe 3.4 3.4 4.0 Europe / Latin America 3.8 3.1 3.6 Europe / North America 3.7 3.2 3.8 Deep-sea with few port calls 4.4 4.5 4.3 Intra Asia / Persian Gulf 4.2 4.8 4.5 Asia / South Africa / Latin America 4.4 4.3 4.8 Latin America / Africa 4.6 4.8 4.3 Asia / Oceania 4.1 4.1 3.9 Far East/N America/Europe 4.0 4.5 3.8 Regional Trade 4.5 4.5 4.4 Mediterranean 4.3 4.5 4.3 Black Sea 4.4 4.3 4.3 Caribbean 4.6 4.3 4.1 Intra Asia 4.3 4.4 4.5 Central America 4.4 4.6 4.5 Middle East / Indian subcontinent 4.6 4.7 4.8 Changeable voyage pattern 4.5 3.9 3.7 World-wide 4.4 3.8 3.8

22

For a summary table of the characteristics of welfare services and facilities for seafarers in different world regions see Appendix 2. Communication with family and friends Seven out of ten seafarers said that it was important for them to have access to e-mail in ports. However, as can be seen from Table 13, only 16 per cent o f the seafarers reported that they have access to onboard e-mail facilities. Table 13: Seafarer’s access to e-mail facilities onboard the vessel Percentage No access (N=2972) 84 Yes (N=555) 16 N=3527 Table 14: seafarers who had access to onboard e-mail by ranks Senior

officers (n=619)

Junior officers (n=765)

Cadets (n=73)

Petty officers (n=328)

Ratings (n=1858)

N 248 200 15 36 56 Percentage 40 26 21 11 3 N=555 A further data analysis suggests that senior offices are considerably more likely to have access to onboard e-mail facilities (see Table 14). Forty per cent of the senior officers have access to e-mail onboard compared to 3 per cent of ratings. All the vessels that seafarers worked on had e -mail facilities. When the seafarers were asked where a satellite phone accessible by crew was located on their current vessels , the majority of the seafarers said it was located only on the bridge (52%). This was followed by on the bridge and in another ship’s office (39%); on the bridge and in recreation/messroom (9%). Seafarers were also asked whether they had easy access to satellite phone aboard their vessels. A substantial majority of the seafarers said “yes” (84%) and only 16% said “no”. Although access to a satellite phone was not a problem for the majority of seafarers, the location of the phone (i.e. on the bridge and in ship’s office) prevented many of them having a conversation in private.

23

Statements Seafarers were asked to provide their degree of agreement or disagreement with 7 different statements (see Table 15). Their response to these statements sum up what seafarers said about their ship and port based welfare facilities; access to communication facilities and spiritual and emotional needs (see the summary report for further details). Table 15: Seafarers response to statements Statements Strongly

Disagree / Disagree

Neither agree nor Disagree

Agree / Strongly agree

There are enough welfare facilities aboard my current ship 56 28 16

There are enough welfare facilities in ports visited by my current ship 67 11 22

Shore leave is currently inadequate to access port based welfare services 18 9 73

Seafarers have adequate opportunities to discuss emotional problems aboard ship

38 43 19

Aboard my vessel seafarers have adequate access to means of communications with home

69 21 10

In the ports my vessel visits seafarers have adequate access to means of communication with home

75 18 7

While I am working at sea my spiritual needs are met 54 32 14

Fifty-six per cent of the respondents either strongly disagreed or disagreed with the statement of “There are enough welfare facilities aboard my current ship”. The percentage of seafarers who either agreed or strongly agreed was 16. Over a quarter of the seafarers however, expressed a neutral (neither “Agree” nor “Disagree”) response to this statement. The next statement was of a similar nature but focused on welfare facilities in ports visited by seafarers and read as “There are enough welfare facilities in ports visited by my current ship”. Compared with onboard welfare facilities (56%) more seafarers either strongly disagreed or disagreed with this statement (67%). Twenty-two percent of the seafarers either strongly agreed or agreed with the statement. This was slightly higher than a similar response to onboard welfare facilities (16%). Seafarers who expressed neutral a response to this statement was relatively low (11%).

24

One of the strongest opinions was expressed in response to “shore leave is currently inadequate to access port based welfare services”. 72 % of the seafarers either agreed or strongly agreed with this statement; however, only 9% either disagreed or strongly disagreed with it. In response to “seafarers have adequate opportunities to discuss emotional problems aboard ship” 38% of seafarers either disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement. 19% of the seafarers however, either agreed or strongly agreed. What is interesting here is that the percentage of seafarers who expressed a neutral opinion on this was very high (43%). Only 10% of the seafarers either agreed or strongly agreed with “Aboard my vessel seafarers have adequate access to means of communication with home”. The percentage of seafarers who either strongly disagreed or disagreed was 69. The next statement of a similar nature but focusing on ports which seafarers visited was: “in the ports my vessel visits seafarers have adequate access to means of communication with home”. In response to this, 75% of the seafarers either strongly disagreed or disagreed and only seven per cent of the seafarers either agreed or strongly agreed with this statement. Overall, whether it is ship based or port based seafarers were in agreement that the communication facilities that were available to them were inadequate. However, In comparison with the adequacy of onboard communication facilities a relatively high percentage of seafarers thought port based communication facilities were less adequate. The last statement read as “While I am working at sea my spiritual needs are met”. The majority of the seafarers either strongly disagreed or disagreed with this statement (54%). Only 10% either agreed or strongly agreed. However, 34% of seafarers expressed neutral opinion on this statement.

25

Recommendations for the ITF Seafarers’ Trust 1) Regional development programmes 1.1 Seafarer surveys and interviews suggest that there is an uneven distribution of seafarer welfare facilities and services across the globe. The world regions where services and facilities were regarded as poor by seafarers such as the Black Sea, the Indian sub-continent, Africa, Central and Latin America, correspond with the regions where the ITF Seafarers Trust have embarked on regional development programmes since 1999. The main aim of these programmes was to achieve minimum standards in seafarers’ welfare across the globe. There is a real need to look at why welfare services for seafarers are still poor in the regions that were subject to Trust-supported regional development programmes. There are two possible explanations for this. Firstly, perhaps the regional development programmes have not had the desired impact in improving seafarers’ welfare services in those regions. Second ly, perhaps the needs in these regions were so great that what has been put in place had very little impact. 1.2 The regional development programmes targeted world regions where seafarer welfare services were non-existent or poorly developed. These regions in general had no experience or tradition of providing welfare facilities and services for seafarers. The challenges faced in these regions are more related to the lack of general and specific guidelines and information on port based welfare work for seafarers. In order to maximise the impact of regional development programmes there is a need to promote the best working models and effective delivery of seafarer welfare strategies. It is important to make relevant information and guidelines available for port welfare workers in these world regions and in this respect the seafarers’ trust needs to supplement the funds with training programmes for the port based seafarer welfare workers (in these world regions). 2) Port based welfare facilities and services 2.1 In relation to the most important port based welfare services and facilities the message coming from the seafarers through a substantial survey and in-depth interviews is very clear. Communication facilities (international phone, phone cards and internet) and transport (to shops, town and seafarer centre) are the most important port based welfare services for seafarers. These are followed by personal counselling, place of worship and port based medical clinic. In the provision of funds the Trust needs to take this message coming from seafarers into consideration. 2.2 Providing funds for port based welfare services and facilities such as a reading room/library, video/book exchange, sports facilities and onshore accommodation need to be reviewed as they are regarded by seafarers with less interest.

26

2.3 Apart from seafarers sailing aboard vessels involved in isolated regional trades, seafarers are more likely to call in regional hub-ports regularly or as part of certain legs of their voyages. Therefore it is important that the trust should consider development of drop-in seafarer centres and/or mobile seafarer centres in these regional hub-ports alongside the maintenance of the existing facilities. Welfare facilities and services in the regional hub-ports are more likely to reach a wider and more diverse population of seafarers. 2.4 It is recommended that the trust should consider the development of new seafarer centres only in areas where there are developments of new regional hub-ports. 2.5 Lack of information about the port area is one of the main factors preventing seafarers in having access to shore based welfare facilities and other services. It is recommended that the trust should work together with the port authorities and seafarer welfare organisations to produce specific port information leaflets. The focus groups with seafarers suggest that the ideal format of this information should follow the leaflet produced by the Stella Maris Friends Venice for the port of Venice-Marghera. Seafarers in focus groups suggested that port directories produced by ICMA and the ICSW are good as a general reference. However, seafarers preferred information leaflets produced and distributed locally which contained an area map where transport, communication, local amenities (such as seafarer centre; shops; place of worship) are clearly marked and further useful information provided (such as brief area information and important telephone numbers). 2.6 It is recommended that the Trust should consider commissioning a project looking into the availability of land based telephone phone boxes which enable seafarers to use international seafarer calling cards within the port areas. This would enable the Trust to work together with port authorities and port based seafarer welfare agencies to increase such facilities where it is needed most. However, it is also important to review and project new technological developments that might enable seafarers to use calling cards economically through their own mobile phones. 3) Outreach welfare 3.1 Developments in shipping such as fast turnarounds, the ISPS Code and new port developments in isolated areas suggest that when seafarers are in port they heavily rely on services or facilities to come to them as in most cases they do not have the time or the means to access them. It is important that the trust should support new working methods / proposal based on outreach seafarer welfare provisions such as sailing seafarer welfare workers. The Trust provided funds for the evaluation of the effectiveness of such schemes and the recommendations of the evaluation study needs to be considered.

27

3.2 Contact with seafarer welfare workers coming from seafarers’ centres or missions is very important for seafarers. Such contact would give seafarers the chance to obtain information about the port and the local area, to get news updates from their home countries, receive personal counselling and talk about spiritual and personal needs. However, as the findings of the research showed, a substantial majority of seafarers did not have contact with a port welfare worker. The Trust should support ship visiting by port based seafarer welfare workers. In the provision of funds this item needs to form one of the key checklist points (where appropriate). As the seafarers’ needs suggest just visiting ships would not meet their welfare needs. 4) Spiritual needs of seafarers 4.1. Regardless of their religious affiliation, seafarers emphasised that their spiritual welfare is just as important as their physical welfare. It is important that the trust should continue to support the spiritual needs of seafarers. 4.2 The data suggests that seafarers from non-Christian cultures (i.e. Muslims and Buddhists) seem to be less likely to see a ship visitor aboard their vessels. The trust needs to make sure that welfare facilities and services funded by the Trust reaches to all seafarers regardless of their cultural and religious backgrounds. 5) General 5.1 Further analysis of the best seafarer centres named by seafarers showed that these seafarer centres are ecumenical (run in cooperation between different seafarer welfare agencies. The Trust should prioritise funding applications that are jointly submitted by more than one welfare organisation. This would provide more personnel and resources to utilise welfare facilities and services for seafarers.

28

Recommendations for the International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF) 1) Access to e-mail facilities onboard 1.1. Communication with friends and family is very important for seafarers and seafarers overwhelmingly emphasized that access to onboard e-mail facilities would improve their welfare at sea and ashore. The analyses of ships voyage cycles suggest that, overall, on average ships spend only 20 per cent of their operation time in ports and 80 per cent at sea. In other words, seafarers spent a substantial amount of their time confined to their vessels. In this respect they heavily rely on shipboard communication facilities. Although they might have personal mobile phones this would be out of signal range most of the time (However, there are companies who provide mobile GSM connectivity for seafarers at sea with individual Sim cards but the system needs to purchased by shipping companies and cost is comparable to current inmarsat satellite phone rates. The cost of the individual calls are deducted from the seafarer’s salary – so this service is available at a cost). The IBF agreements include the provision of funding for free e-mail communication on each IBF ship and this provision would be extremely important for seafarers. However, only 16 per cent of the seafarers of all ranks reported that they have access to onboard e-mail facilities and this is as low as three per cent for ratings. Where it was possible to use e-mail onboard, seafarers expressed dissatisfaction with the limited number and length of messages they could send and also the lack of privacy. Sometimes they had to pay not only for the messages they sent from the ships, but also for incoming e-mails too. They also emphasized that access to e-mail communication was solely at the discretion of captains. As the percentage of access to e-mail is so low across the industry it would be safe to assume that the IBF agreements have not had the desired effects yet as far as access to e-mail communication is concerned. The ITF needs to emphasise the importance of free access to e-mail onboard for the welfare of seafarers and in particular should invite shipowners with IBF agreements to honour their contractual duties towards their employees. 2) Shore leave and the ISPS Code 2.1 In our sample group 64 per cent of the seafarers were not able to have shore leave for a considerable length of time. One of the main reasons given for not having access to shore based welfare facilities was that there were many restrictions imposed by the port authorities related to the ISPS Code. The negative impact of the ISPS Code on seafarer access to shore based welfare facilities and also on access to ships for shore based welfare workers should be eliminated. 2.2 However, the interpretation of the ISPS Code by the port authorities varied significantly across the globe. Seafarers involved in short sea trade around Europe experienced a relatively low impact on the availability of a shore pass.

29

This was particularly low for seafarers sailing around the UK, Irish Sea and North Sea. On the contrary, seafarers sailing around the US, Asia, South Africa, Latin America, Middle east and Indian Subcontinent expressed the view that difficulties in getting a shore pass from authorities was very influential in seafarers not being able to have shore leave. It is recommended that the ITF should campaign for the fair interpretation of the ISPS Code in the US, Asia, South Africa, Latin America, Middle East and Indian subcontinent. 2.3 Seafarers from Islamic counties in our sample particularly had the opinion that they were singled out and the ISPS Code made it difficult for them to go ashore. Discriminatory policies against seafarers on the basis of their faith need to be eliminated and the ITF should campaign against discriminatory practices. 3) General 3.1 According to company and seafarer interviews, onboard welfare provisions and recreation facilities varied considerably according to their companies. Seafarers regularly reported they involuntarily contributed shipboard welfare funds. The ITF should target this practice and campaign for its elimination. 3.2 Many seafarers described their lives at sea, as ‘being in prison’, ‘isolated’ and ‘lonely’. It is evident that compared to the 1996 MORI Survey the availability of port based counselling services for seafarers has become more important. The review of the UK Prison Service information books for prisoners demonstrate that the provision of leisure, recreation, religious services and communication facilities are better in UK prisons than it is on many of the ships our respondents worked aboard. The transport industry plays a major role in the distribution of consumer goods which are directly related to our everyday lives. There is a need to communicate the state of the current welfare conditions of seafarers to the wider public. 3.3 The study results need to be disseminated across the ITF affiliated dockers’ unions. This would increase solidarity amongst seafarers and dock workers. 3.4 As demonstrated by the study there are shipping companies that provide free shuttle bus services for their seafarers. Managers in these companies regard this investment as providing a good return in the form of a high retention rate, and a happy, healthy and loyal crew. The ITF should explore the inclusion of free shuttle bus service provision by shipping companies for their seafarers in the IBF agreements.

30

Appendix 1: Seafarer Survey Questionnaire 1. About you 1.1) How old are you? _______ 1.2) What is your nationality? __________________________ 1.3) Are you? Male (man) [] Female (women) [] 1.4) What is your religion? ____________________________ 1.5) Which of the following describes your marital status? (Tick one box only) Single [] Widowed [] Divorced/separated [] Married [] Living with partner [] 1.6) What is your current position onboard? Senior deck officer [] Senior engine room officer [] Junior deck officer [] Junior engine room officer [] Deck petty officer [] Engine room petty officer [] Deck Rating [] Engine room rating [] Other: ______________________ 1.7) How many years have you worked at sea? Less than a year [] ____________ years 1.8) How long is your current contract? ____________ months 1.9 How long have you been serving aboard your current ship? ________ months

31

2. About your ship 2.1) What type of ship are you serving on currently? (tick one box only)

Gas Tanker

Chemical Tanker

Oil Tanker

Other Tanker

OBO Oil/Bulk/Dry

Bulk Carrier

Self Discharge

Bulk

General Cargo

Container Vessel

Reefer

[] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] []

Ro-Ro Passenger Ro-Ro

Passenger Cruise Ship

Other Dry

Cargo

Offshore Supply

Other Offshore Support

Research Tug Dredger Other (please state)

[] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] 2.2) Number of seafarers onboard your ship (total number of crew)? _______ 2.3) Is you vessel involved in liner trade or tramp shipping? Liner [] Tramp [] Other: ____________________________________ 2.4) Can you please state the world region(s) where your ship trade? ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ 2.5) What is the voyage cycle of your current vessel? Short-sea crossing with intense port calls [] Deep-sea crossing / intense port calls/ deep-sea crossing [] Deep-sea crossing / a few port calls / deep-sea crossing [] Regional trade (i.e. Mediterranean, Black Sea, Caribbean) [] Changeable [] Other (please state): _________________________________ 2.6) During the last 30 days how many port calls has your ship made? ______ 2.7) Can you please list the ports that your ship has called during the last 30 days? __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

32

3. Port based welfare services 3.1) Below is a list of port based welfare services. How important is each one of these for you? (Please tick one box for each service) Services Important Neither/nor Not

important International telephone [] [] [] Money change [] [] [] On shore accommodation [] [] [] Personal counselling service [] [] [] Sports facilities [] [] [] Organised sightseeing [] [] [] Reading room/library [] [] [] Video/book exchange [] [] [] Transport to town [] [] [] Transport to seafarers centre [] [] [] Port based medical clinic [] [] [] Meeting local people [] [] [] Place of worship [] [] [] Internet access [] [] [] Cheap telephone cards [] [] [] 3.2) How adequate are these services in the ports you have been visiting during your current contract? (Please tick one box for each service) Services

Adequate Not adequate It does

not bother me

International telephone [] [] [] Money change [] [] [] On shore accommodation [] [] [] Personal counselling service [] [] [] Sports facilities [] [] [] Organised sightseeing [] [] [] Reading room/library [] [] [] Video/book exchange [] [] [] Transport to town [] [] [] Transport to seafarers centre [] [] [] Port based medical clinic [] [] [] Meeting local people [] [] [] Place of worship [] [] [] Internet access [] [] [] Cheap telephone cards [] [] []

33

4. About your most recent contact with seafarers’ welfare workers coming from seafarer centre or missions (aboard your vessel during your current contract) 4.1) When did you last see a seafarers’ welfare worker (from seafarer centre or missions) aboard your vessel during your current contract? I have not seen a seafarers’ welfare worker aboard this ship [] I have seen a seafarers’ welfare worker aboard during the last 7 days [] I have seen a seafarers’ welfare worker aboard about _____ weeks ago I have had a seafarers’ welfare worker aboard about _____ month ago What was the name of the port where you have had a seafarers’ welfare worker aboard your current ship: _________ 4.2) What did the seafarers’ welfare worker do? __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 4.3) What else could the seafarers’ welfare worker has done which might have been more useful for you? __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 4.4) Were you satisfied with the services you received during the visit from the seafarers’ welfare worker? Yes [] No [] (if yes or no) Can you explain why? _________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 4.5) Do you know what organisation the seafarers’ welfare worker was from? I have not seen a seafarers’ welfare worker aboard this ship [] I have seen a seafarers’ welfare worker aboard but I don’t know his/her organisation [] The seafarers’ welfare worker was from ______________________________

34

4.6) Do you think being visited by a seafarers’ welfare workers (from seafarer centres or missions) onboard your vessel is important for you? Yes it is important for me [] No it is not important for me [] (if yes or no) Could you please explain why: __________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 4.7) Do you like being visited by seafarers’ welfare workers (from seafarer centres or missions) aboard your vessel? Yes [] No [] (if yes or no) Could you please explain why: __________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 5. About seafarer centres (building dedicated to seafarers’ welfare in port or close to the port) 5.1) Do you think it is important to have seafarer centres in ports that you visit? Yes [] No [] (if yes or no) Could you please explain why: __________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 5.2) During your career at sea which seafarer centre has been the best to visit for you? ___________________________________ Why is this particular seafarer centre the best one for you? : ______________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

35

5.3) During your career at sea which seafarer centre has been the worse to visit for you? ___________________________________ Why is this particular seafarer centre the worse one for you? : ____________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 5.4) Do you visit seafarer centres which owned privately by individuals (seafarer centres not operated of Maritime ministries (for example Mission to Seafarers, Apostleship of the Sea, or trade unions etc.) No [] Yes, frequently [] Yes, sometimes [] Yes, rarely [] 6. About the facilities within the ports that you visit (independent of any seafarer centre) 6.1) Can you list all the ports you have visited so far during your current contract? ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 6.2) Amongst the ports that you have visited during your current contract, which is the BEST port as far as the shore based welfare facilities and services are concerned? __________________________________________ Why is this particular port the best? ________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 6.3) Amongst the ports that you have visited during your current contract, which is the WORST port as far as the shore based welfare facilities and services are concerned? _________________________________________________ Why is this particular port the worse? ________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

36

6.4) During your career which is the OVERALL BEST port that you have visited as far as services and facilities for seafarers are concerned? The overall best port is: ________________________ Could you please explain why you think this?: _________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 6.5) During your career which is the OVERALL WORST port that you have visited as far as services and facilities for seafarers are concerned? The Overall Worst port is: ________________________ Could you please explain why you think this? :_________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 7. Communication with family and friends 7.1) How do you communicate with people at home? Letters / postcards [] Telephone from ports [] Mobile phone calls [] Mobile text messages [] Satellite phone onboard [] Telephone from seafarers centres [] Telephones from phone boxes in ports [] E-mail (aboard vessel) [] E-mail (ashore) [] I don’t communicate with them [] Other:___________________ 7.2) How do your family and friends communicate with you? (please tick as many boxes as appropriate) Letters / postcards [] Mobile phone calls [] Mobile text messages [] Satellite phone onboard [] E-mail (to aboard vessel) [] E-mail (ashore) [] They don’t communicate with me [] Other: ___________________

37

7.3) On average how much is your monthly communication cost? $______________

7.4) Can you use e-mail facilities onboard your vessel (Please tick as many boxes as appropriate) No [] Yes every crew member has a private e-mail account [] Yes but I do not have a private e-mail account [] Yes but I can send a limited amount of e-mail messages [] Yes but someone else can read my sent messages [] Yes I can send but I cannot receive [] Other [] If you tick other please explain: _____________________________________ 7.5) Where the satellite phone is located aboard your current vessel? It’s located only on the bridge [] It’s is also available from the recreation rooms [] Other: _______________________________________ 7.6) Do you have an easy access to the satellite phone aboard your vessel? Yes [] No [] (if yes or no could you explain why): _________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 8. Shore leave 8.1) How many times have you had shore leave during the last 8 weeks? (please tick only one box) None [] Once [] Twice [] Three times [] Four times [] Five times [] More than 5 times []

38

8.2) (If you have had a shore leave during the last 8 weeks) Did you go outside the port area? (If you have had more than one please respond in relation to your last shore leave) I have not had any shore leave during the last 8 weeks [] I have had shore leave during the last 8 weeks but not left the port area [] I have had shore leave during the last 8 weeks and went beyond the port gates [] 8.3) If you went out beyond the port gates during the last 8 weeks what was the name of the port? (If you have had more than one please respond in relation to your last shore leave) I have not had any shore leave during the last 8 weeks [] The name of the port was: _______________________________________ 8.4) (If you went beyond the port gates) Which form of transport did you use? I have not had any shore leave during the last 8 weeks [] Free transport by the port authority [] Free transport by the seafarer centre / port welfare worker [] I used public transport [] I used a taxi [] I walked [] Other (please explain): __________________________________________ 8.5) (If you went beyond the port gates) how many other crew members came with you? I have not had any shore leave during the last 8 weeks [] I was alone [] I had other crew members with me and our total number was: ______ 8.6) On average how long is your turnaround time in ports? Up to 12 hours [] Between 13 and 24 hours [] Between 25 and 36 hours [] Between 37 and 48 hours [] Over 49 hours []

39

8.7) In general, how influential are the following on not being able to go ashore at every port Indicate your opinion by circling one number for each item. The numbers represent a scale of 1 to 5 where, “1= not very influential” and “5 = very influential”

Not very influential

Very Influential

Lack of information about the port area 1 2 3 4 5 Lack of transport to take me ashore 1 2 3 4 5 Lack of visa for countries that my ship visits 1 2 3 4 5 My workload when the ship is in port 1 2 3 4 5 Port turnaround time of my ship 1 2 3 4 5 Difficulties in getting shore pass from the authorities 1 2 3 4 5 The expense of going ashore 1 2 3 4 5

8.8) Can you please comment on the impact of the ISPS Code on your shore leave? ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 9. Alternative seafarers’ welfare provisions 9.1) Would you like to have a port welfare worker (seafarer centre / mission worker) to sail aboard your ship from time to time? Yes [] No [] (If yes or no) Could you please explain why?: _________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 9.2) Would you like to have a mobile seafarer centre on wheels come near the gangway with facilities (i.e. international telephone and e-mail facilities) and small shop? Yes [] No [] (If yes or no) Could you please explain why?: _________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

40

9.3) Which one would you prefer? (Please tick only one box) A seafarer centre where you visit in the port area [] A seafarer centre where you visit outside the port area [] A mobile seafarer centre that can come near your vessel [] Could you please explain why you prefer this? _________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

10. Statements Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements (Please tick one box per statement)

Statements Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neither Agree nor Disagree

Agree

Strongly Agree

10.1) There are enough welfare facilities aboard my current ship [] [] [] [] [] Can you please explain why: 10.2) There are enough welfare facilities in ports visited by my ship currently [] [] [] [] [] Can you please explain why: 10.3) Shore leave is currently inadequate to access port based welfare facilities [] [] [] [] [] Can you please explain why: 10.4) Seafarers have adequate opportunities to discuss emotional problems aboard ship

[] [] [] [] []

Can you please explain why: 10.5) Aboard my vessel seafarers have adequate access to means of communications with home

[] [] [] [] []

Can you please explain why: 10.6) In the ports my vessel visits seafarers have adequate access to means of communication with home

[] [] [] [] []

Can you please explain why:

41

10.7) While I am working at sea my spiritual needs are met [] [] [] [] [] Can you please explain why?

11. And finally! 11.1 What do you miss most when you are at sea? ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ How do you think that this could be helped? ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 11.2 If you have any further comments on your experiences in port and ship based welfare facilities for seafarers; seafarers’ welfare workers visiting ships; shore leave and other related issues, it would be very helpful if you could write them here: ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

42

Appendix 2 Characteristics of welfare services and facilities for seafarers in different world regions

Ship visitor

Port facilities

ISPS Code

(availability of shore pass)

Availability of area

information

Transport Expense of going ashore

Regional score (out

of 6)

UK/Irish Sea £ l l l l £ 5 North Sea £ £ l l l £ 4.5 Baltic Sea ¡ £ £ £ £ £ 2.5 Bay of Biscay/Iberia

£ £ l l l £ 4.5

Adriatic ¡ £ £ £ l £ 3 North Africa ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ l 1 Eastern Mediterranean

¡ ¡ £ ¡ ¡ l 1.5

Black Sea ¡ ¡ £ ¡ ¡ £ 1 Persian Gulf/Red Sea

¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ £ 0.5

Indian Subcontinent

¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ l 1

South East Asia

£ £ £ £ ¡ £ 2.5

Far East £ £ £ £ £ £ 3 Oceania £ £ £ £ £ £ 3 Indian Ocean / East Africa

¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ 1

South Africa ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ l 1 West Africa ¡ ¡ £ ¡ ¡ l 1.5 Latin America ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ l 1 Caribbean ¡ ¡ £ ¡ ¡ l 1.5 Central America

¡ £ £ ¡ ¡ l 2

North America l l ¡ l l £ 4.5 Overall world- wide score (out of 20)

4 6 8 6.5 6.5 14.5

Legend: ¡ “poor” / “not satisfactory”; £ neither “poor” / “not satisfactory” nor “good” / “satisfactory”; l “good” / “satisfactory”

43

Appendix 3: In-depth Interviews and Focus Group Themes The survey of seafarers resulted in the accumulation of rich quantitative data – mainly

providing descriptive statistics. The survey sample reflected the mix of nationalities

and the ranks of the world’s seafarer population. This descriptive data was backed up

with 112 in-depth qualitative interviews that were conducted with seafarers from

China, India, the Philippines, Russia, Turkey and Ukraine (different world regions,

and cultures - including religions - and the size of seafarers’ populations were taken

into consideration in the selection of these nationalities). The initial questions asked

during these interviews were similar to the questions asked in the survey

questionnaire however, further detailed questions were asked about their experiences

with port based and onboard welfare facilities. They were also encouraged to talk

about their comparative experiences in different world regions including their home

ports.

In addition to these in-depth interviews, where possible focus groups (n=12) were organised with seafarers in their gathering paces (such as Seafarers’ Solidarity Association in Istanbul, AoS Seafarers’ Centre in Cebu). Focus groups were organised around four themes:

1) Exploration of areas which were not covered in detail in the seafarers’ questionnaire because of their sensitive nature (i.e. onboard welfare provisions and seafarers’ contribution to these; onboard e-mail access; and seafarers’ spiritual needs);

2) Ranking exercise and subsequent discussions on: the most important port based welfare services and facilities; world regions according to different implementation of the ISPS Code; world regions and shore leave opportunities; world regions according to ship visitors; world regions and provision of port based welfare services. (In the ranking exercise relevant items were listed and seafarers were invited as a group to rank them in descending order. They were also asked to express their views/reasons during the process).

3) Description of life at sea and how this could be improved. 4) Group specific themes: in the focus groups the group dynamics and the

general characteristics of the participants were taken into consideration. For example focus groups with Turkish seafarers were also included in discussions about the ISPS Code and Muslim seafarers, and port based welfare services and facilities in the black Sea region. Filipino seafarers for instance wanted to have discussions about their shipboard spiritual needs.

44

Appendix 4: Ship owner / ship management company survey

In the survey of shipowners the questions were left open ended (yes or no questions included a further question requesting additional information “why”)

Personal background (gender, education, brief career history and current position)

How many vessels owned/managed by your company?

Number of seafarers employed and their nationalities?

What are the company policies on seafarer welfare?

What welfare services does your company provide for its seafarers?

(if any) how are they prioritised?

Does your company have any budget allocated for these services?

(if yes) how much is the monthly allocation?

Do seafarers contribute money to onboard facilities (including recreational / entertainment facilities)?

(If yes) how much do they contribute monthly?

(if yes) how this contribution is organised?

What are your company policies for crew access to e-mail facilities aboard your vessels?

In your opinion, what are the most important welfare services and facilities for seafarers?

How does your company meet these important welfare needs of seafarers?

What are your views on seafarers and shore leave?

Could you please tell me about policies or actions taken by your company for access to shore based welfare services for your seafarers.

In general, what would most improve the welfare of seafarers?