port levies and sustainable welfare for seafarers

A report commissioned by the InternationalSeafarers’ Welfare and Assistance Network

By Dr Olivia Swift, Research Associate,Greenwich Maritime Institute

Port levies and sustainablewelfare for seafarers

May 2013

Sponsored by the ITF Seafarers’ Trust.

The arguments and views expressedin this report are not necessarily thoseof the ITF Seafarers’ Trust.

1 Port levies and sustainable welfare for seafarers

1. See Appendix 1.

Treating people with dignity, compassion andrespect is a sign of a civilised society and issomething we should all do. Seafarers are nodifferent from anyone else. We depend uponthem for the smooth and efficient running ofthe thousands of ships that are responsible for95% of the world’s trade. We should all beconcerned about their health and welfare. Inparticular, we need to ensure that seafarershave access to welfare services and facilitiesashore after a long voyage.

Many seafarer welfare organisations aroundthe world are having problems funding theirservices and facilities in existing ports, letalone establishing a presence in some of thenewer expanding ports.

Port levies for welfare are one way ofproviding sustainable funding for seafarers’centres, ship visiting, and other welfareservices ashore. The Maritime LabourConvention (MLC, 2006) protects the welfare,living and employment conditions of seafarersall over the world. The MLC’s guidelinesinclude, “levies or special dues from shippingsources” to pay for port welfare facilities.1

A number of ports around the world, however,already operate welfare levies on a voluntaryor compulsory basis, and many to good effect.The International Seafarers’ Welfare andAssistance Network (formerly the InternationalCommittee on Seafarers’ Welfare and theInternational Seafarers’ Assistance Network)commissioned this research in order toexamine where and how these levies operate,

the difference they make and some of theissues involved in their instigation andimplementation.

While port levies are not a panacea, they doprovide welfare organisations with a stream ofsustainable funding that enables them to planand develop their services. With pressure onother sources of funding they can ensure thecontinuance of services that are a lifeline forseafarers. We hope that the findings will alertthe industry to the real and potential benefitsof welfare levies to fund services and facilitiesof value, not just to seafarers, but also toemployers and other stakeholders. We intendto work in partnership with others in themaritime industry to extend welfare levies toother ports.

The International Seafarers’ Welfare andAssistance Network (ISWAN) is grateful to theITF Seafarers’ Trust for its generous supportof the research and report, and to therepresentatives of welfare organisations, portauthorities, shipping companies and otherindividuals who took the time to participate.

Roger HarrisExecutive DirectorInternational Seafarers’ Welfare andAssistance Network

Foreword


Contents

Summary ......................................................3

Introduction..................................................4

Aims & objectives ........................................4

Research methods ......................................4

Research findings ......................................6

Welfare levies, port welfare committees & national welfare boards ..............................6

Voluntary/compulsory welfare levies ..............................................7

Levy rates, capping & payment percentages ..............................................11

Levy administration & spending ................16

The impact of levies ..................................20

Shipping companies and seafarers’ welfare ......................................22

Conclusions & recommendations ..........23

References ................................................26

Glossary ....................................................26

Appendices ................................................26

Appendix 1: Extract from the Maritime LabourConvention, 2006 ........................................26

Appendix 2: Research questionnaire ..........27

Appendix 3: Participating ports....................28

Case studies

Kandla Port, Gujarat, India ............................8

Constantza Port, Romania ..........................10

Port of Bremerhaven ..................................13

Port of Saldanha Bay, South Africa ............14

Port of Baltimore, Maryland, USA................17

Ports of Tees & Hartlepool, UK....................19


Summary

• 46 out of 132 ports (35%) participating in the research currently operate port welfarelevies.2 Eight have plans for a levy in thefuture and 78 have neither past or presentlevies, nor plans for one in the future.

• Based on the survey data, it is unusual for a country to have welfare levies operatingacross all of its ports. This suggests that few countries underpin port welfare levies in statute.

• The data shows no clear correlation betweenthe existence of port welfare committeesand/or national welfare boards on the onehand and port welfare levies on the other.

• The vast majority of existing port welfarelevies among participating ports operate ona voluntary basis.

• From the data a mean average levy ofUS$58 emerges, while the mode andmedian are both US$40. Most are chargedper docking. Almost none are capped.

• Approximately the same number ofrespondents indicated that the port authorityinvoiced ship agents for the welfare levy,compared to those who indicated thatwelfare organisations undertook this task.

• Payments were mainly described as beingtransferred by cheque or electronically,usually from ship agents to welfareorganisations or port welfare committees,typically at monthly intervals.

• No port reported any organisation other than welfare organisations, port welfarecommittees, or less commonly, portauthorities, being able to use levy funds.

• In almost all cases, there are no restrictions(eg in capital or expenditure terms) on theuse to which levy proceeds can be directed.At the same time, levy revenue is almostalways used for the general maintenance ofseafarers’ centres, the operating of seafarertransport, and/or staff salaries.

• Mean and median averages of 65% of leviesare paid among participating ports, while themode is 30%.

• 10 ports reported voluntary levy paymentrates of between 75 and 99%.

• A mean average of 24% of participatingwelfare organisations’ port operations arecovered by a port welfare levy; the mode is 15%.

• In addition to concerns about welfare andhealth and safety, a pertinent reason foremployers to support port welfare servicesfor seafarers is the fact that these servicesare often directly beneficial to ship agents,operators, charterers, owners and othercompanies linked to a port.

2. The terms “levy/portlevy/welfare levy/port welfarelevy” are used interchangeablyin this report.


Introduction

The International Labour Organisation’sMaritime Labour Convention (MLC, 2006) wasfinally ratified in August 2012 and is in forcefrom August 2013. The MLC is often referredto as the seafarers’ bill of rights and coversareas such as shore- and ship-based welfareservices, employment contracts, health andsafety, medical care and crew accommodation.The MLC lays down minimum standards inthese and other areas.

The MLC, 2006 states: “Every seafarer hasthe right to health protection, medical care,welfare measures and other forms of socialprotection.”3 Regulation 4.4 of the MLC coversaccess to shore-based welfare facilities. Theregulation is divided into the “Standard”,which is obligatory, and the “Guideline”, whichis advisory. In the standard it states thatcountries should promote the development ofwelfare services, while the guideline outlineshow they should finance these facilities. Theguideline provides four funding sources, oneof which is “levies or special dues fromshipping sources”. The MLC provides aunique opportunity to discuss how vitalseafarer welfare services can be sustainedinto the future through port levies.

Aims & objectives

At the outset of this research a maritimeunion employee recalled attending a meetingof one of the main seafarer missions somefive years ago, when approximately half ofthe attendees raised their hands when askedwhether the ports in which they workedoperated welfare levies. This remark seemedto imply that port welfare levies werecommonplace and yet there is littleconsensus within the shipping communityabout where they operate, how they operate,and what difference they make to theprovision of welfare services and facilities.

This research, which ran from November 2012to January 2013, is intended to begin to addressthat gap. Port welfare levies are fees, usuallypaid by shipowners (via ship agents) to portwelfare organisations or port authorities, thatcontribute towards the cost of providing welfarefacilities and services for seafarers in port.4

This report is intended to provide an industryresource detailing best practice that can beused to support a greater number of ports toput welfare levies in place. Through therecommendations the research promotes bestpractice in relation to the administration andgovernance of port levies. This report is aimedat stakeholders keen to establish and/orincrease the effectiveness of levies in theirown ports, those who may not haveconsidered levies previously but are open tolearning about how they can be implementedand used, as well as others with an interest inthis important area of policy.

Research methods

The majority of data informing this researchwas gathered using an online survey (seeAppendix 2) that was sent by email to 533welfare organisation contacts primarily fromISWAN’s database. Of these, 489 emails werereceived and 96 prompted a reply. In caseswhere recipients replied providing alternativecontact emails, these secondary contactswere sent the survey details and are includedin the 533 cited above. The InternationalAssociation of Ports and Harbors alsodistributed a link to the survey among itsmembers. The penultimate question of thesurvey asked participants to list any otherports they knew or believed to operate welfarelevies. If these ports were not amongrespondents to the survey, they – along withothers the author knew anecdotally to operatewelfare levies – were contacted individually bythe author via email, (using the ISWANdatabase) or by phone (again using theISWAN database) by helpline staff at theInternational Seafarers’ Assistance Network(ISAN – now part of ISWAN). Using ISAN staffoffered the advantage of its multilingual teambeing able to make calls in the appropriate firstlanguage when possible. The data gatheredfrom these follow-up calls and emails wasadded to the survey data.

In total, 155 responses to the survey weregathered and, once void and duplicate portentries had been removed, 132 entriesremained, upon which the charts, graphs anddiscussion that follow are based. In ports

3. Maritime Labour Convention(2006) – Article IV.

4. Throughout the report,welfare services for seafarers“in port” includes those withinthe confines of an actual port,as well as those ashore outsidea port’s parameters.


where welfare levies operate and respondentsgave permission for further contact, the authoremailed to ask further questions regarding thenumber of welfare organisations in the port;the way in which proceeds from the levy aresplit between them; which organisations canapply for funds from the levy; the part playedby the port authority (if any) in providingwelfare and administering the levy; and theproportion of welfare organisation(s’) annualcosts covered by levy revenue. Thesequestions had not been included in the surveyin order to keep it concise.

In addition, the author interviewed a number ofindividuals within the industry representingwelfare, employer and other organisations, byemail or phone, and these views are includedin the report where relevant. A selection ofports that operate welfare levies were alsoselected as brief case studies that punctuatethe discussion. These were informed by surveydata, as well as further insights gleaned fromemail exchanges with port welfare workers,and from information provided by Dr Cilla Rossin the Working Lives Research Institute (2012)

report for ISWAN. The author would like tothank all those who contributed to theresearch, particularly Alèxe Finlay of HarbourManagement Solutions in Stockton on Tees,UK, as well as the welfare workers who tooktime from demanding schedules to enter intosometimes prolonged and ever-helpful emaildiscussions. In accordance with the wishes ofresearch participants, some respondents’identities are not specified in order to maintaintheir anonymity.

Needless to say, the research results are notcomprehensive in that they represent only asegment of the world’s ports, and it has notbeen possible to verify all of the informationprovided by participants. Furthermore,because the survey is written in English thereis an over-representation of English-speakingcountries among respondents. Nonetheless,the discussion that follows goes some waytowards revealing how and where welfarelevies operate. Moreover, it raises a number ofissues central to addressing how best toguarantee the ongoing support of seafarers’welfare around the world.


Research findings

Welfare levies, port welfare committees& national welfare boards

The research shows that 46 out of 132participating ports currently operate welfarelevies (35%), eight have plans for a levy in thefuture, and 78 have no past or present levyand no plans for one in the future. Participatingports are listed in Appendix 3. These numbersare mapped out on the graph below. While nospecific question asked how long levies hadbeen in existence, anecdotal remarks indicatethat some levies date back to the post-war era,while others are recent innovations respondingto current need. Not too much can be made ofthe eight ports indicating plans for futurewelfare levies since further questioningrevealed disparity in the extent to which theseplans were imminent or merely indicative of amore abstract desire. That no port had a levyin the past which was discontinued suggests

that welfare levies, once established, tend toprove beneficial and do not meet undueopposition from those asked to pay them.

It would be expected that the existence of portwelfare levies would relate to the existence ofport welfare committees (PWCs) and nationalwelfare boards (NWBs). Regulation 4.4(Guideline B4.4.3 – Welfare boards) of theMLC clearly refers to the establishment ofwelfare boards at national and port levels,which “should include among their membersrepresentatives of ship owners’ and seafarers’organisations, the competent authorities and,where appropriate, voluntary organisations andsocial bodies”. These structures benefit allthose they represent. In particular, they enablethe adequacy of existing services to bereviewed in terms of meeting seafarers’ needs,and provide a forum for facilitating routinecooperation and coordination at national and

Yes No No, but has done in the past

No, but plans to in the future

0

20

40

80

60

“That no port had a levy in the past which wasdiscontinued suggests that welfare levies, onceestablished, tend to prove beneficial and do not meetundue opposition from those asked to pay them.”

Does your port have a seafarer welfare levy (ie are visiting ships asked to pay asmall fee that goes towards supporting the welfare of seafarers)?


5. Ross, C. (2012) Maintenanceand Development of NationalWelfare Boards and PortWelfare Committees.Unpublished. Working LivesResearch Institute.

6. Ibid.

7. Ibid.

port level helping to make the delivery ofwelfare more effective and efficient,particularly in times of crisis. They also act asentities where advocacy can take place, andcan partner with those in other countries,thereby facilitating global cooperation.

Welfare levies may be thought more likely tooperate in ports with PWCs because theexistence of the latter implies that portstakeholders routinely cooperate on welfarematters, thereby helping to facilitate the settingup and running of levies (not least because“the search for funding dominates manyactivities of PWCs and NWBs”).5 The datapresented in Appendix 3, however, does notshow any marked correlation between theexistence of PWCs and/or NWBs on the onehand and port welfare levies on the other. Infact, in South Africa and the US, whose portsare well represented in the research, leviesare common while PWCs and NWBs are not;and in Italy, where these structures arewidespread, only one participating port(Ravenna) operates a welfare levy.

Among survey responses it was common fordifferent ports in the same country to provideconflicting answers about the existence of anNWB in their country. While it was usuallypossible to verify NWB statuses, there arecases in which some kind of national seafarerwelfare body exists without being sufficientlyrepresentative of a range of stakeholderinterests to be listed as an NWB. Confirmingthe existence or otherwise of PWCs provedmore difficult and so the PWC data should beread as that directly transcribed from thesurvey data involving the inevitablemiscommunications to which online surveysare prone. Questions about PWCs and NWBstend to cause confusion because many portsand countries have seafarer welfarestructure(s) in place without them necessarilybeing labelled as such. Alternatively, themake-up and/or mode of operation of thesestructures differs to that described by the MLC(which is not overly prescriptive in any case)or to that displayed by the British PWCs andtheir coordinating Merchant Navy WelfareBoard, upon which the MLC guideline is

thought to be modelled. Furthermore, theexistence of a PWC and/or NWB does notnecessarily predict the agenda of those sittingon them. A welfare worker in Taiwan,6 forexample, remarked that the NWB was madeup of “business-minded” individuals who wereaverse to the idea of a welfare levy for fear ofdiminishing ports’ competitiveness. Morecommonly, the existence of welfare structureson paper says little about their effectivenesson the ground. In particular, strong leadershipand relationships within these structures havebeen shown to be central to their successfuloperation,7 including winning support for portwelfare levies (see the example of the Indianport of Kandla on page 8).

Voluntary/compulsory welfare levies

Of the 43 respondents answering whether thewelfare levy operating in their port wasvoluntary or compulsory, only seven indicatedtheir ports’ levies to be compulsory (see piechart on page 9). (Of the nine ports reportingplans for future levies, four said the levies intheir ports would be compulsory and two,voluntary. These figures are too small to makeinferences.) Based on the survey data, thevast majority of existing port welfare leviesoperate on a voluntary basis, which usuallymeans ship agents have an element of choiceas to whether they pay the invoice issued tothem by port authorities or welfareorganisations. There are two possible, relatedreasons why voluntary levies predominate:voluntary levies are more readily instigatedand implemented; and voluntary levies arelikely to be perceived as having less of anegative effect on a port’s competitivenesscompared to compulsory levies.

These assumed justifications needscrutinising, however. How one defines“compulsory” as opposed to “voluntary” aroseas an issue during the course of the research.“Voluntary” welfare levies can include thosethat are discernible as discretionary in the waythat they are invoiced. Or if one takes“compulsory” to imply a legislative backing,then “voluntary” may also refer to those leviesthat are neither described as optional norunderpinned by statute. If discretionarywelfare levies are invoiced in a manner inwhich their discretionary nature is nottransparent, it could have a negative effect onshipping companies’ willingness to pay.

“How one defines ‘compulsory’ as opposed to‘voluntary’ arose as an issue during the courseof the research.”


Kandla Port, Gujarat, India

The port of Kandla has been celebrated for itswelfare practices in past publications by theInternational Committee on Seafarers’ Welfare(ICSW). These practices include the use ofwireless technology, which enables seafarers toaccess the internet aboard ship within the port,as well as a compulsory welfare levy that raisedRs1,197,000 (approximately US$22,500) in itsfirst nine months of operation.

Each ship calling at the port is chargedRs1,000 (US$20) by the Kandla Port Trust aspart of the wider service charge for using theport. The levy is not capped, and only after aship has paid the levy will it receive portclearance to exit Kandla. If a ship enters theport to offload, retreats to anchor, and thenreturns to load, it is charged the levy twice. Asmall amount of the service charge is paid asService Tax to the Indian government while thewelfare proportion is transferred to the KandlaSeafarers’ Welfare Association (KSWA) at thestart of each month. There are no restrictionson the levy’s use, which is decided by KSWA’smanaging trustees, including representativesof the Kandla Steamship Agents’ Association(KSAA); Kandla Port Trust; the Transport andDock Workers’ Union, Kandla; KandlaStevedores’ Association; the InternationalTransport Workers’ Federation; ship owners;local doctors; and the Port Health Office.According to its administrator and treasurer,Joseph Chacko, KSWA hopes to raiseRs2,000,000 (US$25,000) each year,depending on the number of visiting ships(which currently averages 2,000 per year).

KSWA proposed the idea of the levy at thesecond meeting of the then newly formed

Kandla Port Welfare Committee in February2009. (The Kandla PWC is one of anestimated dozen in India with strong links tothe national welfare board.) A representativefrom KSAA agreed to consult its membersabout the proposal. After some initialresistance from ship agents, the levy cameinto effect in February 2012, once ship agentshad built their trust in the KSWA and theservices it provided. A change in leadership atKSWA also helped: the Chairman of KandlaPort, Dr PD Vaghela, took over as Presidentof KSWA in February 2011. Under DrVaghela, plans were initiated for a newseafarers’ centre, which opened in January2012, and the port’s users had authorised thewefare levy by the end of 2011.

The seafarers’ centre in Kandla Portprovides free high-speed internet access andWi-Fi connections, and seafarers can alsocall their family and friends in privacy.Seafarers have access to a mini cafe, minishop, prayer room, reading room, and sportsfacilities including basketball, table tennis,table football and chess. The centre’sminibus transports seafarers, free of cost,between the ship and the centre, and to aplace outside the port from which they cancatch transport to the city.

Centre staff provide daily ship visiting. Wi-Max equipment facilitates the mess roomand adjoining cabins to become a Wi-Fizone, enabling 15–20 seafarers at a time touse the internet on board the ship. Shipvisiting also provides seafarers with accessto newspapers, magazines, informationabout the city and counselling.

“A compulsory welfare levy raised Rs1,197,000(approximately US$22,500) in its first nine monthsof operation.”


Compulsory levies are deemed as suchbecause ports or welfare organisations obligeship agents/others to pay them, as ports doother fees. Such is the case in Marsden Point,New Zealand, as described by a welfareworker in the port:

“As far as Marsden Point is concerned,Northport is the managing company and portauthority for operating the port at MarsdenPoint. The Labour Department has bannedanyone walking through the working areabecause of the dangers with straddle trucks,etc, so Northport has provided a minibus totransport seafarers from ships to theseafarers’ centre (located just outside theNorthport bounds). The centre provides adriver for this service and is given a monthlygrant by Northport dependent on the numberof ships berthed that month. To recoup thiscost, plus the running costs, Northport levieseach ship per 1/2 day in port and adds thisto the berthing charges. Thus it iscompulsory in that the ship owners have nooption other than to pay it, but it is not anationally recognised or compulsory levy [iethe levy is neither statutory nor described asdiscretionary].” 8

8. In the case of Marsden Point,where the levy does not supportany other aspect of port welfareother than recouping the port’sinvestment in a minibusrequired because of restrictionson pedestrian access, the label“welfare levy” could be read asmisleading, and the case couldbe made for the port to fund theminibus without passing thecost on to employers. This is atentative reading of a situationthat has not been researchedin-depth for this research; it iscited only to highlight thepotential for increased supportof welfare by port authorities, apoint explored further in thisreport.

9. Ross, C. (2012) Maintenanceand Development of NationalWelfare Boards and PortWelfare Committees.Unpublished. Working LivesResearch Institute.

Less commonly, welfare levies have a statutoryunderpinning, as is the case in Romania (seepage 10). From the list of ports participating inthis research in Appendix 3, it is clear that it isusual for welfare levies to operate in some butnot all of a country’s ports; in other words, it isunusual for a country to have welfare leviesoperating across all of its ports. This wouldseem to reflect the rarity of statute-basedlevies. In Australia, three levels of governance(local, federal and state) were reported asmaking it difficult for individual welfareorganisations to advocate for the desirability, orotherwise, of welfare levies, particularly on acompulsory basis. As a result, it is down to theAustralian Council of the Mission to Seafarersto take up such work at a national level. InMexico, a welfare worker proposed9 that thereason his port lacked a levy was because itwould be impossible for a levy to operate inone port without all Mexican seaports beinglegally obliged to impose the same levy (notverified within this research). Severalrespondents from French ports expressedfrustration at the inconsistent existence ofwelfare levies across the country’s ports. InOctober 2012, a meeting of the NationalCongress of French Seafarers’ Centres madethe case to port and government officials for anamendment to the Harbour Code to allow for anational, compulsory welfare levy; this iscurrently awaiting a reply from government. InBrittany, where a voluntary levy already exists

Is the levy voluntary or compulsory?

Voluntary 84% Compulsory 16%

“It follows logic that compulsory levies do notreduce ports’ competitiveness if sufficientlycommonplace.”


Constantza Port, Romania

Romania’s compulsory port welfare levysystem applies by law to seagoing, foreign-flagged ships calling at the seaports ofRomania, excluding warships and ships under500 tdw. This arrangement dates back to 2002when Romania ratified ILO Convention 163. InConstantza, the Port Authority provides theadministrative secretariat of the Seamen’sClub with a daily list of ship arrivals. The levyrates are decided by law and vary according toa vessel’s tonnage:

Ships between 501 and 5,000 tdw ............................€40 (US$54)

Ships between 5,001 and 30,000 tdw ..........................€60 (US$81)

Ships between 30,001 and 100,000 tdw ......................€80 (US$109)

Ships over 100,000 tdw............................€100 (US$136)

The administration of the Seamen’s Clubinvoices the ship agents, who pay the levy aspart of the costs passed on to shipowners.Between 2003 and 2005, a handful of shipswere unable to pay the levy as a result of ashipowner declaring bankruptcy. Since 2005the payment rate among eligible ships hasbeen 100%.

Levy payment is made within 48 hours of aship mooring, directly into a general welfare

bank account, with the PWC paying thetransfer fee. This payment system is part-computerised.

The welfare levy also applies to ships visitingthe port of Mangalia, to the south ofConstantza, which falls under the same PWC.With only two berths, Mangalia generates afraction of the funds raised in Constantza fromthe welfare levy; the port’s predominantfunction is its shipyard.

Proceeds from the port welfare levy cover thecost of running and maintaining seamen-centre buildings, including the cost of buildinginsurance, employee salaries, volunteers’expenses, affiliation fees to national andinternational organisations, taxes etc. Theseafarers’ centres no longer receive fundingfrom the ITF Seafarers’ Trust.

According to one welfare worker:

“The Seamen’s Club Constantza and Agigeprovide a range of services. Internet access,transport to and from the centres and placesof interest, and recreational facilitiesincluding a gym, table tennis, pool, TV,karaoke and a library, are available for usefree of charge. In emergency situations, food,accommodation and airport transportationare provided for seafarers. Low-cost pre-paidphone cards for international calls are alsoavailable. And for some religious festivals,gifts are provided for seafarers.”

Pho

to: C

onst

antz

a P

ort


“Since several countries are currently reviewingtheir compliance with the MLC, the issue ofwhether a statutory basis to welfare levies can andshould be provided is timely.”

in Bayonne, the regional port authority wouldlike to roll the levy out across the region to helpsupport its seafarers’ centres. While seafarerclubs and ship agents agreed in principle tothis proposal in Saint Malo and Lorient, theship agents in Brest were reportedly divided intheir response to the idea, raising fears aboutthe port’s competitiveness suffering as a result.

The legal situation regarding compulsorylevies has not been a focus of this researchand is likely to vary between countries (and insome cases between ports, particularly incountries with federal governance). Sinceseveral countries are currently reviewing theircompliance with the MLC, the issue ofwhether a statutory basis to welfare levies canand should be provided is timely. It followslogic that compulsory levies do not reduceports’ competitiveness if sufficientlycommonplace. Certainly no known researchhas shown levies to have a negative impacton ports’ abilities to compete.

Levy rates, capping & paymentpercentages

Of the respondents, 42 (32%) answeredquestion 10 of the survey about levy rates.From this data a mean average levy of US$58emerges, while the mode and median are bothUS$40. Although levies are charged in theport’s national currency, respondents wereasked to provide figures in US$ for the sake ofcomparison. (That each respondent undertookthese conversions implies a degree ofinconsistency depending on the rate ofexchange they employed.) Other answers notincluded in these averages indicate thatseveral ports charge levies on a sliding scale:one port charges US$34–88 and anotherUS$40–100 (but it is not clear on what basiseach ship’s levy is determined). Responses tothe survey question about the basis on whichlevies are charged were not sufficiently clearto make inferences. However, from anecdotaldiscussions with welfare workers over email,coupled with survey responses, levies chargedper docking appear to be the norm (certainly in

the US), although charging per welfareworker’s ship visitation also arises. One portcharges US$40 per day in port. Another basesits levy on the length of vessels: US$27 forships less than 100m and US$41 for thoseover 100m. Another still, charges a standardrate of US$25 per ship, per visit but makesseparate arrangements for ships that visit theport frequently, such as ferries. Six ports saidthey base their welfare levy on tonnage:US$0.31 or US$0.41 per 100gt, to cite twoexamples (not included in the aforementionedaverages). One respondent gave a morecomplex example:

“It depends on the type of ships, US$40 forthe big ships including fishing boats perentrance; US$30 for coastal fishing boatswhose gross tonnage is 150 and less;US$30 for coastal fishing boats whose grosstonnage is over 150; US$20 every month forthe tugs, also based on tonnage – startingwith US$3.80 for 500 tdw up to US$115 for73000 tdw.”

Of the ports with future plans for welfarelevies, only one knew the amount of the futurelevy (US$15), while a further three stated thatthe future levy would be based on tonnage butwere not able to provide figures at this stage.

Clearly there is considerable variation in theamount levied for welfare between ports andthe basis on which this is decided, which wouldbe expected to alter according to a number offactors, including the type and size of vesselsvisiting a port, the frequency with which theyvisit and the welfare services and facilitiesprovided in the port. Such factors will alsorelate to whether or not, and on what basis, aport welfare levy is capped. Of the 34 portsresponding to question 11 of the survey aboutwhether levies are capped, 30 answered “no”with four exceptions or qualifications: one wasthe German port of Bremerhaven, where thewelfare levy is capped, as described in thecase study (see page 13). A respondent from aSouth African port flagged up how a ship thatvisits more than one port in the country is notalways charged for more than one visit.Another port caps the levy such that a shiponly pays once for each calendar month. Afurther port grants ships a grace period inwhich they are able to dock without chargebefore the welfare levy takes effect. Of portswith plans for future levies, one port reported


“Clearly there is considerable variation in theamount levied for welfare between ports and thebasis on which this is decided, which would beexpected to alter according to a number of factors,including the type and size of vessels visiting aport, the frequency with which they visit and thewelfare services and facilities provided in the port.”

no capping on the future levy while theremainder were unable to say whether or notcapping would come into play.

Discussion of levy rates and capping policiesbegs the question of what percentage of leviesis actually paid. A small-scale study(Seafarers’ House 2004: 12) of port supportfor seafarer missions in the US found thatapproximately half of the invoices for welfarelevies across 25 ports were paid, although theprecise figure varied considerably betweenports. The figures from our survey are slightlymore encouraging: based on the 33 responsesprovided to question 9 of the survey, a meanand median average of 65% of levies are paid,while the mode is a more modest 30%. Theresearch did not ask whether the percentage


The port of Bremerhaven operates a voluntarywelfare levy of €0.25 (US$0.33) per 100gt paidby an estimated 80% of ships. A large ship maycontribute as much as €200 (US$262) per visit.While the levy has operated since the post-warperiod, the current rate has been in place since2001. The levy is capped at 90,000 tonnes oronce a ship has visited the port six times in oneyear. Proceeds from the levy, which amount toapproximately €250,000–300,000(US$390,000–465,500) per annum, go towardssupporting Bremerhaven’s German Seamen’sMission (Deutche Seemansmission).

Bremerhaven’s port authority collects thewelfare levy, as part of invoicing ship agentsfor other port costs, and then transfers it to themission. The mission is free to use the levy’sproceeds for revenue or capital expenditure asnecessary. The mission operates transport toits seafarers’ centre, which includes 24 roomsof accommodation and a seamen’s club withan estimated 12,000 annual visitors. A secondclub close to the port hosts 30,000 seafarersannually. Five staff members are full-timeemployees, including a pastor and fourdeacons (with psychology/social-workbackgrounds). The 11 part-time staff membersinclude a centre manager, drivers andcleaners, and are supported by some 15volunteers as well as six young people servinga voluntary social year [reiwilliges sozialesJahr – a state-funded voluntary workprogramme designed for young adults].

A stakeholder committee supports the missionand meets three to four times per year. Thereis no national welfare board in Germany.

The levy accounts for approximately one-quarter of the mission’s annual running costs.Other sources of income include charitabledonations, the sale of phone cards, andproceeds from the German church tax system(whereby employees’ tax deductions includecontributions towards the support of thechurch to which they were linked at birth,unless the employee opts out).

One welfare worker described the servicesavailable.

“Deutsche Seemannsmission provides freepick-up from the port, and transportation tothe seafarers’ centre and for sightseeing. Lowcost internet access and telephone facilitiesare available enabling seafarers to contacttheir family and friends. Sports facilities suchas billiards, table tennis and basketball areavailable, as well as internationalnewspapers, books, magazines and musicalinstruments. The centre provides a moneyexchange, postal service, room for silence,and counselling. Centre staff carry out shipvisiting, and support is provided forhospitalised seafarers through visits,translation, and access to the internet, phoneand reading materials. We offer a placewhere seafarers can spend their free time –away from their daily routine on board.”

of levy payments was going up or down andno respondent remarked on the topic,although the US mission survey citedpreviously does report a slight increase in thenumber of levies paid among its respondentsin 2004 compared to earlier years.

Three figures of 100% contribute to theaverage payment rates previously cited, all ofwhich correspond to ports operating levies ona compulsory basis. It is not possible tospeculate from the data whether lower levyamounts or more commonplace use ofcapping would result in higher payment rates.A total of 10 ports reported voluntary levypayment rates of between 75 and 99%(Reunion Island; Tees & Hartlepool; DunkirkWest; La Pallice; Belfast; Wilmington;

Hamburg; Cardiff; Halifax; and Lake Charles).A focus on these ports reveals a range ofpossible explanations for this success. Theseinclude factors mentioned earlier regarding theextent to which welfare levies are discerniblefrom other port services within methods ofinvoicing (and hence the extent to which theyare routinely paid without question), as well asthe extent to which ships are effectivelyobliged to pay levies in order to receive portclearance. They may also relate to theefficiency of the levy system; a 95% paymentrate is achieved in Tees and Hartlepool (seepage 19) even though the levy is voluntary,and this success is widely attributed to theefficiency of this well-established levy.Payment rates may also be influenced by the

Port of Bremerhaven, Germany


Mashellino Clarke, Port Chaplain, writes:

“The Mission to Seafarers, SaldanhaStation, was started with the welfare ofseafarers visiting the Port of Saldanha inmind. The port at Saldanha was originallybuilt to export iron ore that was transporteddown the dedicated railway line from themine at Sishen, approximately 850kminland. The main export market for the ironore is China and Japan and thus the shipscoming to load have been at sea forapproximately 28 days. The iron ore cargo isloaded at almost 10,000 tons per hour so aship is loaded in approximately 36 hours andits crew then has a 28-day passage at seaback to the discharge port, trip in, trip out. Asiron ore is a dirty commodity, it was felt thatseafarers on these ships would like to spenda few hours in port in peace, quiet andabove all clean conditions where they cantalk to their families by telephone orcomputer. It was also felt that they would liketo be able to shop for necessities in safe andpleasant surroundings.

“There was an old building that was notbeing used in the grounds of St Andrew’sAnglican Church in the main street of thevillage of Saldanha, which is situatedapproximately 20km around the bay fromthe berths in the port. Use of this buildingwas obtained with the help of the rector ofthe church. The Central Committee of theMission to Seafarers put up the capitalrequired for the renovations to the building.The ITF Seafarers’ Trust was approachedand it agreed to sponsor the informal bus

service needed between the berths and theMission to Seafarers.

“It was decided to charge shipowners ofvisiting ships a voluntary levy for theoperation of this bus service. The ship agentof each ship is sent an invoice for US$40(not capped or based on tonnage) as soonas the ship sails, which approximately 95%of the visiting ships pay. This levy is the soleincome of the Saldanha Station and whilenot ring-fenced for a particular expense, isused to pay for the cost of running the busand the centre’s maintenance. We are self-supporting apart from major vehicle breakdowns when we have to approach theCentral Committee for financial assistance.Unfortunately this is a very worrying problemnow as the vehicle ages. The Apostleship ofthe Sea used to have an outreach in the portarea but this has closed down.

“A port welfare committee does exist onpaper under the auspices of the SouthAfrican National Port Authority, the portoperators, but rarely, if ever, meets and thereis no national welfare board in South Africa.The Saldanha Mission to Seafarers is notsupported by the port authority financially. Anapplication for a replacement bus has beensubmitted to the ITF Seafarers’ Trust with thenecessary support from the local unions. ThePort of Saldanha now has an additional one-berth oil terminal for the import of crude oiland also four general cargo berths for theexport of steel coils manufactured at the localsteel mill. Approximately 30 ships use theport each month.”

number of ships visiting a port, and hence thestrength of the relationship betweenrepresentatives of the bodies invoicing andbeing invoiced. Welfare workers in ports withlow traffic are more likely to be able tomaintain a good rapport with those they levy,thereby achieving a higher payment rate,particularly in ports where the need for welfareservices and facilities for seafarers isapparent, such as the case of Saldanha Bay.The case of Baltimore (see page 17) illustrates

“In addition to concerns about welfare and healthand safety, another pertinent reason for employersto support port welfare services for seafarers is thefact that these services are often directly beneficialto ship agents, operators, charterers, owners andother companies linked to a port.”

Port of Saldanha Bay, South Africa


the time and effort needed for welfareorganisations to sustain ties with those theyinvoice, as well as the importance of welfareorganisations remaining flexible about who toinvoice (ship agents, operators, charterers,etc) on a case-by-case basis. A respondentfrom Rotterdam reported a welfare levy beinginstigated in the early 1980s, but notdeveloped, which serves as a reminder thatestablishing a welfare levy is no guarantee ofits success without the ongoing efforts ofthose administering it.

High payment rates may of course also reflectemployers’ support for the welfare ofseafarers. Other research includes sentimentsto this effect. Consider these words, forexample, offered by a ship agent inConstantza, Romania:10

“The amount [welfare levy] is not too big…And it’s good that…the people who workonboard of the vessel…have the chance togo somewhere and to have another activity,to contact their family. That means it’s goodfor us…it’s good for the shipowners to havesomeone in good physical and mentalhealth, everything is in good order to fulfillhis obligation onboard of the vessel.Otherwise if he is sick or he is thinking toomuch to his family, he is not thinking to hiswork and we know that 80% from all theaccidents on the ship, they are from thehuman factor. That means somethinghappened during living onboard of the ship,something happened with his family, hereceived maybe an email or a telephone.Then his mind is there, not onboard of thevessel and can create problems. For thatreason it’s good that also someone comingand help us trying to keep them in the goodshape and facilitate to have a good contactwith that city. To transport them from thevessel. I already heard about, from the portworkers and they said that all these daysmore and more vessels stay less and less inthe port. And only for few hours even it’sgood that if they are in the terminal which is

far from the city, someone to come to pickthem up and to bring in the club, to have thepossibility to contact them by the email orthe Skype or something like that. Anyhow,it’s something else that they see thatsomeone cares about them.”

In addition to concerns about welfare andhealth and safety, another pertinent reason foremployers to support port welfare services forseafarers is the fact that these services areoften directly beneficial to ship agents,operators, charterers, owners and othercompanies linked to a port. A port-widewireless system, for example, can be used forcompany business, as well as by seafarers fortheir personal use. A port transport system runby a welfare organisation ferries seafarers toseafarers’ centres and town centres but alsofacilitates crew switchovers. Other examplesof mutually beneficial services exist and thereis scope for further collaboration in this vein. Aspokesman for an international shippingemployer organisation agreed:

“No one likes to be charged extra moneywithout seeing real value in return. Havingsaid that, if the value is tangible… if there isa working internet connection, a bus serviceto the town, other meet and greetarrangements, all included in the levy, thenour members would welcome such services.It is important how this service is beingbilled. Please note that some of the portcosts can/are being charged to thecharterers and from the ship managers’point of view are definitively welcomed.”

A representative of another leading employerorganisation concurred:

“I agree [with the colleague’s commentsabove] and believe the port authorities need to take more responsibility for welfareprovision, specifically free Wi-Fi access,which should not be difficult to achieve. Also getting port workers involved in shipvisiting would be very welcome and notcostly to anyone.”

10. Ross, C. (2012)Maintenance and Developmentof National Welfare Boards andPort Welfare Committees.Unpublished. Working LivesResearch Institute.


Levy administration & spending

The administration, like other aspects ofwelfare levies, varies between ports. Of the 40responses to question 12 of the survey,approximately the same number ofrespondents indicated that the port authorityinvoiced ship agents for the levy compared tothose who indicated welfare organisationsundertaking this task. Of ports with plans forfuture levies, only one was certain of whowould administer the levy – the port authority.The study (Seafarers’ House 2004) of portsupport for seafarer missions in the US citedearlier reported a norm in which welfareorganisations invoice ship agents directly: 19missions (out of 25) invoiced ship agentsthemselves, while only five received fundsfrom the port authority who invoiced on theirbehalf. Factors involved in deciding whether

“The case of Baltimore illustrates the time and effortneeded for welfare organisations to sustain tieswith those they invoice, as well as the importanceof welfare organisations remaining flexible aboutwho to invoice (ship agents, operators, charterers,etc) on a case-by-case basis.”


A voluntary welfare levy of US$110 exists inBaltimore, which is paid by an estimated 65%of ships after, to quote a welfare worker in theport, “years of networking and considerableeffort”. The port’s seafarers’ centre sendsQuickbook [an accounting software] invoiceselectronically for each crew served by its staff

or those of the port’s other welfareorganisation. For crews served by only oneof the two centres, the full payment goesby cheque, or occasionally AutomatedClearing House, to that centre. For crewsserved by both organisations, payment

goes to the invoicing centre, half of whichis then forwarded to the second organisation

(without attempting to determine the precisedivision of labour between the centres). In thewords of one welfare worker:

“This takes quite a few hours/weeks of stafftime, given that we have only about 1.5 paidstaff and we had to spend years building uprelationships to convince companies to pay,but it has been worth it. We don’t haveenough volunteers to get to every vesseland we don’t invoice for ‘no-thank-you’ typevisits (where we stand on the ramp and theysay thanks but they’re busy or sailing soon,etc). There’s no cap to the levy; the amountis the same each time they dock inBaltimore. There’s no distinction between aone-day visit and a week-long sugar ship,where we might provide more service. The

per-vessel-docking basis we decided onmirrors that which we’re aware of in otherUS ports. Of course, crew whom we serve alot may donate more toward gasoline (but itdoesn’t always happen and we don’t pushthem). The levy covers about 40% of ourannual costs as a center and it isn’t limitedto a particular kind of expenditure. We havehad to figure out on a case-by-case basiswhen it works better to approach the agent,operator, etc with the invoice. We’ve beenworking on this for eight years, invited ourneighbouring mission into the process assoon as their Baltimore ministry was up andrunning, and it’s still a work in progress.”

A welfare worker from the BaltimoreInternational Seafarers’ Center describes thefacilities they offer:

“The Baltimore International Seafarers’Center provides free transportation to thecenter, shops and places of interest. Anauthorized security escort/transport can costa seafarer up to US$100, if the centertransport is unavailable. Mobile phones aresometimes lent out enabling seafarers tocontact family and friends, and schedulespermitting, seafarers are brought to thecenter to use landlines, and access theinternet free of charge. The center offers aspace to relax, worship, discuss personal orwork related concerns and to seek advice.”

welfare organisations or port authorities arebest equipped for this task will be numerousand port-specific and include whether or notwelfare organisations are legally able to collectrevenue from levies. In France, where they arenot, port authorities administer levies on behalfof welfare organisations partly because of thisrestriction.

In most ports, invoicing is conductedelectronically using specialist software such asQuickbook, or invoices are distributed byhand, although no research questionspecifically addressed the method of invoicing.Payments were usually described as beingtransferred by cheque or electronically fromship agents (or their representative body, suchas the Shipowners’ Association in the case ofBarcelona) to welfare organisations or PWCs,typically in monthly intervals. These weresometimes accompanied by a list of ships that

had paid. Welfare organisations or PWCs maythen undertake the distribution of funds, as inthe case of the northern English ports of Teesand Hartlepool (see page 19), for example. InVancouver, Canada, the port receives the levyproceeds, which it forwards to the bankaccounts of the port’s seafarers’ centres. Inthe US port of Baltimore, where more than onewelfare organisation also operates, oneorganisation issues invoices and collectsfunds from ships they both serve, which itsplits equally with the second organisationregardless of the division of labour betweenthem (see above). In Hamburg, the division oflevy proceeds between the port’s missions isdetermined by the number of visitors to themissions’ establishments, whereby two visitorsto a centre equates to one overnight guest at aseafarers’ hostel. No port reported anyorganisation being able to spend levy funds

Port of Baltimore, Maryland, USA


other than welfare organisations, or less oftenPWCs (to cover the cost of theiradministration) or port authorities (in the caseof Marsden Point, New Zealand, where thelevy is used to recoup the costs of the minibusprovided by the port, as discussed earlier).

While the research did not ask whether shipagents collected the levy from ship captains orfrom shipowners electronically, both scenariosarose among respondents’ comments. Somerespondents said that only ships or ship agentsthat had already agreed to pay welfare levieswere invoiced, which again raises the issue ofthe importance of personal relationshipsbetween port stakeholders if welfare levies areto succeed. Private terminals, where theyexisted within participating ports, were neversaid to be included in the collection of levieswhen this arose in conversation (rather thanbeing something asked of all participants with levies).

Of the 38 respondents to question 13 of thesurvey, Are there limitations on how the levycan be used? all except for two (one statedlevy expenditure to be limited and the otherwas unsure) answered “no” but that the levytended to be directed towards the generalmaintenance of seafarers’ centres, theoperating of seafarers’ transport, and staffsalaries.

Examples of responses are as follows:

• “No limitations, but we use it to pay forseafarers’ transport and maintenance of the centre.”

• “No limitations but in this port, the levy isused to pay for seafarers’ transport/minibuses.”

• “No limitations but it is used to pay portsecurity.”

• “The purpose of the tariff is to operate theseamen’s centre (transportation, phonecards, internet, etc). It also pays part of thesalary of the workers.”

• “The club treasurers decide how the moneyis used.”

• “For salaries and vehicles.”

• “No. Levies are used for the generalmanagement of the club.”

• “Can be used only [in relation to] welfare portservices and facilities.”

• “It is used to pay salaries.”

• “It was not limited before. It isdifferent/limited now. Now it is used to paythe salary of the minister.”

• “All levies are put back into the centre toassist with its running and providing facilitiesfor seafarers.”

• “We only use the levy to fund transport forseafarers as we offer a free bus service. Inother words it pays mainly for our dieselaccount and if possible for the maintenanceon the bus.”

• “No limitations – it can be used for day-to-day use like salaries, etc. To use it for anycapital projects we need the approval oftrustees.”

• “Used to provide the vehicle and its runningexpenses to transport crews to theseafarers’ centre.”

Of the ports reporting plans for future welfarelevies, three said the levy would have nospending limitations, one was unsure, twopredicted limitations – one specifying capitalexpenditure as being disallowed – and aseventh explained that the levy would have tobe directed towards the cost of buildingmaintenance, vehicle operating, support ofabandoned seafarers, as well as volunteers’expenses and staff salaries. In two cases(Constantza in Romania and Milford Haven inWales), welfare levies are thought to havegenerated more money than was needed forthe cost of welfare in the ports. According to awelfare organisation representative, the levy inMilford Haven has consequently been revisedand is now based on need. In such cases it isclearly important that the use of levy revenueis not excessively constrained and that newsources of expenditure are considered, suchas port-wide wireless networks.

“We had to spend years building up relationshipsto convince companies to pay, but it has beenworth it.”


The UK’s longest-running port welfare levyhas been in existence since the post-war eraon the River Tees. The levy is voluntary andbased on tonnage without capping, such thatships pay in the region of £5 to £25 each(US$8–38). An estimated 95% of ships paythe levy, which supports the four welfareorganisations working in the port: Mission toSeafarers Tees and Hartlepool; Mission toSeafarers South Tees; German Seamen’sMission; and Apostleship of the Sea. Twoseafarers’ centres operate on the Tees: one onthe north side of the Tees, and the other onthe south side.

PD Ports (the port authority) collects the levyfrom each ship entering the Tees. The moneyis deposited with the Institute of CharteredShipbrokers (ICS) who, with the Tees andHartlepool Port Users Association (THPUA),jointly decides on the amounts to be paid outto each of the four missions. The use of ICS inthis capacity pre-dates the formation ofTHPUA, which began in the late 1980s.

At present the ports’ welfare levy provides£9,000 (US$14,000) to each of the fourmissions per year. Any annual surplus isdiscussed by the ICS and THPUA and then paidas a lump sum to each mission: in 2012 eachmission received a £7,000 (US$10,850) surplus,taking their total annual revenue from the levyto £16,000 (US$24,800) permission. Other sources ofrevenue are mission specificand include governmentfunding in the case of theGerman Seamen’s Mission,

central funds in the case of the Mission toSeafarers and Apostleship of the Sea,donations and grants from the UK MerchantNavy Welfare Board. No other organisationmay apply for funding from the port levy;alternative sources of support are available forother charitable projects in the port.

According to one welfare worker:

“Our aim at North Tees & HartlepoolSeafarers’ Centre is to become financiallyself-sufficient. This will also offer longer-termsecurity to providing effective serviceprovision to seafarers visiting Teesport. Thelevy provides a tangible, substantial monthlyincome that allows us to work towards ourgoal of self-sufficiency, whilst at the sametime offering free transportation to seafarerswho wish to spend their time relaxing in awell maintained, warm and friendlyenvironment, which we offer at ourseafarers’ centre. The port levy helpstowards maintenance costs ofcommunication systems used by seafarersto contact family and friends. It also meansthat other essential items such as clothesand toiletries are for sale at affordableprices. Overall, the port levy allows us tooffer a substantially improved service to ourseafarers and one which we can be proud todeliver.”

Ports of Tees & Hartlepool, UK

Pho

to: P

orts

of T

ees

and

Har

tlepo

ol


The impact of levies

The cases of Constantza and Milford Havenare the exception rather than the rule: whenports with levies were asked about whatpercentage of their welfare organisation(s’)running costs were covered by the levy, thefollowing responses were gathered:

7% Mission to Seafarers, Halifax, NS,Canada

10% Association Loonoise des Amis desMarins, Dunkirk West, France

10% Anchor House Mission, Manatee, FL, US

12% Apostleship of the Sea, Barcelona, Spain

12% German Seamen’s Mission, Hamburg,Germany

15% Seafarers’ Center, Galveston, TX, US

18% Stella Maris, Lake Charles, LA, US

20% Seamen’s Center, Wilmington, DE, US

30% Seafarers’ Centre, Abidjan, Ivory Coast

30% Mission to Seafarers (two centres),Vancouver, BC, Canada

40% Mission to Seafarers, Baltimore, MA, US

100% Mission to Seafarers, Saldanha Bay,South Africa

Other than Constantza, Saldanha Bay was theonly participating port in which all welfarecosts were covered by its welfare levy – itssole source of income. These mostly modestpercentages underline the importance ofwelfare organisations having multiple sourcesof income. Most, for example, cite donations,revenue from the sale of phone cards and, insome cases, capital grants from the ITFSeafarers’ Trust as existing alongside welfarelevy proceeds. Hong Kong was the onlyparticipating port to specify the potentialgathering of welfare funds on the back ofcollective bargaining agreements, should thefollowing draft proposal take effect. StephenMiller of the Mission to Seafarers in HongKong explains:

“In draft form at the moment is an agreementto be included in the Hong Kong CollectiveBargained Agreement (HKCBA) thatcommits the owners of Hong Kong flagged

vessels and other vessels that come underHKCBA to provide two funding elements thatwill assist the crews of Hong Kong flaggedvessels and Hong Kong seafarers in theareas of further training and welfare. Onaverage each vessel under the agreement willbe levied around US$50 per month to go intothe training and scholarship fund and aroundUS$48 per month (depending on the numberof officers and crew aboard the vessel) intoan assistance fund. There are specific termsfor which the fund cannot be used: forexample, the welfare fund may not be usedfor repatriation or payment of wages, whichare the responsibilities of the shipowner. Indraft form as yet, the fund would allow up to20% per year of the assistance fund to begranted to NGOs working for the welfare ofseafarers in Hong Kong. With over 1,000vessels under the Hong Kong flag thesesums will not be insignificant, but I have toreiterate that this trust has yet to be put inplace. Substantial discussions have still to beconcluded before the trust comes into law andI would guess that these will take place in thefirst half of 2013.”

Numerous port welfare organisations are alsoknown to receive support, whether financial orin kind, from port authorities. Within the UK, aspokesman from the Merchant Navy WelfareBoard described how the Port of Londonprovides an annual grant towards welfare workfor seafarers on the Thames. In Belfast too,the port makes an annual contribution to theseafarers’ centre. In Gibraltar the port isplanning to support the welfare of seafarers ina number of ways, which are still to be madeconcrete, from 2015. In Felixstowe andIpswich, the port provides practical supportsuch as transport for seafarers.

Beyond the UK, the port of Antwerp won theICSW Port of the Year Award in 2011 inrecognition of its provision for the welfare ofvisiting seafarers. It has, for example, installeda port-wide Wi-Fi system among whosebeneficiaries are seafarers now able to accessthe internet without having to go ashore. Theport and private associations (AntwerpShipping Federation and the Royal BelgianShipowners’ Association) also fund the port’stransportation system, enabling seafarers toreach the seafarers’ centre and InternationalSeamen’s House. In the French port of LaPallice, the port funds one of the seafarers’


11. The details comprising theremainder of this and thefollowing paragraph, with theexception of information aboutthe USSR, are provided by theITF Seafarers’ Trust.

centre’s three welfare workers.11 In Johor andPasir Gudang, Malaysia, the port provides awell-equipped centre for port users as well asseafarers. The port authority of Tema, Ghana,provided computers for the seafarers’ centre,as well as an annual grant of US$5,000. InYokohama, Japan, the port subsidises theseafarers’ centre, and in Busan, Korea, as inmany ports, the port leases out the land onwhich the centre stands at no or minimal cost.In Ukraine, the ports pay the salaries ofseafarers’ centre staff in Mariupol andBelgorod Nestrovsk. In Singapore, theMaritime Port Authority is engaged in multipleaspects of seafarers’ welfare. These includefunding the establishment and running ofseafarers’ centres, giving SG$100,000(US$80,000) per annum to missions to conductship visitations, sponsoring sports weeks anddistributing parcels to seafarers at Christmas.Before the fall of the USSR, Russian seafarers’centres were supported by state, union andport funds, and since 1989 have struggled tofind sufficient funding, as a representative fromthe port of Yalta described within this research.In the port of Yalta, this situation has been

compounded by the fact that its seafarers’centre is a historic building situated in thecentral square and hence “attractive toRussian and Ukrainian businessmen [lookingto make] their own money of the building andour unprofitable charity organisation is of nocommercial interest to them”.

State support for seafarers’ welfare work inports is also found in Scandinavia, wherefunds are provided for the welfare of Danishseafarers abroad, as well as foreign seafarerscalling in Denmark. In Mombasa, Kenya, shipagents themselves contribute to the largeseafarers’ centre by paying to becomemembers, which enables them to dine andentertain guests at the building. A furtherexample of funding for port welfare is thatwhich comes direct from shipowners. Maersk,for example, has provided the capitalexpenditure for seafarers’ centres and in someports offers annual payments towards the costof welfare provision. While it is recognised thata number of companies provide welfareservices on board (see page 22 for examples),the MLC also promotes the development ofaccessible shore-based facilities.


GasLog LNG Services Ltd provides freebroadband internet on all vessels, and someships have free Wi-Fi for crews to use theirpersonal laptops. There are fully equippedgyms and swimming pools on board, inaddition to available literature and a TV roomwith DVDs, games consoles and boardgames. According to GasLog, it makes everyeffort to facilitate shore leave and offers freeexcursions when possible.12

Bernhard Schulte Shipmanagement (BSM)provides reduced-rate calling cards on allvessels, and GSM signal repeaters areinstalled on board some ships so crew canuse their mobiles to call home. Free email isalso provided on many ships. Many vesselsoffer a range of recreational facilities includinggames, books, films, karaoke, as well as agym and swimming pool. BSM has its owncatering company that trains cooks to ensurenutritious food is served on all its vessels.13

Shell shipping won the ICSW ShippingCompany of the Year Award in 2012. Shellemploys agents to educate seafarers aboutthe welfare facilities available in each port andprovides transportation. Where practical, Shellships have a recreational room with gamingand entertainment facilities, as well as internetaccess and telephones. Some ships havetable tennis, table football, karaoke andmusical instruments.14

Teekay Shipping provides broadband internetaccess on a large number of its ships, andfree email is provided to all seafarers. Vesselshave recreational facilities and a gym onboard. The company regularly sponsors familysports days and social events.15

Wilhelmsen Ship Management (WSM) wonthe ICSW Shipping Company of the YearAward in 2011. The company providesfacilities such as table tennis, board gamesand a gym, and crews are encouraged to playbasketball, badminton and cricket. Free emailis provided to all seafarers, and many vesselshave VSAT, enabling seafarers to stay incontact with their family via internet andphone. When in port, WSM providestransportation through port agents to welfarefacilities, sightseeing and shops. If time in portis limited, the company arranges for welfarepersonnel to attend on board.16

Shipping companies and seafarers’ welfare

12. ICSW InternationalSeafarers’ Welfare Awards 2012brochure, p. 10-11.

13. ICSW InternationalSeafarers’ Welfare Awards 2012brochure, p. 10.



16. Ibid.


Conclusions & recommendations

The ratification of the MLC marksunprecedented recognition of theimportance of seafarers to global shipping.It also signals the industry’s sharedresponsibility for the welfare of seafarersfacing the unique challenges of living andworking at sea, including the threat ofpiracy, stress, fatigue and isolation.Improving welfare helps ensure decentliving and working conditions forseafarers, which assists efforts to improvethe retention and recruitment of seafarersacross the industry.

The greater context of research into welfarelevies is the question of who should pay forwelfare services and facilities for seafarers inports. This question has been central totripartite negotiations of the welfare-facilitiessection of the now ratified MLC, 2006. Thenature of these negotiations involvescompromise and, because of this, the sectionof the MLC detailing the funding of portwelfare is, unsurprisingly, flexible. This fact isone of the main reasons why discussion ofwelfare levies, as part of the solution to

securing the future of welfare facilities ashore,is so timely and important. The shrinking ofstate welfare among advanced industrialisedcountries has led policymakers to look toground-up, partnership solutions over primarilypublic-funded welfare. In shipping too, the costof port welfare is increasingly expected to beshared, including a more consistentcontribution from employers across the board.Some employers already contribute to welfareservices and facilities for seafarers in anumber of ways (see page 22 for examples).Port welfare levies are one way in whichexamples of good practice can becomeinstitutionalised. Levies make the contributionof welfare organisations visible as aprofessional service; they are as much aboutmaking connections between these NGOs andemployers as they are about the flow ofmoney between them.

This research has provided a strong sense ofthe need to support welfare organisations intheir work benefiting seafarers and the widerindustry, particularly since many organisationsstruggle to stay afloat. To quote a welfareworker from the port of Manatee in Florida:

“We invoice US$75.00 to the ship – this is agood value for the owner, it seems to besuch a small amount for what we offer. Ourtotal budget is about US$13,5000 and theincome from the ship invoice is US$4,725:10% of our budget… If every ship paid evena smaller amount it would help.”

At the same time, the research has shownhow welfare levies cover a mostly modestpercentage of welfare organisations’ runningcosts and are accompanied by severalchallenges. These include the sustained effortrequired of welfare workers to encourage thepayment of voluntary levies, the payment ofwhich is patchy. A welfare worker inVancouver, Canada, reflected how, “A fewcompanies pay for each and every ship visitwhile other regulars never pay. That maybebecause of culture, religion or company policyof which neither the mission nor port have anysway over.” Levies may foster fears aboutports’ competitiveness, albeit unsubstantiatedby any known research. They also riskbreeding cynicism among ship agents andowners, when they lack transparency.Instigating levies, particularly legally bindinglevies, can be an onerous, bureaucraticprocess. For welfare organisations that areoften already under-resourced, thesechallenges can make it seem questionable asto whether levies are worthwhile or even aviable option to consider.

The message from participants of thisresearch has been that while levies are rarelya quick-and-easy fix to their funding needs,they are still worth the effort they involve.While it is likely that employers support theidea of welfare levies to varying degrees, thereis no denying the challenges they face in thecurrent economic climate. If port welfare levies

“The greater context of research into welfare leviesis the question of who should pay for welfareservices and facilities for seafarers in ports.”

are to succeed on a larger scale than they doat present, it is important that they involve realvalue for both those that pay them and thosein receipt of the revenue they generate.

The following recommendations are gearedtowards supporting sustainable welfareservices while adding value to business, andare aimed, primarily, at shipping companies,welfare organisations and port authorities.These recommendations are intended to helpincrease the incidence of levies, as well asthe efficiency and payment rate of thosealready established:

• Port authorities, welfare organisations andtheir representative bodies, and otherparties should consider raising the issue ofcompulsory levies at a national level as partof discussions regarding MLC compliance.

• It is recommended that the ISWAN seminaron best practice surrounding port welfarelevies should draw on the experiences ofthe ports participating in this research whohave achieved markedly high rates of levypayment.

• All members of the shipping industry shouldtake steps to familiarise themselves, andtheir organisations, with the right to welfare,as set out within the MLC, and develop theirunderstanding of how port levies cancontribute to fulfilling this right.

• Where not already occurring, welfareorganisations should implement a qualitystandards system, which should includerecording the number of ships their staff visit,the number of seafarers using their facilitiesand services, as well as regularly gatheringand acting on feedback from seafarers. Thishelps ensure that welfare organisations meetthe current and future needs of seafarersthrough facilities and services that areaccessible, high quality and value-for-money,in a way that is transparent.

• As far as possible, port authorities andwelfare organisations should consultemployers, unions and other bodies involvedin seafarers’ welfare, to ensure the services


they provide, part-supported by levies, bestmeet the needs of seafarers and thosebeing levied.

• The way in which welfare levies, whethervoluntary or compulsory, are invoiced shouldbe transparent. As well as encouraginggoodwill, this measure provides anopportunity for welfare organisations topromote the services and facilities they offer.

• Similarly, the basis on which levies arecharged should be fair to both parties.Charging per docking can mean a welfareorganisation charging the same for a singleship visitation as for multiple visits over alonger period of time. At the same time,levies based on tonnage, for example, havethe potential to raise more revenue thanthose based on docking, but increases intonnage may not be matched by anequivalent increase in crew size (and hencethe number of seafarers using port facilities),or by the number of visits a ship receivesfrom a welfare worker during its time in port.

• Depending on circumstances that differbetween ports, capping levies should beconsidered where it prevents adisproportionate burden being placed onregular port users.

• Levy rates should be regularly reviewed toensure they reflect need.

• Any limitations on levy expenditure shouldbe reviewed periodically, especially in therare cases in which levy revenue exceedsdemand.

• Welfare organisations should factor thelabour required to sustain levies in theirplanning, in particular the task of maintainingrelationships with representatives of theorganisations being levied.

• In lieu of a PWC, the use of an organisationsuch as the Institute of CharteredShipbrokers (in the case of Tees &Hartlepool in the UK) might be consideredas a receiving house for funds where morethan one welfare organisation in a port is in

“The message from participants of this researchhas been that while levies are rarely a quick-and-easy fix to their funding needs, they are still worththe effort they involve.”


“If port welfare levies are tosucceed on a larger scale thanthey do at present, it is importantthat they involve real value forboth those that pay them andthose in receipt of the revenuethey generate.”

receipt of levy funds, to ease the levy’sadministrative burden.

• Stakeholders in ports within the same regionare urged to adopt a consistent approachtowards levies in order to minimisecompetition between ports. Forums fordiscussing this (such as a regional welfareboard) and related issues might beconvened to facilitate such cooperation.

• Expanding employers’ support of portwelfare via collective bargainingagreements, such as that described forHong Kong on page 20, could be exploredalongside port welfare levies, so long as theoverall burden on employers does notbecome disproportionate.

• While many port authorities already supportthe welfare of visiting seafarers, there isscope for port authorities to contribute moreacross the board, whether financially or inother ways (such as ship visitations).


Appendices

Appendix 1: Extract from the MaritimeLabour Convention (2006)

Guideline B4.4.4 – Financing of welfarefacilities

1. In accordance with national conditions andpractice, financial support for port welfarefacilities should be made available throughone or more of the following:

a) grants from public funds;

b) levies or other special dues from shippingsources;

c) voluntary contributions from shipowners,seafarers, or their organisations; and

d) voluntary contributions from other sources.

2. Where welfare taxes, levies and specialdues are imposed, they should be used onlyfor the purposes for which they are raised.

References

Maritime Labour Convention (2006)International Labour Organisation, Geneva.

Ross, C. (2012) Maintenance andDevelopment of National Welfare Boards andPort Welfare Committees. Unpublished.Working Lives Research Institute, London.

Seafarers’ House (2004) Caring For Crew:Survey of US Port Support for Seafarers’Missions. Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

Glossary

Key acronyms used within this report

ICSW – International Committee on Seafarers’Welfare

ISAN – International Seafarers’ AssistanceNetwork

ISWAN – International Seafarers’ Welfare andAssistance Network

ITF – International Transport Workers’Federation

MLC – Maritime Labour Convention (2006)

NWB – National Welfare Board

PWC – Port Welfare Committee


Appendix 2: Research questionnaire

1) Name of port:

2) Your name:

3) Your job title:

4) Does your port have a port welfarecommittee (for seafarers)?

5) Is there a national welfare board (forseafarers) in the country?

6) Does your port have a seafarer welfare levy(ie are visiting ships asked to pay a small feethat goes towards supporting the welfare ofseafarers)?

■■ Yes – go to question 8

■■ No – go to question 19

■■ No, but has done in the past – go to

question 7

■■ No, but plans to in the future – go to

question 14

7) Why was the levy discontinued? Tick allthat apply:

■■ Resistance from theport/owners/government/others

■■ Unable to spend the amount of money thelevy generated

■■ Problems administering the levy

■■ Other (please specify)

Then go to question 19

8) Is the levy voluntary or compulsory?

9) Approximately what percentage of shipspay it?

10) How much is the levy per ship in USdollars? Is the levy based on tonnage?

11) Is the levy capped? On what basis (egtonnage, visits to the port per year)?

12) How is the levy collected?

13) Are there limitations on how the levy canbe used? For example, can it be used to paysalaries of welfare workers? Is it limited tocapital projects such as buildings andvehicles?

■■ Yes – go to question 19

■■ No

14) Will the levy be voluntary or compulsory?

15) How much will the levy be per ship in USdollars? Will it be based on tonnage?

16) Will the levy be capped? On what basis(eg tonnage, visits to the port per year)?

17) How will the levy be collected?

18) Will there be limitations on how the levycan be used? For example, will it be able touse it to pay salaries of welfare workers? Willit be limited to capital projects such asbuildings and vehicles?

19) Do you know of other ports that operatewelfare levies, have done so in the past or planto in the future? If yes, please give details:

20) May a researcher from ICSW contact youto ask further questions about port levies? Ifyes, please provide an email address:


i) Ports with leviesHalifax, NS Canada ✘ ✘Vancouver, BC Canada ✘ ✘HaminaKotka Finland ✘ ✘Dunkirk West France ✔ ✘La Pallice, La Rochelle France ✔ ✘Marseille France ✔ ✘Nantes France ✔ ✘Reunion Island France ✔ ✘

Bremerhaven Germany ✘ ✘Buetzfleth Germany ✘ ✘Hamburg Germany ✔ ✘Kiel Germany ✔ ✘Luebeck Germany ✘ ✘

Kandla India ✔ ✔

Ravenna Italy ✔ ✔

Abidjan Ivory Coast ✔ ✔

Mombasa Kenya ✔ ✘

Amsterdam Netherlands ✔ ✘

Marsden Point New Zealand ✘ ✔

Gydnia Poland ✔ ✘

Constantza Romania ✔ ✔Constantza South (all one entry on the survey)MangaliaMidia

Eysk Russia ✔ ✘

Cape Town South Africa ✘ ✘Durban South Africa ✘ ✘Port Elizabeth South Africa ✘ ✘Richards Bay South Africa ✘ ✘Saldanha Bay South Africa ✘ ✘

Barcelona Spain ✔ ✘

Keelung Taiwan ✔ ✔

Belfast UK ✔ ✔Cardiff UK ✔ ✔Humber ports UK ✔ ✔Immingham UK ✔ ✔Port Talbot UK ✔ ✔Tees & Hartlepool UK ✔ ✔

Baltimore, MA USA ✘ ✘Corpus Christi, TX USA ✘ ✘Galveston, TX USA ✘ ✘Houston, TX USA ✘ ✘Lake Charles, LA USA ✘ ✘Miami, FL USA ✘ ✘New Haven, CT USA ✘ ✘New Orleans, LA USA ✔ ✘Philadelphia, PA USA ✘ ✘Port Arthur, TX USA ✔ ✘Port Manatee, FL USA ✔ ✘Wilmington, DE USA ✘ ✘

ii) Ports without levies

Albany Australia ✘ ✘Bell Bay Australia ✘ ✘Brisbane Australia ✘ ✘Dampier Australia ✘ ✘Geelong Australia ✔ ✘Hobart Australia ✘ ✘Melbourne Australia ✔ ✘Port Giles Australia ✘ ✘Port Headland Australia ✔ ✘Port Pirie Australia ✘ ✘Sydney / Port Botany* Australia ✔ ✘Sydney Australia ✔ ✘Wallaroo Australia ✘ ✘

Antwerp Belgium ✔ ✘Zeebrugge* Belgium ✘ ✘

Rio Grande Brazil ✘ ✘Santos* Brazil ✔ ✘Vitoria Brazil ✘ ✘

Diego Garcia British Indian ✘ ✘-Ocean Territory

Sihanoukville Cambodia ✔ ✘

Hamilton, ON Canada ✘ ✘Sarnia, ON Canada ✘ ✘

Hong Kong (China) ✔ ✘

Aalborg Denmark ✔ ✘Ebsjerg Denmark ✘ ✘

Muuga Estonia ✘ ✘

Helsinki Finland ✔ ✘Pori Finland ✘ ✘Brest France ✔ ✔Le Havre France ✔ ✔Marseille-Fos France ✔ ✔Sete France ✘ ✔

Brunsbuttel Germany ✘ ✘

Piraeus Greece ✘ ✘

Cais Port Bissau* Guinea Bissau ✔ ✘

Gangavaram India ✔ ✔

Tanjung Proik Indonesia ✘ ?

Dublin Ireland ✘ ✘

Ashdod Israel ✘ ✘Haifa (all one entry on the survey)EilatCivitavecchia Italy ✔ ✔Genoa Italy ✔ ✔Gioia Tauro Italy ✘ ✔Livorno Italy ✔ ✔Palermo Italy ✔ ✔Salerno Italy ✔ ✔Venice Italy ✔ ✔

Kobe Japan ✘ ✘Tokyo Japan ✔ ✘

Tanjung Pelepas Malaysia ✘ ✘

Rotterdam Netherlands ✘ ✘

Auckland New Zealand ✔ ✔Port Nelson New Zealand ✘ ✔Wellington New Zealand

Apapa Nigeria ✔ ✔

Cagayan de Oro Philippines ✘ ✘

Tuapse Russia ✘ ✘Yalta Russia ✘ ✘

QEII Quay* Sierra Leone ✔ ✔

Singapore Singapore ✔ ✔(PWC = NWB in Singapore)

Port Alfred South Africa ✘ ✘

Malaga Spain ✘ ✘

Helsingborg Sweden ✘ ✘Stockholm Sweden ✔ ✘

Kaoshiung Taiwan ✘ ✔

Bangkok Thailand ✘ ?Laemchabang* Thailand ✘ ?

Port Autonome de Lomé Togo ✔ ✘

Izmail Sea Ukraine ✘ ✘-Commercial Port

Aberdeen* UK ✔ ✔Dundee UK ✔ ✔MontroseGoole UK ✔ ✔Leith UK ✔ ✔Liverpool Manchester UK ✔ ✔- Ship Canal *Lowestoft UK ✔ ✔South Shields UK ✔ ✔

Boston, MA USA ✘ ✘Greater Baton Rouge, LA USA ✘ ✘Port Canaveral, FL USA ✘ ✘Port Everglades, FL USA ✘ ✘Portland, MN USA ✘ ✘Savannah, GA USA ✘ ✘Seattle, WA USA ✘ ✘Tampa, FL USA ✘ ✘Vancouver, WA USA ✘ ✘

Port Country PWC NWBPort Country PWC NWB

Appendix 3: Participating ports

The table below details the ports that participated in this research. The first part lists those thatoperate welfare levies and the second, those that do not. Both sections also specify whether anational welfare board (NWB) and port welfare committee (PWC), as described by the MaritimeLabour Convention, 2006, Guideline B4.4.3, operate in each port.

* Ports with a future levy

International Seafarers’ Welfare and Assistance Network10th Floor, Cygnet House, 12-14 Sydenham Road, Croydon, CR0 2EE, United KingdomTelephone: +44 (0) 300 012 4279 Email: [email protected] Websites: www.seafarerswelfare.org www.seafarerhelp.org

ISWAN is a Registered Charity, Number 1102946 and a Registered Company Limited by Guarantee, Number 3171109

Supported by

port levies and sustainable welfare for seafarers

Documents