Recognising seafarers' certificates: why an administrative agreement is not enough

In global shipping markets it is common to employ seafarers with foreign certificates to complete a ship’s complement. However, administrative reliance on signing a recognition “undertaking” between two Contracting Governments, without putting oversight mechanisms in place, leaves the flag seriously exposed to invalid certificates and to ship detentions in port State control (PSC) inspections.

Zoom

1. Separating the legal elements: issue, recognition and flag endorsement

Under Regulation I/10 of the STCW Convention, the flag State’s responsibility is not discharged by signing an administrative agreement. Senior managers should keep three distinct concepts apart:

• Original certificate of competency (CoC): the certificate issued by the State of origin after training and examination.
• Recognition: the assessment and confirmation that the issuing State fully complies with the standards and the quality standards system (QSS under Regulation I/8).
• Endorsement attesting recognition: an official document under Regulation I/2, paragraph 7, issued exclusively by the flag State for service in a capacity on board ships of that flag. Documentary proof that an application for an endorsement has been submitted (CRA, under Regulation I/10, paragraph 5) is allowed for a period of at most three months.

2. Operational monitoring and verification beyond paper documents

Under the requirements of the Code for the Implementation of IMO Instruments (III Code, Resolution A.1070(28)), the flag State must set up an independent system for verifying the authenticity and validity of certificates before issuing an endorsement. Relying on slow email correspondence is ineffective against networks that issue fraudulent certificates; this is why Regulation I/2, paragraph 11, requires States to make information available for verification and to respond directly, for example through online enquiry systems.

A decision scenario (hypothetical)

In a hypothetical scenario, a flag administration concludes a formal undertaking with another State but has no secure channel for verification. A shipping company hires a foreign chief engineer holding a CoC and sends them on board on the strength of a temporary CRA. During a PSC inspection in Rotterdam, it emerges that the seafarer’s file number is not registered in the State of origin’s national system and that the certificate has been altered. Likely consequences include a more detailed inspection, a requirement to rectify deficiencies and legal action proportionate to the rules and the facts of the case; detention is not certain or automatic.

Three key management actions for a recognition system

• Organisational ownership of the action: the director-general for seafarers’ affairs and certification in the national maritime Administration (and the crewing manager in shipping lines).

1. Audit the quality standards system (QSS) in advance: make sure the partner State appears on the lists approved by the Maritime Safety Committee (MSC.1/Circ.1163 and Circ.1164) and review its five-yearly independent evaluation report.
2. Set up a direct, online verification channel: define a demonstrable check of validity before issuing an endorsement, observing the arrangements for temporary service, using the issuing State’s official database.
3. Write a protocol for immediate cancellation: a transparent administrative process for suspending or withdrawing endorsements immediately if a violation occurs or forgery is reported.

Conclusion

Recognition of seafarers’ certificates is a continuous safety obligation under the international law of the sea, not a diplomatic document to be filed away. Commercial interests and maritime safety will be protected only through structured oversight of the reliability of the systems involved.