FACTORS INFLUENCING MARITIME EDUCATION AND TRAINING GLOBALLY
4.6 QUALITY
input (Muirhead, 2004:141), and this is beyond the reach of many countries in Africa. Thus, there is an uneven distribution of resources such as technology, for example, amongst MET institutions around the world, especially in developed and developing countries. This poses great challenges for the MET institutions to adhere to the STCW. This situation also negatively affects the process of domesticating the local maritime industry in an effective and efficient manner.
competence to be achieved are clearly defined and that the levels of knowledge, understanding and skills appropriate to the examinations and assessments required under the Convention are identified. The objectives and related quality standards may be specified separately for different courses and training programmes and shall cover the administration of the certification system” (IMO, 2010: 21).
To reiterate, the quality of MET has been identified as one of the factors that directly affect safety and security at sea. Hence Gamil (2008) stresses that MET is a vital component of the maritime industry chain. As a result, MET instructors are essential to the development of its education and training. According to Manuel (2005), “New entrants have to be educated and trained to industry accepted level and people already in the field have to have their knowledge updated with changing times, knowledge and innovation. It no different in the maritime sector…” (Manuel, 2005:1).
A shortage of seafarers has resulted in a deficiency of instructors who are teaching staff. Attracting instructors and the careers existing for them are additional “vital factors to take into account in ensuring that quality MET will be available in the years to come” (Cross, 2010:1). The shortage of appropriately experienced, educated, and trained MET teachers already becoming a major concern within the maritime industry (Cross, 2010). This issue was reported by Menon (1986), who noted that developing states had, over the years, struggled with the lack of adequately trained, limited, and qualified MET staff. To remedy this problem, some countries recruit expatriates;
however, this is not sustainable as a result of the high cost of, for example, remuneration packages, allowances, inter alia (Mabuti, 2013). The researcher points out that:
“Experienced seafarers without academic qualification cannot be utilized to train in MET institutions since they lack the academic, pedagogic and didactic skills” (Mabuti, 2013:11).
A MET instructor is qualified to teach several shipboard-related subjects to students on competency courses Gamil (2008:2). Thus, the fundamental precondition for the instructor is appropriate shipboard experience (Zade, 1997). This issue is also noted by (Ziarati and Ziarati, 2012), that many examiners, using the example of Europe, have not worked as seamen for a substantial number of years. Cross (2010:4), emphasises that:
“It is very beneficial like any professional education that the teaching staff has some experience in the field he or she is supposed to teach apart from a good theoretical background having had the own hands on experiences is important”.
MET institutions are directly responsible for the proper competence of seagoing and shore-based maritime human resources. Appropriate MET will add to vital risk-reduction measures, given that ships and equipment are only as good as the individuals operating them. Consideration has also been focused on the standards of education and training of the personnel within the industry (Gamil, 2008:1). For example, the lack of training instructors in countries of Eastern Africa, such as Kenya, Tanzania, and Ghana compromises the quality of MET, and threatens the region’s maritime industry safety and security, respectively. Cross (2010:1) thus reflects that lower standards of competence are becoming a reality. This is because educational standards are low, thanks to outdated educational programmes, and the increase of short teaching programmes that are becoming even shorter.
In countries such as the Netherlands, in order to provide proper upgraded programmes for MET teaching staff. This is a new online modular, e-learning based staff development programme has been introduced, which when completed, will result in MSc degrees in MET (Cross, 2010).
Constantly augmenting the competency of the MET staff will raise the skills of future seafarers (Gamil, 2008). The shortage of seafarers automatically results in the shortage of teaching staff.
Hence, if there are those keen to change careers from sea-going to shore-based vocations, quality employment conditions such as salaries, are a concern. Once this has been addressed, the teaching competence and capacity of the former seafarers ought to be assessed, and, where needed, upgraded and updated (Cross, 2010). Thus, the Netherlands, as an established maritime nation, has a MET system with a rich maritime history and culture as well as an excellent reputation. This good standing has been somewhat as a result of the high standards required of the human resources, or the teaching staff (Cross, 2010).
As the global demand for quality human resources in the maritime industry rises, it is now recognised that the absence of appropriately experienced and qualified MET staff compromises
For seafarers in countries such as the Netherlands, according to Cross (2010), there are ad hoc remedies that are sought to overcome and remedy issues relating to the existing shortage of qualified teaching staff. Thus, a good deal of personal expertise is necessary to offer qualitative teaching programmes. MET staff, such as teachers or instructors are demanded. Apart from the basic academic qualifications required as entry requirements in the Netherlands, one must possess a competence certificate in an engineering discipline or nautical studies as a minimum requirement (Cross, 2010:5). Gamil (2008) expresses that:
“MET institutions need to have, in addition to at least the minimum teaching facilities and simulator installations, high quality instructors, supervisors and assessors” (Gamil, 2008:1).
In this regard, although the maritime industry and sectors within share similarities with other industries, the maritime industry is unique in many respects. It is truly an international industry; education and training to the same standard has always been a challenge (Manuel, 2005). As a result, Gamil states that:
“The need to upgrade global MET has arisen from the consequences of the imperfect match of objectives and realities between MET and the advanced development of the shipping industry” (Gamil, 2008:5).
However, improving MET quality is not only a response to safety or security, but also, in Gamil’s opinion (2008) in the face of new technological advancements in the maritime industry and legislative challenges, MET institutions must constantly adapt. Furthermore, Zade and Pourzanjani (2004) confirm that by:
“Improving MET quality will help to increase the value of ship officers and ex-ship officers in the maritime labour market and increase the potential international mobility of them;
moreover, it will make the shipping industry safer, more environment-friendly and more efficient” (Zade and Pourzanjani, 2004:17).
The improvement of MET also goes beyond upgrading MET technology and personnel therein.
This is based on the view of Richter (2016), who observed that a selected number of Filipino seafarers were not aware of the importance of certification stipulated and demanded by international shipping companies. As a result, they had evaded the necessary training because they
training in MET is not new. Wainaina (1989) asserted the necessity for constant training of maritime professionals but criticised the high costs associated with such a process.