Question 1

As Master, describe the drug and alcohol testing regime you implement on board and the circumstances when testing is mandatory.

Accepted Answer

D&A TESTING REGIME — MASTER'S FRAMEWORK: SOLAS, STCW, and MLC do not mandate a specific testing regime, but the ISM Code and company SMS typically establish one. TYPES OF TESTING: (1) PRE-JOINING: many companies require a drug/alcohol screen before a seafarer joins a vessel. This provides a baseline and deters those with substance issues from joining; (2) RANDOM TESTING: unannounced random selection of crew for testing. BrA (breathalyser) for alcohol; urine test for drugs. Frequency — company SMS specifies (e.g., 10-15% of crew per quarter). The random element is important — predictable testing can be circumvented; (3) CAUSE-BASED TESTING (FOR CAUSE): testing following: (a) any accident or near-miss on board; (b) any suspicious behaviour suggesting impairment; (c) discovery of alcohol or drug paraphernalia; (d) any arrest or incident involving police; (4) POST-INCIDENT: following any marine casualty — all crew involved in the incident should be tested as soon as possible. This is increasingly required by charterers and insurers and is standard practice for US-bound vessels (USCG requires post-incident testing); (5) PRE-DEPARTURE: some companies require testing before departure from certain high-risk ports; (6) RECORD KEEPING: all test results, negative AND positive, must be documented. Records available for PSC inspection; MASTER'S ROLE: (a) conduct tests (or appoint a trained tester); (b) ensure calibrated equipment; (c) follow chain-of-custody procedure for urine samples (drug tests); (d) discipline those who refuse to test (refusal treated as positive test in most company policies). STCW D&A policy requirement: STCW Code Section B-VIII/1 recommends that maritime administrations adopt policies concerning alcohol and drug use. The 2010 Manila Amendments to STCW strengthened this, adding explicit guidance on blood alcohol limits and encouraging testing regimes. The ISM Code Section 6.1 requires personnel management including ensuring crew are fit for duty. USCG post-incident testing: the US Coast Guard (46 CFR Part 4) requires chemical testing of crew members involved in serious marine incidents in US waters. This is mandatory and the vessel must cooperate or face additional sanctions. Post-incident testing is both good practice and (in US waters) mandatory. Privacy argument (option B): a seafarers' employment agreement (SEA) under MLC 2006 can and does include drug and alcohol testing as a condition of service. Consent is given when the seafarer signs the SEA. The testing is therefore contractually authorised. PSC inspections in several countries examine the company's D&A policy as part of MLC compliance. Senior officer exclusion (option D): no such exclusion exists. D&A testing applies equally to all crew including the master and chief engineer. A master who excludes themselves or senior officers from testing creates a discriminatory and legally problematic policy. US drug testing regulations: in US waters, random drug testing must include a statistically valid random selection — which must include all crew positions. Exclusion of any rank would render the testing programme non-compliant with US regulations.

Question 2

You discover five stowaways 24 hours after departure from Dakar, bound for Rotterdam. As Master, describe the full management process under the FAL Convention.

Accepted Answer

STOWAWAY MANAGEMENT — MASTER'S FAL OBLIGATIONS: The IMO FAL Convention (Convention on Facilitation of International Maritime Traffic) and MSC Resolution MSC.312(88) provide the framework for stowaway management. IMMEDIATE ACTIONS: (1) SAFETY AND MEDICAL: ensure stowaways are safe, given water, food, and medical assessment. They may have been hidden for up to 48 hours in poor conditions; (2) COMPREHENSIVE SEARCH: systematically search the entire vessel for further stowaways — could be more hiding elsewhere; (3) STOWAWAY QUESTIONNAIRE: complete a stowaway questionnaire for each person: name, age, nationality, country of residence, documentation held, port and means of embarkation (how did they board?); (4) DOCUMENTATION: photograph each stowaway; collect any travel documents. These must be retained on board; (5) NOTIFY FLAG STATE: notify the flag state (MCA if UK-flagged) immediately; (6) NOTIFY OWNER AND DPA: immediate company notification; (7) NOTIFY NEXT PORT STATE: notify Dutch immigration authorities (Netherlands) as next port state. Provide: number of stowaways, nationality, documentation status, vessel ETA. Port state decides whether stowaways may land; (8) NOTIFY PORT OF EMBARKATION: notify Dakar port authority that stowaways boarded from their port. Embarkation state has responsibilities under FAL Convention; (9) P&I CLUB: critical notification. P&I covers stowaway repatriation costs and legal fees. Club will advise on procedure in Rotterdam; (10) CARE EN ROUTE: stowaways must receive the same standard of care as crew members — food, accommodation, medical care. They cannot be imprisoned or maltreated; (11) ARRIVAL STATEMENT: submit an advance notification to Dutch authorities listing stowaways. FAL Convention stowaway obligations: the FAL Convention provides that: (a) the master must provide stowaways with humane treatment; (b) the embarkation state should accept return of stowaways; (c) the disembarkation state should cooperate to facilitate disposition. MSC.312(88) adds detailed operational guidance. Divert to embarkation port (option B): a diversion of 24 hours to return stowaways involves significant commercial cost, fuel, time, and may itself create safety issues if sea conditions deteriorate. The FAL Convention does NOT require immediate return — it requires the disembarkation port process to be followed. Many companies have internal policies on diversion thresholds (e.g., only divert if within 6 hours of port). The decision is commercial and legal — consult the owner and P&I Club before diverting. Delayed reporting (option C): every hour of delayed reporting reduces the next port state's ability to prepare for the stowaway arrival. The FAL Convention requires prompt notification to the next port state. Delayed reporting also creates the impression of concealment — which could complicate the immigration process and expose the master to personal liability. Putting stowaways off mid-voyage (option D): illegal. Under UNCLOS, the Law of the Sea, and basic humanitarian law, stowaways cannot be put off a vessel in mid-ocean onto another vessel or ashore without proper legal authority. This would constitute abandonment at sea and potential manslaughter if the stowaways died. The master has a legal and moral obligation to care for persons found on board. Port authority handover: at Rotterdam, Dutch immigration will decide whether stowaways may land, are detained, or must be repatriated. The master has no authority to refuse to cooperate with immigration authorities.

Question 3

Rotterdam port authority informs you that three stowaways will be refused entry to the Netherlands and must be repatriated to Senegal by air at your company's cost. Estimated cost: EUR 15,000 per person. Who bears this cost and what can the company claim?

Accepted Answer

STOWAWAY FINANCIAL LIABILITY: INITIAL FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY: under the FAL Convention and European immigration law, the CARRIER (shipowner) is responsible for the costs of: (a) care of stowaways while on board; (b) repatriation flights and travel documents; (c) escort requirements (if immigration authorities require escort to country of origin); (d) fines imposed by EU member states for landing undocumented migrants. EU CARRIER SANCTIONS DIRECTIVE (2001/51/EC): EU states can fine carriers EUR 2,000-3,000 per undocumented person transported. With 5 stowaways at EUR 3,000 each — EUR 15,000 in fines alone, plus repatriation. P&I CLUB COVER: most P&I Club policies cover stowaway repatriation costs under the "Passenger and Crew" liability or "Legal Costs" sections. The Club's correspondent in Rotterdam will manage the process. CLAIMS AGAINST THE EMBARKATION PORT/STATE: the shipowner can attempt to recover costs from: (a) the Senegalese port authority if the stowaways boarded through a security failure at Dakar; (b) in practice, recovery from embarkation states is difficult and rarely successful; PREVENTION PREMIUM: companies that have repeated stowaway incidents may face higher P&I premiums. Prevention (ISPS measures, security searches before departure) is preferable to managing the liability. PRE-DEPARTURE SEARCH: as part of ISPS and company SMS, a search of the vessel for stowaways before departure from high-risk ports (West Africa, Middle East, North Africa) is standard procedure. Refugee vs economic migrant distinction (option B): whether stowaways qualify as refugees is determined by immigration authorities, not the carrier. Even if some stowaways claim asylum, the carrier is still initially responsible for their care while on board and may still face fines. UNHCR does not pay shipping company repatriation costs. The asylum claim determination is a separate process from the carrier's financial liability. Carrier strict liability: the carrier's liability under EU carrier sanctions directives is effectively strict liability — the carrier is liable even if they had no knowledge that stowaways were on board. The only mitigation is demonstrating that adequate security measures were in place at the embarkation port. Without knowledge defence (option D): incorrect under most national immigration laws. The EU carrier sanctions apply regardless of knowledge. The US similarly applies strict liability for carrying undocumented persons. The carrier's defence is to demonstrate that reasonable pre-departure security searches were conducted and the boarding was not detectable. P&I Club and stowaway cover: P&I stowaway costs can be substantial — especially if stowaways are nationals of countries that refuse to accept returns (which creates extended detention costs). Some stowaway situations have cost hundreds of thousands of euros when stowaways are stateless or documentation cannot be obtained. Pre-departure search at risk ports: ISPS security sweeps of the vessel before departure from high-risk embarkation ports (West Africa, Turkey, North Africa) are both ISPS-required and a defence in any subsequent carrier sanctions proceedings.