Conclusions of the Working Groups Chairperson of the Session: Mr. H. Scharringhausen Managing Director, Fortbildungszentrum Hafen Hamburg e.

Transcription

1 1 17 th International Port Training Conference Conclusions of the Working Groups Chairperson of the Session: Mr. H. Scharringhausen Managing Director, Fortbildungszentrum Hafen Hamburg e.v-germany Introduction: The third session of the 17 th International Port Training Conference provided for the selection of four working groups with a view to reach conclusions of the following subjects: i) The skill requirement needed by port personnel to insure a practical application of the International Ship and Port Security Code adopted by IMO. ii) iii) iv) The role of global terminal operators and training providers in establishing minimum standards for port training The benefit of modular programmes for training personnel to comparable competency levels required by the transport and logistic industries. The procedures to be followed for achieving international comparable training. Conclusions reached by the Working Groups Chairperson: Dr. Barrie Lewarn Director-Faculty of Maritime Trasnport and Engineering Australian Maritime College, Australia i) The skill requirements needed by port personnel to insure a practical application of the ISPS Code. To facilitate discussions on this subject the following considerations were submitted to the working group: The adoption of the International Ship and Port Security Code by IMO calls for a debate to be held on skill requirements needed by personnel to insure a practical application of this new instrument. This debate could be expanded to also consider whether there is a 1

2 2 need for introducing minimum port standards to enable international verification of their operation under accepted practices, including those related to security. To correctly apply rules and regulations on safety and security, personnel must acquire pre-established competencies. Such competencies cannot be determined separately from those others required by a person to competently execute his/her responsibilities. Said differently, competencies for any given function should be determined with a view to improving all aspects of port operations, including port security. The learning systems used for training personnel to meet these required competencies may be of national competence. Nevertheless, the verification procedures for securing that ports achieve such competencies should rest with IMO with a view to controlling proper implementation of the above Code. In other words, perhaps the time has now come to not only verify that ports apply international recognized security practices but that the overall operation is carried our under accepted practices, including security. The design of international modular educational programmes would gain relevance if this were recognized. The ISPS Code is a new instrument requiring clarification on a number of issues at international, regional and/or national level: a) Clarification on the parts of the Code that ports has to comply with. Different obligations have been established by for example the United States of America and the European Union as regards the application of the Code. b) Clarification on the definition of ship-port interface as well as the port areas that is covered by the ISPS Code. c) Clear definition as to what is internationally understood by port safety and port security. In some languages the terms safety and security sometimes lead to controversial as regards their interpretation. d) Clarification on the national authority responsible for implementing the ISPS Code. Some countries may consider that the responsibility for the application of the Code should rest with the police or the military forces. This may have direct consequences on issues related to education and training in matters concerned with port security. e) Official interpretation at national level on the provisions established in the Code. The design of an international modular programme for training personnel in port security in line with the provisions laid down in the Code is considered feasible. Certification procedures recognized internationally should be established by IMO to ensure proper delivery of such an international programme. The design of the programme should be based on the ILO-IMO guidelines presently being developed jointly by both organizations. The proposed international modular programme would benefit many countries, particularly those in development. 2

3 3 Training efforts should not be arranged for only improving one specific area of port activity. These efforts should pursue the improvement of all aspects of port operations. National (port) training providers should seek involvement in delivering the required training programmes. ii) The role of global terminal operators and training providers in establishing minimum standards for port training. Chairperson: Mr. Bernt Kamin Chairman of the Workers Council Hamburg Port Labour Pool To facilitate the discussions on this subject the working group examined the following considerations: Methods of transport have change significantly. Ports are now integrated in the transport and logistic chain. The job profile of the former dockworker has gradually been replaced by a set of competencies required by portworkers employed by terminals using innovative technologies. As a result, portwork is no longer a unique vocation but a vocation progressively needing new competencies similar to others now required in the world transport and logistic industries. Because of the growing awareness of the similar competencies required in the port, transport and logistic industries, the benefit of offering integrated training services for these industries is increasingly being recognized by port training schools. Terminals managed by multinational ports and shipping corporations are increasingly active worldwide. These corporations set their own standards for their human resource development programmes, particularly from supervisory level upwards. These multinational corporations, responsible for approximately 60% of port operations worldwide, have yet to take action to exchange experiences for setting training standards, especially at levels ranging between supervisory functions and functions at workplace level. If such action were to take place these corporations could serve common purposes for developing modules for training personnel employed at these levels. This would minimize duplication of efforts such as observed in UN organizations active in the field of training of port personnel. In practice, global terminal operators establish training standards for the terminals they manage. The training programmes for accomplishing these standards are delivered locally, regionally or internationally depending on the levels of personnel to be trained. Personnel employed at levels ranging between supervisory and workplace functions are 3

4 4 trained locally. Programmes delivered regionally and/or internationally train personnel above the supervisory level. Special courses are delivered for management and top management levels. Global terminal operators reach agreements with training providers of their own choosing for designing training programmes required to be delivered locally or regionally. For management training, global terminal operators reach agreements with universities of their own choice. Consequently, national port training centres may not have a role for designing and/or delivering training programmes at local or regional level for terminals managed by global terminal operators. Their role depends on the quality of service they offer as training providers. As global terminal operators further develop their network of port operations worldwide, national training providers will have to compete internationally to capture business agreements with global terminal operators. Training providers will have to increasingly improve their quality of service they offer for designing and delivering training programmes in accordance with standards set by a global terminal operator. For reasons of competition, global terminal operators determine the training standards for the terminals they manage taking into account the cultural environment in which their terminals operate. For this reason global terminal operators would not favour international agreements on minimum port training standards. However, global terminal operators may favourably consider standards in the field of safety and health subject to these standards being laid down in international conventions or regional agreements. iii) The benefit of modular programmes for training personnel to comparable competency levels required by the transport and logistic industries Chairperson: Ms. Mai Elmar Director Cruise Port Rotterdam Partner in Management Partnership International (MPI) The following considerations were submitted to the working group with a view to facilitating their discussions on this subject: In the past persons handling cargo in ports were called dockers. Their vocational training programmes were prepared on the basis of a job analysis. A job analysis revealed the skills needed for the job. These skill requirements were established in broad terms and the resulting training programmes prepared covered a rather wide range of skills needed for conventional cargo handling. New development in techniques resulted in a quick change of methods for handling cargo. For different reasons, existing training programmes could not effectively be revised to meet the new training needs. Terminal operators argued that port training 4

5 5 schools were not sufficiently flexible to deliver services corresponding to their particular training requirements. These companies resorted to develop their own programmes by establishing a costly training department within the company. Not infrequently the hoped for results these companies had in mind were not achieved. As portwork became a vocation gradually resembling other vocations common in the transport industry, awareness developed for the need to elaborate new courses of a flexible nature. Experience gained by companies and training colleges seem to show that such flexible courses are more suitably prepared when drafted on the perception of competencies needed for a given function. During the process of determining the above competencies, it became obvious that many were common to a significant number of functions in terminal operations as well as to many other functions in the transport and logistic chain. By packaging the training prerequisites for these common competencies, applicable modules of learning could be prepared. Not only could these modules of learning be used or adapted for different target groups requiring similar competencies but also, they could be made suitable for instruction in new competencies required. Furthermore, a system of certification could be established corresponding to packages of modules of learning to be successfully accomplished by an employee for advancing in his career. The certification system would be in line with the human resource development objectives of the company. The system would facilitate the horizontal and /or vertical mobility of personnel, particularly in circumstances of change and those resulting from merge economical retrenchment and so on. The certification system and the above supporting packages of training could be elaborated by a) the companies themselves, b) in coordination with training colleges or c) by the colleges themselves for marketing purposes. Modular training programmes allow a large degree of flexibility in terms of programming their delivery. Recognizing the existence of common competency requirements in the different links that compose the transport chain, modular training systems are important tools to reduce costs and efforts for delivering training programmes to personnel requiring similar abilities but employed in different links composing the transport chain. There is an increasing authority of global ship and terminal operators in establishing objectives for training programmes at national ports they manage in different regions. Modular training systems allow their rapid adaptation to conform training programmes to the wish of clients operating internationally in the field of transport and logistics. Modular training systems allow training providers to offer flexible programmes based on what is needed to be known, what is nice to be known and what is good to be known by a trainee. Such programmes should be designed in close consultation with the client and include standards established by the relevant authorities of the port where delivery of the training programme is to be executed. The cultural environment where training programmes are to be delivered is an important factor that should be considered. When 5

6 6 designing a programme, training providers should observe carefully the cultural environment of the target groups. Modular training systems are best suited to comply with established training standards. However, implementation of standards based on competency requirements and supported by recognized procedures for certification could be accomplished only if such standards are acknowledged in international, regional or national agreements. These agreements should reflect the views of social partners and provide guidance in respect of financial resources for their implementation. iv) The procedures to be followed for achieving international comparable training Chairperson: Mr. Jorg Breyer Deputy Head Personel Department EUROGATE In discussing the above subject the working group considered the following: Within the conference papers you have heard about three different modular training systems. modular training in logistics the Australian Expertise on competency based training in transport and logistics a modular design for training seafarers in compliance with the STCW Convention. All these modular training programs follow different systematic approaches. If you list these approaches, you will find one following the workflow, whereas the number of workflow - competencies form the job profession one following very particular skills/jobs and defining a competency, whereas a number of particular competencies form a job profession one following requested safety competencies as defined by international requirements (IMO / STCW 95) Looking at international training, different training levels and different abilities to achieve a skill or profession, do you think there is a way that works best in international training matters? Does your answer differ if you look at different levels ranging between supervisory function and functions at workplace level? We know that companies are looking for the most flexible, shortest and (last but not least) lowest costs for training. On the other hand, as a trainer you have to achieve your training aim as a particular competence or skill. Looking at the three models from this point of view, do you think they differ or are they all proofed to achieve the course aims concerning time efficiency? 6

7 7 In developing a modular approach, are there ways of approaches that you would suggest a trainer to follow and why. Again: if we, as members of the IPTC, would like to develop one common approach to reach the aim of comparable competencies, is one of the approaches bound to be the best? In Australia important developments have taken place in respect of regulations and licensing in the field of training. Competency standards, assessment guidelines and qualification framework are regulated while curriculum design, training assessments and lecturer resources are non-regulated. The Transport and Distribution Industry in this country developed a training policy that seeks to implement competency based training systems coupled to competency based training qualifications based on industry endorsed standards. Accordingly, training programmes are developed on the basis of acknowledged competency requirements. These requirements are determined in close coordination with the industry concerned. The STCW Convention includes detailed provisions of competency requirements for all maritime functions covered by this instrument. Maritime Academies are recognised by the IMO subject to verification of their training programmes being delivered in compliance with the provisions of the Convention. Accordingly, training programmes designed and delivered must cover the competency requirements provided for in the instrument. Training providers for the transport and logistic industries would benefit from the availability of a recognised data bank, listing the competency requirements for these industries. Such a data bank could be prepared in close co-ordination with the industry concerned. However, the compilation of such a competency data bank could only be accomplished by the efforts of either an international organization of the United Nations or by regional authorities such as the European Union. The realization of this data bank could be a step forward for establishing minimum training standards for the transport and logistic industries. 17 th conclusions working groups/bb 7