Enhancing Safety Standards in Purse Seine Fisheries: An Assessment of Maritim Labor Convention (MLC) Compliance in Indonesian Waters

This study adopts a structured approach to evaluate the safety and compliance of purse seine fishing vessels with the Maritime Labour Convention (MLC) 2006 standards at Nizam Zachman Ocean Fishing Port (PPSNZJ), Jakarta. Employing both qualitative and quantitative methods, the research integrates observational assessments, semi-structured interviews, document reviews, and data triangulation to ensure comprehensive analysis. The study utilizes a descriptive qualitative design within a case study framework, facilitating an in-depth evaluation of MLC 2006 compliance while emphasizing inductive reasoning based on primary and secondary data sources. The location on the map and the docking area of the purse seine ship at Nizam Zaman fishing port can be seen in Figures 1 and 2.

601.png

Figure 1. Research location

602.png

Figure 2. Nizam Zachman Ocean Fishing Port

The research location at PPSNZJ was selected because it handles > 70 % of Jakarta‑Bay purse‑seine landings. Three vessels were purposively chosen to reflect the fleet’s diversity—large (226 GT), medium (197 GT), and small (148 GT) units—built between 2012 and 2017 and collectively representing 42 % of all active purse‑seiners > 140 GT registered at the port.

Data collection involved a combination of observational assessments, stakeholder interviews, and document reviews. Observational assessments were conducted onboard the selected vessels using a checklist-based safety assessment aligned with MLC 2006 provisions. The checklist focused on 13 critical parameters, including crew accommodation standards, onboard medical facilities, workplace safety protocols, and other core compliance aspects outlined in the MLC 2006. Document reviews involved the analysis of official records, including vessel registration documents, safety inspection reports, crew employment contracts, and medical certification records. This process was critical for cross-verifying information gathered from observations and interviews, ensuring the accuracy and completeness of the data.

The evaluation utilized a structured compliance assessment focusing on 13 key regulatory aspects under the MLC 2006 framework. The following 13 assessment parameters are based on the Maritime Labour Convention (MLC) 2006 regulations, tailored for evaluating the safety and labor standards on purse seine fishing vessels. Each parameter aligns with specific MLC standards to ensure crew welfare, safety, and operational compliance.

1. Minimum Age (Regulation 1.1 Standard A1.1)

This parameter ensures that all crew members meet the minimum age requirements set by the MLC 2006. Typically, the minimum age is 16 years, with restrictions on hazardous work for those under 18 years. This aims to prevent child labor and protect young seafarers from high-risk tasks.

2. Medical Certification (Regulation 1.2 Standard A1.2)

Crew members must hold valid medical certificates confirming their fitness for duty at sea. This assessment checks the existence, validity, and coverage of medical certificates, ensuring that crew members are physically and mentally capable of handling the demanding maritime work environment.

3. Training and Qualification (Regulation 1.3)

Evaluates whether crew members have received appropriate training and possess the required qualifications. This includes safety training, handling of fishing gear, first aid, and emergency response procedures to minimize operational risks and enhance safety onboard.

4. Recruitment and Placement (Regulation 1.4 Standard A1.4)

Assesses the fairness and transparency of recruitment practices. Crew placement must follow ethical standards, free from exploitation, with employment contracts clearly outlining duties, wages, and working conditions as per MLC 2006.

5. Seafarer’s Employment Agreement (Regulation 2.1 Standard A2.1)

This regulation mandates that all crew members have signed employment agreements detailing wages, working hours, leave entitlements, and other conditions. These contracts ensure legal protection for seafarers and clarity of employment terms.

6. Wages (Regulation 2.2 Standard A2.2)

Ensures that crew members receive fair and timely payment according to their employment agreements. The assessment focuses on wage rates, payment intervals, and transparency of deductions, aligning with international labor standards.

7. Hours of Work and Hours of Rest (Regulation 2.3 Standard A2.3)

Evaluates compliance with regulations governing maximum working hours and minimum rest periods. The MLC 2006 typically limits work to 14 hours in any 24-hour period and 72 hours in any 7-day period, with mandatory rest to prevent fatigue and related accidents.

8. Entitlement to Leave (Regulation 2.4 standard A2.4)

Reviews whether crew members are granted appropriate leave entitlements, such as annual leave, shore leave, and emergency leave. This parameter is crucial for maintaining crew welfare and preventing mental fatigue.

9.Repatriation (Regulation 2.5 Standard A2.5.1)

Ensures that crew members are entitled to repatriation at the end of their contracts or in case of illness, injury, or shipwreck. The shipowner must cover repatriation costs, guaranteeing the crew's safe return to their home country.

10. Accommodation (Regulation 3.1 Standard A3.1)

Evaluates the quality of onboard accommodation, including sleeping quarters, dining areas, sanitary facilities, and recreational spaces. These must meet minimum standards for space, ventilation, lighting, and cleanliness to support crew health and well-being.

11. Medical Care Onboard (Regulation 4.1 Standard A4.1)

Assesses the availability of onboard medical facilities, first aid kits, and crew access to medical services. The MLC mandates that ships carry essential medical supplies and designate trained personnel to handle medical emergencies.

12. Shipowner’s Liability (Regulation 4.2 Standard A4.2)

Defines the shipowner’s responsibility for covering crew-related expenses, including medical costs, injury compensation, and wages in case of sickness or injury. This ensures the financial protection and well-being of crew members during employment.

13. Occupational Safety and Health (Regulation 4.3 Standard A4.3)

This parameter evaluates the implementation of occupational health and safety (OHS) measures onboard. It includes the availability of personal protective equipment (PPE), emergency drills, fire safety systems, and compliance with accident prevention protocols.

These 13 parameters form the core of the MLC 2006 assessment framework, providing a holistic approach to evaluating crew welfare, vessel safety, and regulatory compliance. Effective adherence to these standards not only enhances crew safety but also supports sustainable and responsible fishing practices.

A structured checklist-based compliance assessment was used to evaluate vessels against 13 key MLC 2006 regulatory aspects. Compliance levels were categorized into high (68-100%), moderate (34-67%), and low (1-33%). A percentage-based scoring system was applied to quantify compliance levels across different vessels using the formula:

$\% { Compliance }=\left(\frac{ { Number of Compliant Item }}{ { Total Items Evaluated }}\right) \times 100 \%$

The scoring formula allowed for a comparative analysis across the three sample vessels, highlighting areas of compliance and non-compliance. The comparative analysis identified critical gaps in compliance, particularly in areas such as entitlement to leave and onboard safety training. Non-compliance areas were further examined to understand the underlying causes, such as economic pressures, lack of regulatory enforcement, or limited crew awareness. To enhance data validity and reliability, a triangulation approach was employed, cross-verifying findings from observations, interviews, and document reviews. This method allowed for a multi-faceted understanding of compliance issues, reducing the risk of bias and ensuring a holistic assessment. Quantitative data from the compliance checklists were statistically analyzed to identify trends and outliers, while qualitative data from interviews provided context and depth to the findings.

One of the most glaring gaps is the lack of leave entitlements on all ships (0% compliance; average travel length = 43 days without shore leave). Extended placements correlated with fatigue-related incidents and near-misses reported in 67% of interview responses. Similarly, accommodation scores below 50%, with the berth space offering 1.8 m² per person—half of the MLC minimum—and daytime temperatures exceeding 34℃. This concrete deficit explains low concern, increased risk of accidents, and high crew turnover, underscoring the urgency of targeted retro-fit and rotation-based crew systems.

The study found strong compliance in basic labor rights, particularly in minimum age regulations, seafarers' employment agreements, and recruitment standards. However, significant gaps were identified in leave entitlements, accommodation standards, and occupational safety measures, with compliance rates falling below 50% in some areas. These deficiencies mirror challenges observed in other regional fishing ports, such as Kutaraja Ocean Fishing Port, where crew welfare and accommodation standards remain inconsistent [26].

Comparing these findings internationally, the Parties to the Nauru Agreement (PNA) exemplify stricter safety protocols integrated with sustainability-linked frameworks, resulting in higher compliance rates [27]. Ports adopting the International Safety Management (ISM) Code, like those in Japan and the Pacific Islands, report fewer safety incidents and improved crew welfare [10]. The absence of fully implemented Safety Management Systems at PPSNZJ thus highlights a critical gap in ensuring consistent safety standards.

Developing nations face complex challenges in implementing MLC 2006, many of which were evident at PPSNZJ. Weak regulatory frameworks and fragmented enforcement mechanisms hinder comprehensive MLC adoption. Inconsistent oversight and bureaucratic inefficiencies create environments where non-compliance persists [13, 28]. Economic constraints further complicate compliance efforts. Financial pressures often drive vessel operators to cut costs, leading to reduced investments in crew welfare and safety measures. The widespread practice of Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated (IUU) fishing exacerbates these issues by fostering unfair competition and undermining efforts to adhere to legal standards [29, 30]. Social and cultural dynamics within fishing communities also play a significant role. Hierarchical structures aboard vessels often discourage crew members from reporting safety concerns, while limited awareness of labor rights reduces the likelihood of workers advocating for improved conditions [31]. Infrastructural limitations, such as inadequate port facilities, outdated equipment, and insufficient medical care, further hinder effective MLC compliance [32].

Improving MLC compliance in developing countries like Indonesia requires an integrated approach. Strengthening regulatory frameworks is essential, particularly by aligning national laws with MLC 2006 standards and incorporating the ISM Code to establish comprehensive safety protocols [33]. Economic incentives can encourage compliance by alleviating the financial burden of safety upgrades. Subsidies for vessel retrofitting, tax breaks for compliant operators, and grants for safety equipment could motivate vessel owners to invest in crew welfare [34]. At the same time, promoting fair trade initiatives that reward responsible fishing practices can offer long-term economic benefits to operators who prioritize safety. Training and community engagement are critical components in fostering a culture of safety. Regular workshops on safety management, emergency preparedness, and labor rights can improve awareness and empower crew members to advocate for better working conditions [35]. Involving local fishing communities in policy development ensures that regulations reflect operational realities, increasing the likelihood of compliance [36]. Effective monitoring and enforcement are equally crucial. Regular vessel inspections, the use of technologies like Vessel Monitoring Systems (VMS), and transparent reporting mechanisms can strengthen oversight and accountability [2]. Ensuring that maritime authorities have the capacity to enforce penalties for non-compliance further promotes adherence to MLC standards.

The findings of this study have broader implications for fisheries management and sustainability. Ensuring MLC compliance not only protects crew welfare but also supports more sustainable fishing practices. Research shows that fleets adhering to robust labor and safety standards tend to achieve higher operational efficiency and better conservation outcomes [4]. Integrating labor rights with ecosystem-based management strategies, as demonstrated by the PNA’s vessel day scheme, can create synergies between social equity and environmental sustainability [27]. Strengthening labor standards also contributes to community resilience. Fishing communities that prioritize crew welfare often experience lower turnover rates, improved mental health among workers, and stronger local economies. These factors collectively enhance the long-term sustainability of both the fisheries sector and the communities that depend on it.

The partial compliance of purse seine vessels at PPSNZJ with MLC 2006 highlights both progress and persistent gaps in labor safety and crew welfare. While basic labor rights are generally respected, critical issues such as inadequate leave policies, substandard accommodation, and insufficient safety measures remain unresolved. Addressing these challenges requires a coordinated effort involving regulatory reform, economic incentives, community engagement, and enhanced enforcement. Strengthening compliance with MLC 2006 is not only a matter of protecting seafarers' rights but also a crucial step toward ensuring the long-term sustainability of Indonesia’s fishing industry. By fostering a safer and more equitable working environment, the industry can improve operational efficiency, reduce accident rates, and contribute to the broader goals of marine conservation and sustainable resource management [36, 37].