STCW at a Crossroads: Will the IMO Finally Deliver Real Reform?

(www.MaritimeCyprus.com) It has been nearly 15 years since the Manila Amendments of 2010 attempted to drag the STCW Convention into the 21st century. Yet, anyone familiar with seafarer training and certification today knows all too well: we are operating within a regulatory framework still largely conceived for a world of telex machines, paper logbooks, and single-gender crews.

That’s why the IMO’s latest release — HTW 12/6 — is so significant. It outlines the much-awaited Phase 2 of the Comprehensive Review of the 1978 STCW Convention and Code, and it deserves the attention of every maritime training provider, flag state, shipowner, and shipping company.

📌 What’s New: STCW's Phase 2 - A Promising Framework

According to HTW 12/6, this next phase will tackle draft amendments specifically focused on Chapters II and III of the STCW Convention and Code — the heart of competence standards for deck and engine departments. But this time, the IMO isn’t just tweaking outdated definitions. It’s opening the door to long-overdue changes.

The proposed new areas of training are anything but cosmetic:

• Violence, harassment, bullying, and sexual assault onboard.

• Mental health, psychological safety, gender and cultural diversity.

• Cybersecurity preparedness for ship systems and personnel.

• Ballast Water Management operational training.

For those of us in the industry, these aren’t theoretical problems. These are real issues affecting real crews — daily.

The inclusion of soft-skill areas such as mental health and diversity marks a radical shift in IMO tone. For decades, the Convention has focused obsessively on technical proficiency — engines, charts, radars — while leaving the human element as little more than a footnote. No longer.

This is an explicit acknowledgment: a well-trained seafarer is not just someone who can plot a course or maintain a generator. It’s someone who can function under stress, in diverse, multicultural environments, and respond appropriately to onboard harassment or cyber threats.

⚠️ But Here’s the Caveat: Opportunity ≠ Progress

While the document’s tone is promising, we should remain cautious. The template-based approach and the insistence on referencing gap numbers for every proposal suggest an attempt at bureaucratic neatness — not necessarily speed or bold reform.

The IMO has also decided not to form an intersessional correspondence group to push the process forward. Instead, it invites proposals to be submitted directly by November 2025. While this may appear efficient, it raises a concern: without structured coordination, are we risking fragmentation?

And then there’s the 13-week deadline for submission and 7-week window for comments. Is that truly enough time to digest, harmonize, translate, and debate such wide-reaching proposals? Given the IMO’s pace in the past, it’s hard not to feel a familiar sense of delay brewing.

🔍 What Industry Should Be Doing Now

The burden now lies not only with Member States but with shipping companies, training institutions, and NGOs to step up with concrete, informed, and forward-looking proposals.

If your organization has ever lamented the impracticalities of STCW, now is the time to act:

• Training institutions should contribute proposals rooted in pedagogical realism — not fantasy checklists.

• Shipowners and managers must weigh in on how crew diversity, mental health, and digital skills impact safety and performance.

• Administrations need to ensure regulatory clarity and minimize the risk of varying interpretations that plague enforcement.

Above all, industry voices must demand that the final outcome is not simply a codified compromise, but a living, future-ready document.

🧭 Final Thoughts: A Moment of Reckoning for Maritime Training

Make no mistake — this STCW review is our best chance in a generation to reshape how we define a "competent seafarer."

Are we going to let this become another 400-page technical patchwork of definitions and exemptions? Or will we rise to the occasion and help craft a Convention that is fit not only for today's challenges — but tomorrow’s innovations?

Because if the pandemic, automation, and cyberattacks have taught us anything, it's this:

Competence is not static. Neither should be the Convention.

For more details, click on the below image to download the full paper from IMO (COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF THE 1978 STCW CONVENTION AND CODE):

Source: IMO