Red Sea attacks: response must focus on seafarer rights

The dangerous security situation unfolding in the Red Sea over recent weeks, in which commercial ships have come under attacks from Houthi militia groups, is forcing shipping companies to take extraordinary measures in order to address significant challenges for global trade.

Often overlooked at such moments is how shipping companies themselves must respond to conflict and security threats that impact employees and wider communities. When ships find themselves in the cross hairs, it is seafarers who bear the brunt. It is vital that all involved count the human costs, and ensure that responses focus on the rights and needs of those at sea. Unfortunately, that isn’t happening today to the extent needed.

Shipping disruptions have multiple adverse impacts for economies and societies.  Fuel costs spike, food security is threatened and the availability of key goods takes a hit. Prices and panic rise. While recent attacks in the Red Sea initially targeted Israeli-connected ships in response to the Gaza conflict, the situation has escalated and attacks have spread. This has raised growing concerns among may governments and private sector leaders given the region’s significance as a crucial trade route.

There has been a drastic decline in container ship transits through the Suez Canal, with a 67% year-on-year decrease, according to the United National Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). The Suez Canal handles over 20% of the world's container trade.

Shipping companies have wavered between continuing to sail in hope they can avoid being targeted through luck or by switching off identification systems, or have rerouted accepting the risks outweigh rewards. The situation underscores the vulnerability of shipping in conflict contexts. It also highlights and the need to prioritise seafarer welfare.

How are companies repsonding, and why are seafarers concerns not being addressed?

The US and UK naval presence in the area – part of ‘Operation Prosperity Guardian’ - has intercepted missiles intended for ships, and has provided a modicum of comfort and reassurance to some shipping companies. But the fact remains the attacks have kept coming.

From the major shipping companies there have been a series of different responses and reactions.  Some have said they will continue to sail the route, citing insurance as adequate protection. Others have ploughed on until the risks have escalated, prompting re-routing.

Ship owners, operators, and managers now find themselves in a state of uncertainty. Troublingly, even some of the most reputable companies appear to be disregarding the worries of their seafarers. Media reports highlight formal emails from entire crews expressing concerns that remain unanswered. It is vital to encourage dialogue and for companies to listen to their seafarers.
 

Family fears and crew concerns 

The human impact is a real concern. While we can talk easily of ship numbers and trade flow data, we must remember the toll taken on seafarers. For the crews in the firing line, one can only imagine the stress, extra work load and fatigue which accompanies fears of whether the next missile has your ship’s name on it.

Yes, there is a jump in wages in a warlike area, but do double payments really compensate for fear and risk to life? Additionally, while seafarers can refuse to sail, and can ask to be replaced at a preceding port, most do not take this option as they fear losing their jobs, or cannot afford the safer option. Policies which reassure seafarers about the freedom to make the right choices for them is a vital cornerstone of any engagement on such issues.

The impacts on the families and communities of seafarers also shouldn’t be underestimated. I know from bitter experience as the child of a seafarer in the Gulf during the Iran-Iraq Tanker wars the sleepless nights and horror of seeing news broadcasts of ships blown up and knowing that my father was right in the middle.

Rerouting to avoid dangerous conflicts brings other challenges. The journey around the Cape of Good Hope significantly extends the voyage time, contrasting a typical 19-day journey from the Persian Gulf to the Amsterdam-Rotterdam-Antwerp petroleum trading hub (ARA) via the Suez Canal with nearly 35 days up the western seaboard of Africa.

Longer routes exert upward pressure on freight rates due to increased fuel costs and a reduced availability of ships. Beyond fuel expenses and increased emissions, crew concerns are also escalating due to forced contract extensions, prolonged time onboard, and issues related to supplies and refueling. The impacts of the crew change crisis of the COVID pandemic are still a vivid memory for many seafarers.
 

Safeguarding seafarer rights

For shipping companies, the best security plans can be found wanting when faced with military grade aggressors like we see today in the Red Sea. No binoculars can spot a Mach 3 missile inbound, and even if a commercial ship’s radar somehow tracked an incoming attack, the time from a blip at 24 miles range to an explosion is in tens of seconds. Merchant ships and crews are sitting targets.

Using armed personnel to protect crew and cargo causes its own considerable issues. From port restrictions, to the dangers of carrying weaponry onboard a ship where tensions may be running high – shipping companies need to carefully consider if and how to protect their vessels. The International Code of Conduct Association (ICoCA) can provide advice on choosing ethical, well-trained and certified private security companies.

The attacks in the Red Sea spotlight the immense risks crews bear to enable trade. Conflict at sea means seafarers pay the highest price. For those facing threats, the sense of helplessness grows. The shipping industry presses on but must find solutions beyond just rerouting. The industry requires a holistic approach prioritising crew welfare. Though, as ever, resolving maritime security issues requires onshore solutions.

Freedom of navigation in our global oceans remains vital, and that is the backdrop to protecting seafarers too. The duty now falls on all actors - companies, governments, and organisations - to protect crews who power international shipping. Ensuring their voices and perspectives directly inform security protocols, routing decisions, and welfare support. The Sustainable Shipping Initiative is working with key industry actors to ensure that the security risks and responses can positively impact seafarers.

For specific actions companies can take on this current crisis, companies could start with the UK Warlike Operations Area Committee’s recommendations, devised with shipping union Nautilus International and the UK Chamber of Shipping, but applicable to all ship operators. The Code of Conduct for the shipping industry, and the ILO’s Maritime Labour Convention, are both key in ensuring that governments protect and companies respect seafarers’ rights. The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights provide a fundamental due diligence guide for all companies and governments on all aspects of human rights impacted by business operations.

Crucially, we must develop robust mechanisms focused squarely on safeguarding seafarer rights and wellbeing when stability falters – making sure that those at sea know their rights, the mechanisms to support them and the rules which govern their safe conduct.

Collective action by the shipping industry to protect crews from geopolitical tensions is imperative. Seafarers are the lifeblood of shipping, and should not become collateral damage. Upholding their safety, welfare and dignity must be prioritised by the shipping industry and governments responding to attacks.

In 2021, IHRB, together with the Sustainable Shipping Initiative and the Rafto Foundation for Human Rights, published the Delivering on Seafarers’ Rights Code of Conduct. The Code of Conduct, accompanied by a self-assessment questionnaire that is hosted on the RightShip support platform, is intended to provide a guide for shipowners and operators to improve their performance against the Code of Conduct.