Available does not mean accessible: The hidden gap in seafarer welfare

Seafarer welfare is often measured by what is provided: shore leave, connectivity, welfare centres, transport, medical support and recreational facilities. But recent evidence from Australia exposes a more fundamental question. Can seafarers actually use what is supposedly available to them?

The distinction between provision and effective access may be one of the most important gaps in how maritime welfare is currently assessed.

The Seafarer Port Welfare Survey, conducted by ASWC and released by the Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA), collected 436 responses from seafarers visiting Australian ports.

Despite the country’s established network of welfare services and Port Welfare Committees, respondents identified several barriers to accessing support.

Of the 202 seafarers who answered the relevant question, 55, approximately 27%, reported being unable to go ashore. Fast cargo operations, short port stays, inspections and onboard responsibilities were among the main obstacles. Limited transport options, long distances between terminals and port gates, and associated costs created further difficulties.

The findings illustrate how shore leave may be permitted in principle but remain difficult to arrange in practice.

For example, a vessel may have procedures allowing shore leave, while a seafarer may be unable to leave because of watchkeeping duties, operational requirements or the limited time available alongside. Similarly, a port may offer welfare facilities that remain difficult to reach without suitable transport.

The survey does not suggest that existing welfare arrangements are ineffective. Rather, it highlights opportunities to improve coordination between vessels, terminals, ports and welfare providers so that available services can be used more effectively.

A wider challenge for crew wellbeing

The Australian findings reflect concerns identified in wider industry research.

The 2025 SEAFiT Crew Survey similarly identified shore leave as an area requiring further attention, with satisfaction levels below 50%. Respondents highlighted tight operational schedules, short port stays and long distances between terminals and city areas as recurring obstacles.

Connectivity presented another example. Although improvements in onboard communication were recorded, seafarers continued to request better internet quality, greater data allowances and more reliable opportunities to stay connected with family and friends.

These experiences demonstrate that welfare provision involves several dimensions. Internet access, for instance, may be available onboard, but its usefulness depends on connection quality, reliability, affordability and the communication needs of individual crew members.

Similar considerations apply to mental-health support and recreational facilities. Awareness, confidentiality, available time and the working environment can all influence whether seafarers feel comfortable using the resources provided.

The broader lesson is that welfare initiatives should be assessed in the context of everyday life onboard, taking account of the circumstances that may encourage or limit their use.

Moving beyond a checklist approach

This distinction has implications for how shipping companies and other stakeholders evaluate welfare performance.

Policies, procedures and facilities provide an essential foundation. They demonstrate organisational commitment, establish responsibilities and help ensure that appropriate arrangements are available.

However, documentary evidence alone may not provide a complete picture of how welfare measures function in practice.

A more comprehensive assessment could examine five connected aspects of welfare performance:

1. Provision: Is the service, facility or support arrangement available?
2. Access: Can seafarers realistically obtain or reach it?
3. Use: Are crew members making use of the support provided?
4. Experience: Does the service meet their needs and expectations?
5. Outcome: Is it contributing to improvements in welfare and wellbeing?

This approach does not replace existing compliance requirements. Instead, it adds a practical dimension by examining whether established arrangements are delivering their intended benefits.

For example, a company may confirm that mental-health assistance is available to all crew members. Anonymous feedback could then help assess whether seafarers understand how to access it, trust its confidentiality and consider the support appropriate to their needs.

Importantly, low utilisation should not automatically be interpreted as poor performance. Some services, including counselling and medical support, may only be needed occasionally. The relevant question is whether suitable assistance is accessible and effective when required.

Combining operational information with confidential crew feedback can therefore offer a more balanced picture of welfare performance and identify areas where relatively small adjustments could make a meaningful difference.

From regulatory requirements to practical implementation

The Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 (MLC), already recognises the importance of shore leave and access to welfare facilities and services.

The 2025 amendments to the MLC, expected to enter into force in December 2027, further strengthen provisions concerning shore leave and its facilitation.

This regulatory development provides an opportunity to consider how different stakeholders can support the practical implementation of seafarers’ rights.

For shipping companies, the focus could include reviewing watchkeeping arrangements and operational schedules to identify opportunities for shore leave. Ports and terminals could examine transport availability, security procedures and access arrangements, while welfare organisations could consider whether their services align with actual port-call conditions.

Cooperation among the parties involved is particularly important, as barriers to welfare access may arise from several operational factors rather than a single organisational decision.

Measuring progress through seafarer experience

The growing attention to crew welfare also presents an opportunity to strengthen how the industry measures progress.

Rather than relying exclusively on the number of initiatives introduced or facilities made available, organisations could incorporate evidence of accessibility, service quality and crew experience into their assessments.

Regular feedback, operational reviews and welfare surveys can help identify whether support arrangements remain suitable as working conditions and seafarer expectations evolve.

The Australian survey provides a useful case study, although its relatively small sample should not be considered representative of all seafarers visiting Australian ports. Its value lies in highlighting practical access challenges that may otherwise receive limited attention in conventional welfare assessments.

For the maritime industry, the next step is not necessarily to introduce more welfare services, but to ensure that existing initiatives are accessible, relevant and responsive to crew needs.

Meaningful progress in seafarer welfare depends on connecting organisational commitments with the everyday experiences of those working at sea. Measuring that connection can help turn welfare provision into lasting improvements in wellbeing.

source : safety4sea