The two conditions for substantial equivalence and its entry in DMLC Part I (MLC Article VI)

Say a port State inspector comes aboard and opens the declaration of maritime labour compliance attached behind the maritime labour certificate. Next to one of the items, a measure other than a national legal provision is written in. What lets a ship be called compliant while carrying something different from Part A is what splits here. The answer is in MLC, 2006 Article VI.

Article VI opens one other route for a flag State that cannot follow Part A as written. It hangs two conditions on that door, and it makes the result of walking through it go on paper. This article looks at those two conditions and at where the paper entry sits.

Part A is mandatory and Part B is not

1. The Regulations and the provisions of Part A of the Code are mandatory. The provisions of Part B of the Code are not mandatory.

The Code is split in two and the two halves bind differently. The Regulations and Part A have to be met. Part B does not have to be met.

2. Each Member undertakes to respect the rights and principles set out in the Regulations and to implement each Regulation in the manner set out in the corresponding provisions of Part A of the Code. In addition, the Member shall give due consideration to implementing its responsibilities in the manner provided for in Part B of the Code.

There is one default route. Implement each Regulation in the manner Part A sets out. Part B sits where the Member gives due consideration when choosing how to implement.

The door to other measures opens only where a Member cannot implement

3. A Member which is not in a position to implement the rights and principles in the manner set out in Part A of the Code may, unless expressly provided otherwise in this Convention, implement Part A through provisions in its laws and regulations or other measures which are substantially equivalent to the provisions of Part A.

The body that opens the door is the flag State. Not the company, not the master. And the condition on which it opens is not in a position to implement. That is not permission to pick an easier route. It points at the case where implementing in the manner Part A sets out is not open to the Member.

One further qualifier is attached. It is unless expressly provided otherwise in this Convention. Where the Convention has provided otherwise at that point, this route cannot be used.

Calling something equivalent means clearing two conditions together

4. For the sole purpose of paragraph 3 of this Article, any law, regulation, collective agreement or other implementing measure shall be considered to be substantially equivalent, in the context of this Convention, if the Member satisfies itself that: (a) it is conducive to the full achievement of the general object and purpose of the provision or provisions of Part A of the Code concerned; and (b) it gives effect to the provision or provisions of Part A of the Code concerned.

The two conditions are joined by and. Meeting one of them is not equivalence.

Condition	What it asks
(a) conducive to full achievement of the aim	Does it work towards the general object and purpose of that Part A provision
(b) gives effect to the provision	Does it actually give effect to that Part A provision

Condition (a) asks about direction and (b) asks about result. A measure that sits well with the aim but never makes the provision operate fails at (b). A measure that copies the shape of the provision without achieving its purpose in full fails at (a).

The provision also names who decides. It is the Member satisfies itself. The flag State has to satisfy itself, and an explanation submitted by the shipowner does not stand in for that. The definition is also confined to the sole purpose of paragraph 3.

The adopted substitution is recorded in DMLC Part I

Standard A5.1.3 paragraph 10 splits the declaration of maritime labour compliance into two parts. Part I is drawn up by the competent authority and Part II by the shipowner. Substantially equivalent provisions are recorded in Part I.

(iv) record any substantially equivalent provisions adopted pursuant to paragraph 3 of Article VI; and (v) clearly indicate any exemption granted by the competent authority as provided in Title 3;

Items (iv) and (v) sit side by side in the same paragraph. A substantially equivalent provision and an exemption are not the same thing. The first is a substitution adopted under Article VI paragraph 3. The second is granted by the competent authority under Title 3. In Part I they go on different lines.

Guideline B5.1.3 also says how far that entry has to go.

Where a provision of the Convention is implemented through substantial equivalence as provided under Article VI, paragraph 3, this provision should be identified and a concise explanation should be provided.

Identify which provision was implemented through equivalence, and attach a concise explanation. It is a Guideline, so it is not mandatory. But where Part I carries an equivalence without showing which provision it answers, an inspector cannot judge from that line alone.

On board, what to read is that line in Part I

12. A current valid maritime labour certificate and declaration of maritime labour compliance, accompanied by an English-language translation where it is not in English, shall be carried on the ship and a copy shall be posted in a conspicuous place on board where it is available to the seafarers.

The certificate and the declaration have to be carried on the ship, and a copy has to be posted somewhere conspicuous where seafarers can see it. Where it is not in English, an English translation goes with it. So there is a check that can be run on board.

• Whether any item in Part I is marked as a substantially equivalent provision
• Which Part A provision it stands in for
• Which national law or collective agreement is named as carrying that substitution

Where such a line exists, that item is not a national rule copied from the Convention text. Shipboard procedures and records have to follow the national measure instead. A procedure built by reading Part A alone can miss here.

Worth confirming

The passages above come from Article VI, Standard A5.1.3 and Guideline B5.1.3 of the consolidated MLC, 2006 (including the 2022 amendments). The two conditions and the duty to record in Part I are Convention text and do not shift from flag to flag. What shifts is the content. Which provision was substituted, what it was substituted with, and which national law carries that substitution differ by flag and by ship. Whether the ship’s Part I holds such a line, and which national rule it points to, is where the actual judgement starts.