Offshore and Overlooked

^{The people who keep vessels running are working in conditions the industry has quietly normalised. Isolation, fatigue, denied shore leave, and inadequate mental health provision carry real human costs. They also carry security consequences that responsible operators cannot afford to ignore.}

25% Rise in crew death claims post-pandemic vs pre-pandemic period (Gard, 2025)
70.1% Overall seafarer wellness score in 2025, down from 72.5% in 2024 (SEAFiT)
8/10 Most common crew illnesses caused or worsened by stress (Gard, 2025)

In 2024, more seafarers died by suicide than died in fatal onboard accidents. That finding sits inside Gard’s 2025 Crew Claims Report, drawn from over 3,000 claims and responses from more than 6,000 seafarers across 46 nationalities. It is not a crisis that arrived suddenly. It is the accumulated result of an industry that has treated crew welfare as a compliance function rather than a genuine obligation, and in doing so has left the people it depends upon without adequate support for a very long time.

From a security perspective, the welfare of crew is not a separate conversation. A workforce under sustained psychological and physical pressure does not perform at its best, does not maintain its sharpest situational awareness, and is more vulnerable to the range of threats that offshore environments present. But the starting point for any serious operator is simpler than that. Crew are professionals doing difficult work in conditions most people ashore would not tolerate. They deserve care in its own right, not as a means to an operational end.

The Human Cost

The 2025 SEAFiT Index, surveying crew across 1,703 vessels, recorded an overall wellness score of 70.1 per cent, down from 72.5 per cent in 2024. The Seafarers Happiness Index recorded a drop in Q4 2024 to 6.91 out of 10, with restricted shore leave identified as a principal driver of declining morale. Safe manning levels, heavy workloads, wage stagnation, and loneliness at sea were cited consistently across the same survey period.

These are not dramatic numbers. They describe a workforce that is, in aggregate, not well and not well supported. That steady, undramatic decline is precisely what makes it easy to overlook. There is no single moment of crisis to respond to, only a slow accumulation of pressure on people who have limited institutional recourse and limited ability to simply walk away.

Gard’s 2025 data sharpens the picture further. Eight of the ten most common illnesses in crew claims can be caused or aggravated by stress. Crew death claims rose 25 per cent in the three years following the pandemic compared to the three years before it. In 75 per cent of suicide cases recorded in 2024, the seafarer was under the age of 41. Most were officers. Many were early in their contracts, a finding that points to the onboarding and early-contract period as a specific area of vulnerability the industry has not adequately addressed.

The Right to Step Ashore

Shore leave is not a perk. Under the Maritime Labour Convention it is a right, and has been since 2013. Yet the Q4 2024 Seafarers Happiness Index identified restricted shore access as one of the most significant contributors to declining crew morale. Port turnaround pressures, visa complications, and operator indifference have collectively eroded what should be a basic and protected condition of employment at sea.

The April 2025 MLC amendments formalise shore leave further, requiring flag states to facilitate access without visa conditions and mandating written justification for any denial. Those amendments enter force in December 2027. For crew who have spent years navigating restricted or denied shore leave, that timeline is a long way off. The question for operators who take their duty of care seriously is whether they intend to wait for it.

The isolation question extends beyond shore leave. Months at sea, away from family, in a hierarchical working environment with limited privacy and limited recourse, places significant demands on any individual. The 2024 MLC amendments already require shipowners to provide social connectivity, treating internet access and ship-to-shore communication as a welfare provision rather than an operational concession. For many crew members, reliable contact with family is not a comfort. It is the primary mechanism by which they sustain themselves through a long contract.

Piracy, Threat Exposure, and the Burden Crew Carry Home

In 2025, the IMB recorded 137 piracy and armed robbery incidents globally, up from 116 in 2024. Firearms featured in 30 per cent of those incidents. Twenty-five crew members were kidnapped, 46 held hostage, and a further 10 threatened at gunpoint. These figures represent the hard, visible end of the threat spectrum. What they do not capture is the sustained psychological weight carried by the crew who live through those events.

A boarding, a period of captivity, or sustained passage through a high-threat corridor leaves a mark that does not resolve itself when the vessel reaches port. For crew who return to restricted shore leave, reduced connectivity, and isolated working conditions without structured welfare support, the compounding effect is significant. The post-incident welfare function is not discretionary. It is a duty of care, and in many cases it is simply absent.

From a security standpoint, the picture is clear. Fatigued, demoralised, or psychologically depleted crew operate with reduced situational awareness. Their capacity to identify and respond to emerging threats, whether physical, cyber, or reputational, is diminished. Operators who invest in genuine welfare provision are not simply doing right by their people. They are maintaining the human layer of a layered security programme. The two objectives are not in tension. They are the same objective.

Welfare as Professional Responsibility

Serious welfare provision does not require a dedicated department or a significant budget increase. It requires an attitude shift from compliance to genuine care, and a set of consistent practices that reflect it. Honest pre-deployment briefings that respect crew intelligence and prepare rather than alarm. Rotation schedules built around the actual demands of the role. Shore leave treated as an entitlement rather than a concession. Connectivity that allows crew to maintain their relationships with the people at home who matter to them. Mental health support that is accessible, confidential, and not contingent on a crew member first identifying themselves as struggling.

For UHNW owners in the superyacht sector, the opportunity exists to lead rather than follow. The commercial fleet will meet the MLC amendments when they enter force. The private sector, where crew work in close proximity to principals who have both the resources and the discretion to set a higher standard, can do considerably better than the regulatory baseline. The crew aboard a superyacht are not interchangeable. They are skilled professionals who carry institutional knowledge, operational continuity, and a quiet responsibility for the safety of everyone aboard.

Treating them accordingly is not generosity. It is sound operational thinking. And it is long overdue.

Five considerations for operators

1. Shore leave is a legal entitlement under the MLC, not a discretionary benefit. Operators restricting it without genuine operational justification are failing both their duty of care and their crew’s capacity to perform.
   
2. Mental health provision should be accessible and confidential, and should not require a crew member to self-identify as struggling before support is offered. The Gard data suggests the industry’s current standard falls well short of what the situation demands.
   
3. Crew who have transited high-threat corridors or experienced any form of security incident deserve structured welfare support as part of the post-passage process. The psychological weight of those experiences does not end when the vessel reaches port.
   
4. Reliable connectivity to family and shore-side support is now a welfare provision under the 2024 MLC amendments. Treating it as an operational cost to be minimised is not consistent with a serious duty of care.
   
5. Crew welfare and vessel security are not competing priorities. A well-supported, psychologically resilient crew is also a more security-aware crew. Operators who treat welfare as an overhead are misreading the return on the investment.

Intelligence-led. Vetted. Proportionate.
_{If you would like to discuss how crew welfare integrates with a comprehensive maritime security programme for your vessel, contact the Priavo team at enquiries@priavosecurity.com}