Sign in Subscribe

✊ A Call for Dignity, Humanity, and Reform — In Solidarity with Every Seafarer

✊ A Call for Dignity, Humanity, and Reform — In Solidarity with Every Seafarer

(by Prateek Khanna, Founder, DMET Club & MarineX)
This heartfelt and timely blog has been initiated by Anil Deswal Sir, a proud alumnus of DMET, Class of 1995, Roll Number 4268. As the Founder of DMET Club, I wholeheartedly support and amplify his message—not just because it comes from a fellow DMETian, but because it reflects a deep and long-overdue cry for change.

Seafarers are the invisible engine behind the global economy, powering over 90% of the world’s trade. Yet, despite their invaluable contribution, they are often denied the most basic of human needs—the right to step ashore.

The lack of shore leave is not a logistical inconvenience—it is a mental health crisis in the making, a quiet erosion of dignity, and a failure of the maritime system to uphold the spirit of the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006.

Anil Sir's message comes not from a place of anger but of urgent compassion. His 29 years at sea bring unparalleled insight into what it means to be denied the simple joy of setting foot on land. His voice is not alone—it's the echo of millions of seafarers who sail without pause, recognition, or reprieve.

As a community of 38,000+ strong professionals worldwide (DMET Club & MarineX), we stand in unison with Anil Sir’s call.

We believe that shore leave must be a right, not a privilege—one that transcends borders, vessel flags, or commercial constraints.
This is more than a petition. It is a movement for humanity within the maritime world.

🖊️ Please read Anil Sir’s note below, and sign the petition. Let’s not wait for another crisis. Let’s bring change—now.

Take Survey

📝 Original Blog by Anil Deswal (DMET Class of 1995, Roll No. 4268)

I have spent 29 years voyaging through the vast and relentless seas, as a seafarer. I know the fatigue, the isolation, and the longing for a glimpse of the land that every sailor goes through during their time at sea. However, what strikes me hardest and hits close to the home is the lack of access to shore leave in multiple ports and anchorages worldwide.

Shore leave, a period during which a seafarer can step off the ship and head to the mainland, becomes essential to maintain optimal mental health and wellbeing for these tireless workers of the sea. It also grants us a chance to reconnect with humanity, experience cultures, and rejuvenate before embarking on the next journey.

World Shipping Council reports indicate that about 1.5 million seafarers work annually, and 90% of the world's goods are transported by sea. Yet, the International Transport Workers' Federation estimates that a significant portion of these seafarers rarely receive the opportunity for shore leave due to various restrictions or impracticable port policies. This issue needs attention.

In affirmation of the Maritime Labor Convention, 2006, we urge the international authorities and port administrations to acknowledge and rectify this limitation. It is high time that all seafarers be allowed free shore leave at all ports and anchorages around the world, irrespective of the nationality or shipping line.

With this petition, we send a message too loud to ignore, echoing across the globe: Let the seafarers reclaim their right to set foot on land, to breathe the air that is not confined by the ship's hull.

Please fill this form petition to support this cause. Your involvement could be a landmark in achieving this fundamental right for all seafarers worldwide.

Take Survey

Anil Deswal Sir's Pics from His Shore Leaves

Why Shore Leave is Essential for Seafarers

Shore leave – the opportunity for crew to go ashore when their vessel is in port – provides a much-needed respite from the confined shipboard environment. Seafarers often spend many weeks or months at sea without setting foot on land, separated from their families and normal life. For these mariners, shore leave is not a luxury but an essential lifeline​(tfseafarers.org).

It offers a break from the ship, access to communication with loved ones, and a taste of normalcy that greatly boosts morale and mental health. Yet, despite its importance, shore leave is increasingly difficult to obtain for many crews. This report examines why shore leave is vital, from mental health and emotional well-being to legal rights and ethics, operational safety, and the humanitarian perspective, supported by global statistics and case studies that highlight the scope of the issue.


📌 Disclaimer
This section of blog and the accompanying petition form have been compiled by me, Prateek Khanna, along with the dedicated teams at DMET Club and MarineX, with the valuable support of DMECA (DMET-MERI Ex-Cadets Association).

The purpose of this effort is to provide well-researched, data-backed insight into the ongoing issue of shore leave restrictions for seafarers worldwide. This content is not just a blog—it is a part of a broader movement to raise awareness and drive meaningful policy-level change.

All facts, figures, global case studies, and legal references included here have been compiled to help authorities, maritime organizations, and the general public understand why this petition and survey matter so deeply—not just for seafarers, but for the future of safe and ethical global shipping.

We thank every reader, contributor, and seafarer who lends their voice to this cause. Together, we can bring visibility and dignity to those who spend their lives keeping the world’s supply chains moving.

Mental Health and Emotional Well-Being

Prolonged periods at sea in an isolated environment can take a serious psychological toll on seafarers. Research consistently shows high levels of stress, anxiety, and depression among seafarers who spend long stretches aboard. One study found that 25% of seafarers exhibited symptoms of depression and 17% showed anxiety symptoms ​(pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov), a prevalence far above global averages for these disorders. The lack of normal social life, limited recreational options, and constant exposure to the work environment contribute to this strain. Mental health professionals note issues ranging from loneliness and sleep disturbances to more severe problems like suicidal ideation in extreme cases.

Shore leave acts as a crucial pressure valve for these stresses. It allows crew members to step away from the ship’s confines, reconnect with the outside world, and decompress in ways that are impossible on board. In a large survey on seafarer happiness, an astounding 98.7% of seafarers said that having shore leave (especially with colleagues) made them happy​(orca.cardiff.ac.uk). Clearly, the chance to go ashore for even a few hours — to walk on solid ground, enjoy different scenery, eat different food, or use land-based internet and phone services — can dramatically improve mood and morale. Maritime charities observe that not setting foot on land for months “has a dramatic effect on mental health,” depriving seafarers of normal social respite and sensory change​(missiontoseafarers.org).

Conversely, crew who manage to take shore leave often return to the ship refreshed and less prone to feelings of isolation or burnout.

There is also evidence from health organisations and experts that regular shore leave can mitigate longer-term psychological problems. The World Health Organisation and International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF) have highlighted seafarer mental health as a growing concern, especially after the COVID-19 pandemic crew change crisis. During the pandemic, tens of thousands of mariners were stuck on ships for many extra months with no shore leave or relief, leading to spikes in reports of depression, anxiety, and fatigue​(imo.org).

That crisis underscored how “not knowing when or if we will be returning home brings a severe mental toll,” as one ship captain explained when his crew was effectively trapped at sea with no break in sight​imo.org. Shore leave, when permitted, provides hope and a sense of normalcy that are essential to emotional well-being. In short, from a mental health perspective, denying seafarers regular shore leave is not merely inconvenient – it can be deeply harmful, whereas granting shore leave is a proven boost to morale, happiness, and overall psychological resilience.

Shore leave is not only a practical necessity; it is also enshrined as a right in international law and maritime labor standards. The most important instrument is the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 (MLC 2006) – often called the “seafarers’ bill of rights.” The MLC explicitly recognizes a seafarer’s entitlement to shore leave. Regulation 2.4 of the MLC mandates that “Seafarers shall be granted shore leave to benefit their health and well-being,” consistent with the operational requirements of the ship​(ilo.org).

In other words, international law requires that when a vessel is in port, crew members should be allowed to go ashore whenever it is safe and feasible to do so. This provision reflects a global consensus that shore leave is fundamental for crew welfare.

In addition to the MLC, the International Maritime Organization’s Convention on Facilitation of International Maritime Traffic (FAL Convention) obliges port states to facilitate shore leave. The FAL Convention requires that seafarers be granted shore leave whenever possible and forbids discrimination in shore leave on the basis of nationality or rank (​nautilusint.org).

Ethically, this is significant: all crew, from captain to junior ratings and regardless of their home country, should have equal access to time ashore. Denying shore leave to certain nationalities or lower-ranked seafarers violates this principle and is considered unjust. The International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF) and other labor organizations stress that shore leave is an “essential right” and a matter of basic human dignity​( itfseafarers.org​itfseafarers.org).

Seafarers should not be treated as prisoners on their ships; they are entitled to basic freedoms and humane treatment, which includes the chance to rest off the vessel.

Despite these clear legal standards, there are gaps in compliance and enforcement. Examples of non-compliance can be found in ports and shipping practices around the world:

  • Immigration and Visa Barriers: In some countries, notably the United States, seafarers cannot step ashore without a valid crew visa. This has led to many cases where foreign crew are effectively stuck on board because they lack a visa(​itfseafarers.org). The MLC requires shipowners to pay for and arrange necessary visas for their crew (MLC Standard A1.4, paragraph 5(b)), yet a survey by the Seamen’s Church Institute found that this is not always done – 79% of seafarers denied shore leave for lack of visa were on ships whose flag states had ratified MLC, indicating poor enforcement of the rules​(maritime-executive.com). In practice, seafarers from certain countries face greater difficulties obtaining visas, a situation that contravenes the FAL Convention’s non-discrimination clause.
  • Security Restrictions: Since the post-September 11 security regime (the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code, ISPS Code), ports have tightened controls on crew movements. Seafarers now often face strict gate controls and may be barred from leaving the port area without special arrangements(​itfseafarers.org). Some terminals do not allow walking through the port, forcing seafarers to hire expensive transport or escorts to reach the port entrance​(maritime-executive.com). If companies or agents won’t pay those fees, the result is no shore leave. In extreme cases, port authorities citing security or health concerns have denied shore leave entirely for all crew on certain ships.
  • Company Policies and Cost Cutting: There have been reports of shipping companies themselves restricting shore leave. Sometimes this is done under vague “operational requirements” or out of fear crew might desert the ship. In other cases, the cost of shore passes, launch boats, or port shuttles (which some ports charge for) is passed to seafarers, effectively discouraging them from going ashore (​seafarerstrust.org). Ethically, such practices are questionable, as they put profit or convenience above crew welfare. As a maritime charity leader observed, “the erosion of shore leave and disregard for meaningful rest” in pursuit of efficiency is having a dangerous impact on seafarers​ (stellamaris.org.uk).


From an ethical standpoint, the denial of shore leave raises serious questions. International norms view seafarers as essential workers who deserve the same rights to rest and recuperation as any other workers – if not greater, given their challenging work conditions. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the plight of seafarers stranded for months drew global attention as a human rights issue: governments and the United Nations were urged to recognize seafarers as “key workers” and facilitate their movement​(imo.org).

It became apparent that treating crew changes and shore leave solely as operational issues, rather than human rights issues, can lead to humanitarian crises. In summary, legally and morally, there is a strong case that shore leave is a right that must be upheld. Countries that ratified MLC 2006 are obligated to provide it, and failure to do so undermines both the law and the basic dignity owed to those who work at sea.

Operational and Safety Impacts

Beyond welfare and rights, denying shore leave can directly affect a ship’s safe operation and the efficiency of its crew. Fatigue and stress are silent threats to safety in the maritime industry. Seafarers work long hours in a physically and mentally demanding environment; without proper rest, their performance inevitably degrades. Shore leave plays a key role in fatigue management. The Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA), for example, has warned shipowners that shore leave and access to shore-based welfare facilities are “key to seafarer physical and mental health recovery” and reduce the risk of fatigue​(safety4sea.com).

A few hours on land can allow a seafarer to sleep better, get fresh air, and mentally reset, which in turn means they come back to the ship more alert. Conversely, a crew that has been confined on board for months, working every day without a break, is likely to be chronically fatigued and less attentive.

Maritime safety experts draw a direct line between crew fatigue and accidents. It is estimated that as much as 25% of marine casualties are caused by fatigue​(imarest.org), and fatigue is often a contributing factor in human errors that lead to groundings, collisions, and other incidents. Denying shore leave can exacerbate fatigue, especially when coupled with short port turnarounds that force crew to work cargo operations around the clock with no respite.

There have been real-world examples: investigations into accidents have found overworked, unrested crew on duty. By preventing crew from ever getting off the ship, companies risk creating the conditions for serious mistakes. “Adequate rest and access to shore leave must be treated as operational essentials, not optional extras,” cautions the CEO of Stella Maris UK, noting that without these, unsafe working conditions could become the norm​(stellamaris.org.uk).

The efficiency and long-term sustainability of maritime operations are also at stake. A rested, content crew will work more effectively and maintain the ship better than an exhausted, demoralized one. When seafarers know they will have a chance to go ashore, even briefly, it boosts their morale and motivation during the long stretches at sea. If they know they will never be allowed off, frustration and apathy can set in. Expert opinions confirm that shore leave significantly improves not just crew health but also “the safe and efficient operation of a vessel.”​(maritime-executive.com).

On the other hand, persistent denial of shore leave can lead to higher turnover and loss of experienced mariners. The maritime unions have observed that younger seafarers are increasingly unwilling to stay in a job that offers no work-life balance. In fact, difficulty accessing shore leave (especially during and post-pandemic) has been cited as one factor “negatively impacting the attractiveness of the maritime industry” for new recruits(​nautilusint.org).

This threatens operational continuity as shipping faces a potential workforce shortage. In sum, allowing shore leave is a smart investment in safety and operational efficiency: it keeps crews sharper, reduces fatigue-related errors, and improves retention of skilled seafarers – all of which are critical for safe ship operations.

Humanitarian and Moral Perspective

At its heart, the issue of shore leave is a deeply human one. Seafarers are men and women with families, aspirations, and basic human needs. They toil under harsh conditions to keep world trade moving, often at great personal sacrifice. Recognizing their humanity means acknowledging that months on end confined to a ship is an extraordinary demand – one that few other professions make on their workers. Shore leave, even if infrequent, is the one opportunity for seafarers to feel like ordinary people again: to walk freely, interact with society, and momentarily escape the pressures of shipboard life. To deny them this opportunity without compelling reason is often described as inhumane.

The ITF puts it plainly: “Shore leave is not a luxury. It is essential” for those who spend weeks cooped up with only work and colleagues for company​(itfseafarers.org). In a moral sense, granting shore leave is about respecting the dignity of seafarers as individuals, not just treating them as cogs in a machine.

Personal stories from seafarers powerfully illustrate the importance of this issue. In 2020, during the height of the crew change crisis, Captain Hedi Marzougui spoke before the United Nations about what it felt like when he and his crew were stranded on their vessel for months beyond their contract. “Not knowing when or if we will be returning home brings a severe mental toll on my crew and myself,” he said, asking people to imagine working every single day for 12 hours, without weekends, “trapped at sea” and with no idea when you can go home​(imo.org).

This testimony encapsulates the desperation and anxiety that can set in when shore leave and rotation home are indefinitely postponed. In another account, collected by the ITF Seafarers’ Trust, an Indian officer lamented how ports “have slowly found ways to deny shore leave to the ship’s crew... If they can’t say NO outright, they impose heavy charges so everyone refuses to go ashore… After a long sailing, we feel exhausted, and it’s our right, I think, to get a shore leave.”(​seafarerstrust.org​seafarerstrust.org).

Such testimonials underline that seafarers see shore leave as a basic right and a matter of fairness. Many crew feel “exhausted, demoralised” when denied any time off the ship, as welfare visitors have observed​ (stellamaris.org.uk).

Some become so distressed that they consider quitting the profession or even breaking their contracts just to regain their freedom and well-being​ (stellamaris.org.uk).

From a humanitarian perspective, providing shore leave is about showing compassion and appreciation for seafarers’ hard work. It allows them to attend to personal needs: visiting a doctor on shore, buying necessities, sending money or gifts home, or simply enjoying human recreation. It also reconnects them to normal society – a critical psychological anchor for people who work in an environment that can often feel like a closed, monotonous world.

There is also a moral argument that no one should have to choose between their basic need for rest and their job. Yet currently, many seafarers face exactly that dilemma: they forego shore leave because they fear it might cost them their job or because the ship’s schedule won’t allow it (​stellamaris.org.uk​stellamaris.org.uk).

Organisations like Stella Maris and the Mission to Seafarers have called this an “unacceptable reality” and are urging authorities to ensure “no seafarer should have to make that choice.”​ (stellamaris.org.uk) 

Human rights advocates, including the Vatican, have spoken out that seafarers’ welfare and dignity must be protected worldwide. Treating crew members humanely is not only right in itself, but it also upholds the values of the maritime community and international law. In practical terms, a seafarer who feels valued and respected is likely to be more productive and loyal. But beyond pragmatics, morally it is simply the right thing to do to let those who enable global commerce have the basic freedom to step ashore and enjoy the liberties that most people take for granted.

Global Statistics and Case Studies

To understand the scale of the shore leave problem, one can look at recent surveys and incidents that have put this issue under the spotlight. A comprehensive study in 2024 by the ITF Seafarers’ Trust and the World Maritime University surveyed nearly 6,000 seafarers worldwide and revealed an alarming picture of how often shore leave is denied or curtailed. The study found that more than a quarter of seafarers (25%+) did not get any shore leave during their entire contract, and about one-third got ashore only once or twice over an average contract length of 6.6 months​ (nautilusint.org)

(​seafarerstrust.org). In other words, roughly 60% of seafarers surveyed had minimal to no shore leave for half a year or more at sea. Even those who did manage a shore visit often found it very brief: nearly half of seafarers who got shore leave spent less than 3 hours on land, and over 93% had under 6 hours ashore in port​ (seafarerstrust.org).

Such short windows barely allow time to travel from the port to town and back, let alone meaningfully relax. The report described these findings as “a sorry picture” and warned that shore leave, once a routine part of seafaring, is becoming “rare, brief, and in danger of extinction.”​ (nautilusint.org​seafarerstrust.org)

Certain sectors and groups of seafarers are disproportionately affected by shore leave denials. According to the 2024 ITF/WMU study, seafarers on bulk carriers and container ships reported the highest rates of being denied shore leave​ (nautilusint.org).

These vessel types often have very fast turnaround times in port and may visit ports with stricter controls, which partly explains the trend. Additionally, the survey found that younger and lower-ranking crew were more likely to be denied shore leave than senior officers​ (nautilusint.org).

This could be due to company policies (some masters may prioritize officers for any available leave) or simply that junior crew have less experience pushing for their rights. The nationalities most impacted included major seafarer-supplying countries: India, China, the Philippines, Indonesia, and others​nautilusint.org.

It is telling that even though about 75% of voyages involve ships spending one to three days in port (time that should allow for shore leave), many crew still face obstacles to going ashore​ (nautilusint.org).

Those obstacles, as identified by seafarers themselves and researchers, are multi-faceted. They include heavy workloads that keep crew busy in port for loading and unloading, extremely short port stays, lack of extra personnel to relieve on-duty crew, port authorities not allowing shore access, visa and immigration restrictions, and prohibitive costs for transport or visas (​nautilusint.org​seafarerstrust.org).

Case studies and incidents in recent years have brought global attention to the shore leave issue:

  • The COVID-19 Crew Change Crisis (2020-2021): When the pandemic led countries to close borders, around 400,000 seafarers were stranded on ships well past their contract end dates at the peak of the crisis ​imo.org. They could not go ashore even for emergency medical reasons in many cases. This was described by the UN as a “humanitarian crisis” that also threatened maritime safety​imo.org. The crew change crisis painfully demonstrated what happens when shore leave and crew repatriation are halted entirely: seafarers endured extreme mental and physical fatigue, and some reportedly contemplated self-harm. The crisis prompted a global campaign to recognize seafarers as essential workers and to restore their rights to shore leave and crew change. It also spurred discussions at the International Labour Organization (ILO) and International Maritime Organization (IMO) about strengthening legal safeguards. Indeed, amendments to the MLC are being considered (as of 2025) to prevent a recurrence of such denial of basic rights​ nautilusint.org.
  • Enforcement and Progress in Some Regions: There have been positive examples where authorities stepped in to uphold shore leave rights. Australia’s AMSA has issued marine notices urging compliance with MLC shore leave provisions and has even warned it will take action under port state control if masters or operators unduly refuse shore leave without good reason ​safety4sea.com. In India, as COVID restrictions eased, major ports like Chennai announced they would once again permit shore leave for seafarers (for instance, Indian crew allowed ashore if vaccinated and masked) ​safety4sea.com. Such steps show that with the right policies, shore leave can be safely managed even amid health concerns. In the United States, new regulations now require port facilities to facilitate seafarers’ transit through terminals at no cost – an attempt to remove the financial and logistical barriers that previously stopped many crew from going ashore.
  • Ongoing Problem Areas: Unfortunately, in many places shore leave is still routinely denied. Some ship captains or companies use blanket rules like “no shore leave in this port” citing security, pandemic, or efficiency reasons. For example, Stella Maris reported a case where a crew was told not to disembark at all during a port stay because they were needed to continuously mind ship operations, even though they had already been working long hours​ stellamaris.org.uk. In another case, a vessel under detention (for safety deficiencies) forbade the crew from shore leave for two weeks, keeping them working on repairs the whole time​ stellamaris.org.uk. Such scenarios highlight how easily shore leave can be suspended and how quickly crew morale can plummet as a result. They also show that the issue is “systemic and multifaceted,” requiring action from all stakeholders – flag States, port States, shipowners, agents, and others ​nautilusint.org. No single fix will restore shore leave if underlying issues like tight port schedules, insufficient manning, and rigid immigration rules are not addressed in tandem.


Overall, the global data and cases paint a clear picture: while everyone agrees in principle that seafarers should have shore leave, in practice it is often neglected or obstructed. The frequency of denial is high, and it appears to be getting worse in the post-pandemic landscape​ seafarerstrust.org​seafarerstrust.org.

This trend has alarmed maritime labor unions, welfare organizations, and even shipping industry leaders who understand that an exhausted workforce is not sustainable. It has led to calls for stronger international enforcement – for example, workers’ representatives at the ILO in 2025 have proposed expressly strengthening seafarers’ shore leave rights in the MLC​ nautilusint.org.

Solving this issue will likely require coordinated efforts: governments ensuring seafarers can get visas and transit easily, port authorities balancing security with humane treatment, shipping companies adjusting schedules and manning to allow shore breaks, and perhaps most importantly, a shift in attitude to recognize that crew are humans first. They deserve the same consideration for well-being and rest as any person would expect in their working life.

In conclusion, shore leave is indispensable for seafarers, from every perspective we consider. Psychologically, it is a lifeline that maintains mental health and prevents burnout in a profession fraught with isolation and stress. Legally and ethically, it is a right codified in global conventions like MLC 2006 – a right that reflects our collective moral obligation to treat seafarers with respect and humanity. Operationally, it is a smart and necessary practice: crews that get adequate rest and an occasional change of environment are safer, more efficient, and less likely to make dangerous mistakes or abandon their careers at sea.

Humanitarianly, offering shore leave is an expression of basic decency and gratitude toward the people who underpin world trade at personal cost. The evidence is overwhelming that when shore leave is denied wholesale, the results are negative – accidents can increase, mental breakdowns become more common, and the industry struggles to attract or retain skilled mariners.

Shore leave, therefore, must be prioritised as a critical component of seafarer welfare and maritime safety, not an afterthought. This means all stakeholders need to take action. Governments should remove undue barriers and enforce the rules that guarantee shore leave. Port authorities and terminal operators should facilitate crew access, not hinder it, even as they maintain security. Shipping companies should plan voyages and manning in a way that makes shore leave possible, and foster a culture where taking care of crew welfare is as important as meeting schedules. As one advocacy group leader aptly put it, adequate rest and shore leave should be treated as “operational essentials, not optional extras”​stellamaris.org.uk.

Finally, the public and regulators must continue to hold the industry accountable and support seafarers’ rights – because the cost of doing otherwise is measured in human suffering and diminished safety at sea. By ensuring that every seafarer has the chance to go ashore and recharge, we uphold their dignity, improve their lives, and in doing so, strengthen the very backbone of global shipping.


Sources: