|
SHIPBREAKING INDUSTRY - READY FOR CHANGE!
· UK authorities reconsider their move to allow scrapping of the US “Ghost fleet”,
the Marine Admirality ships on their shores.
· French military recalls and seizes French aircraft carrier, containing hazardous
waste being sent to Turkey for scrapping.
· In India the Supreme Court takes notice of the continued violations of its earlier
directives on hazardous waste and issues new and stricter directives on ship breaking.
Meanwhile, in the shipbreaking yards of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Turkey and China, its business as usual. A death a day, an explosion every now and then, and vast quantities of hazardous substances and waste being dumped unceremoniously on unsuspecting shores.
The IMO, the UN maritime body that regulates the shipping industry, issued voluntary guidelines for clean ship recycling in July 2003. A feeble attempt at greenwash that Greenpeace has challenged and demanded that IMO ensure “mandatory guidelines” and a “global regime” as the only way forward.
Greenpeace began campaigning for clean ship-recycling following their expose of the state of the environment, working conditions and blatant violation of international conventions and national legislation at Alang and Mumbai ship breaking yards in India in 1998. Since then the campaign has come a long way, globally there are winds of change and our subsequent exposes in Bangladesh, Turkey and China have forced governments, the shipping industry and international bodies to pay attention to Greenpeace’s vision of clean oceans.
Facts about the global shipbreaking business.
After 25-30 years ships are at the end of their sailing life. These ‘End of Life Vessels’ are sold and dismantled to recover valuable steel. About 95% of the ship consists of steel. But ships also contain large amounts of hazardous materials. Most
ships are beached prior to the start of the actual breaking. The beaches where this takes place were once pristine beaches of India, Bangladesh, China, Pakistan and Turkey. Every year around 600-700 larger sea vessels are taken out of service and brought to Asia for scrap. In the 1990s they had an aggregate tonnage of around 15 million dwt (Dead weight Tonnage) a year. In India most of the ships are beached in Alang, which is located in the state of Gujarat on the West Coast of India. After the beaching of the MV Kota Tenjong in 1983 this once pristine beach has developed
into the world’s leading shipbreaking yard.
More ships to be scrapped, the pollution will continue
The scrap market increases and will increase substantially in the following years. In 1999, the Maltese-flagged oil tanker Erika collapsed. The Erika was a 25-year-old single-hull vessel, chartered by oil company TotalFina. It leaked more than 10,000 tons of heavy oil, polluting 400 km of coast of Brittany (France). After this accident, the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) decided to phase-out all single-hull tankers.
Another shocking accident happened in November 2002. The single hull oil tanker Prestige sank and polluted up to 4,000 km coastline in Spain and France with fuel oil. The EU then agreed to an accelerated phase-out schedule. The phase-out means that - starting from 1 January 2003 – roughly 2,200 single hull oil tankers from the 4,000 crude oil tankers and oil products tankers will have to be taken out of service. Together these tankers have a dwt of 175 million. The other reason for the growth of the scrap market is the increase of the world fleet during the last decades. In 1960 there were around 15,000 ships with an aggregate dwt of 84 million. In 2000 there were around 62,000 ships with an aggregate dwt of 828 million. With the growth in the world fleet the need to replace old ships for new ships increases
as well. The result: a larger tonnage that has to be scrapped, and more toxic substances that will enter the environment if nothing is changed in the current way of dealing with end-of-life-vessels.
What does Greenpeace want?
Greenpeace actively opposes the export of End of Life Vessels to Asia that are not decontaminated. Greenpeace also urges governments to stop unsound breaking practices that threaten the environment and people's health in Asia. Governments should formulate a global solution. Greenpeace calls upon the shipping community to take immediate action. Shipowners should decontaminate their ships prior to export to Asia - during their sailing life and as an End of Life Vessel. Greenpeace calls upon governments to develop international legislation on ships-for-scrap and clean
shipbuilding.
2. Shipbreaking under international law.
The regulatory framework for shipbreaking is not only evolving rapidly it is also covered by a number of different international conventions and international organisations. In addition ships move between jurisdictions, which makes ships, and their owners difficult to regulate. There are certain international obligations at stake with shipbreaking, some are based on explicit treaty law, some based on customary law. One part of these obligations is at stake prior to the export of a ship to ship breaking nations. This is mainly related to the Basel Convention. Some of these are applicable when a ship has arrived in a ship breaking nation. These are mainly related to UNCLOS, MARPOL, and the London Convention, which have a direct relation with the pollution of the marine environment, both pollution originating from vessels as well as pollution from land/based sources. Then human rights and ILO obligations are relevant to protect people and working conditions at shipbreaking yards.
Customary Law
One example of customary international law that is at stake in the issue of shipbreaking is the requirement on countries to take adequate steps to control and regulate trans-boundary movement of hazardous waste. This has materialised for
example in the notion of Prior Information Consent (PIC). PIC is internationally accepted for the trans-boundary movement of hazardous waste. However, PIC in itself is by no means going to guarantee a solution to the problems of pollution associated with ship breaking. What is crucial though is that the country from which the waste arrives, informs the country , which receives this hazardous waste of its imminent arrival. Ideally this receiving country can then take measures for the adequate treatment of these hazardous substances. In several cases Greenpeace found out that
end of life vessels have been exported to a shipbreaking country without the authorities in the receiving state being aware of their imminent arrival.
Basel Convention
The Basel Convention imposes obligations on all parties to take appropriate measures to implement and enforce the convention. Crucial in the issue of ship breaking is the obligation on countries not allow the export of hazardous wastes to a country , or prevent its import, if it has reason to believe that the wastes will not be managed in an environmentally sound manner. The notion of PIC is further pinned down in the Basel Convention as an obligation on all parties to require that information about a proposed trans-boundary movement of hazardous wastes be provided to the countries concerned. Not only does the Convention pin down the notion of informing states of the imminent arrival of hazardous wastes, it goes further. The Basel Convention imposes an obligation of `due diligence`, obliging an exporting country
to refuse the export of a ship containing hazardous materials if it considers that this waste will not be dealt with soundly by the shipbreaking country.
Crucial for the application of the Basel Convention to the issue of shipbreaking are three elements
1. Proof that the hazardous waste will not be dealt with in a sound manner in the ship breaking state
2. The legal recognition that ship are waste.
3. An established `intention to discard` by the owner of the ship.
From various sources it has become clear over the last years that current practice in ship brekaing states like China, Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh and India are not preventing pollution. In fact current practice in this market has added to pollution and accidents. This has been widely documented and recognised by governments, courts and international orgnisations such as ILO and IMO.
The Basel Convention at its Open Ended Working Group has noted that a ship may become waste, in accordance with article 2 of the Basel Convention, and that at the same time it may be defined as a ship under other international rules.
The London Convention
Together with MARPOL (Marine Pollution Convention ) the London Convention is the main treaty regime that relates to marine pollution. The London Convention requires parties to take effective measures to prevent marine pollution by disposal of wastes into the sea. In fact, the fundamental obligation under the London Convention is to prohibit the deliberate disposal from vessels at sea of waste. However, the application of this convention on the issue of ship breaking is debated. At the time when the convention was set up the issue of ship breaking was not a problem.
MARPOL
The MARPOL convention deals with discharges from ships. In the issue of ship breaking MARPOL would apply to the discharges that occur from ships sent for shipbreaking, which take place within the internal waters of the ship breaking
country. Practically this means that once the ship is delivered to a ship breaking yard any discharge, notably of oil or oily mixtures will be prohibited. Such oily wastes must be retained on board or discharged to reception facilities in port.
States are in turn obliged to ensure the provision of the necessary reception facilities for these oily discharges. Interestingly MARPOL obliges the person in charge of the vessel to report any actual or probable discharge above the permitted level.
The United Convention on the Law of the Seas
Under UNCLOS countries are obliged to establish global and regional rules, standards and recommended practices and procedures to protect the marine environment. It is interesting to note in relation to the issue of ship breaking that there is
recognition under UNCLOS of the different role of port states and flag states. Port states have discretion for enforcement within their territorial waters. Flag states are obliged to enforce the international rules and standards, as well as their own
pollution laws and regulations, wherever the violation occurs.
Human Rights obligations
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted in 1948 specifies in article 25 the right to a standard of living adequate for health and well-being. Reflecting the spirit of this article, and in reference to the Stockholm Declaration of 1972 as well as the Rio Declaration of 1992, a United Nations Human Rights Commission was set up in 1995. This commission adopted a resolution concerning the adverse effect of dumping of hazardous wastes on the enjoyment of human rights. A special reporter was appointed to further investigate and report. The reporter clearly identified
ship breaking as a new aspect of waste trafficking and stated that such ships are considered hazardous waste.
International labour Organisation
Under the auspices of the International Labour Organisation guidelines have been established to improve the safety and health of thousands of workers in ship breaking yards. The practical recommendations in the guidelines are intended for use by all those who have responsibility for occupational health and safety in shipbreaking operations. However, they are not legally binding, nor do they intend to replace national laws, regulations or accepted standards. The ILO recognises that effective and safe shipbreaking depends on how the vessel is prepared for dismantling
International Maritime Organisation
The IMO drafted guidelines on ship recycling under the auspices of its Maritime and Environmental Protection Committee. These guidelines are likely to adopted by IMO’s General Assembly later this year. The Guidelines identify voluntary measures that need to be taken by ship owners as well as by relevant actors in ship breaking countries. The recently developed guidelines are half a step forward in the campaign to clean up the shipping industry. Ships are now required to carry a Green passport specifying the hazardous substances that are on board, and shipbuilders now
have to start building clean ships. However a fatal assumption in the IMO guidelines is that the industry can still freely export (to a Non-OECD country) a ship without decontaminating it prior to breaking.
The IMO guidelines are also not clear, which makes it difficult to know what is required of ship owners and detracts from their potential usefulness. The IMO guidelines also have lots of “Square Brackets”, meaning that there are contentious
issues, which will need to be resolved in future.
The guidelines continue to put the burden for the handling of hazardous materials on the ship breaking country. The guidelines are voluntary and there is no guarantee that they will be applied by ship owners or ship breakers. Based on the experiences of the Voluntary Code of Practice developed by the industry (where the majority of the ship owners do not comply with even the easy standards developed by their own federations). Greenpeace believes that the IMO guidelines will not at all change the current practices of ship owners. The IMO failed to accept and complement the existing legislations and regulations (Mentioned above) dealing with the export of hazardous wastes.(Basel Convention). The guidelines are therefore outside international law. Greenpeace is concerned that the new guidelines could be misused
to cover up the illegal business. It is likely that the environmental and people in Asia will still continue to be exposed to hazardous substances.
3. Legal context in India
Read Supreme Court of India's Directives here.
Typical problems associated with shipbreaking yards
Environmental Problems
Ship-breaking activities pollute the soil, sea, rivers and air. Discharge and emissions of toxic materials to sea, sediments, ground and air cause both acute and long-term pollution. Uncontained toxins that enter the environment represent a
threat to all living creatures in the ecosystem. Discharge of oil to the sea has resulted in physical damage of birds, mammals and marine organisms and their natural habitats. Light refined petroleum products are highly toxic and represent a fire hazard. Wastes like blasting residue and paint chips contaminate the soil and surface water. Improper storage and disposal of scrap metal and wastes also causes lead contamination. Environmentally hazardous fumes may evolve when metal and paint is heated during hot work.
Health Related problems
Ship-breaking yards are operated mostly by migrant laborers, who tend to live in inadequate makeshift facilities on, or in the immediate vicinity of, the site. They inhale toxic fumes in the yard and in their sleeping quarters and are exposed o
poison 24 hours a day.
· Exposure to asbestos fibers especially through inhalation may cause asbestosis or cancer.
· PCB removal and disposal exposes workers through inhalation, ingestion or absorption through the skin.
· Ballast water removal also put workforce at high risk.
· Torch cutting generates fumes, smoke and particulates of Manganese, Nickel, Chromium, Iron, Asbestos and Lead.
The lack of basic minimum requirements like community sanitation, medical or recreation facilities, or even safe drinking water compounds their health problems further.
Occupational Safety
Worker’s safety is jeopardized by a near-total absence of precautions and planning. At Alang, the migrant work force from Bihar, Orissa, and West Bengal and UP does not have any formal training to deal with toxics materials. According to estimates only 10% of total workforce (40000 workers are being working in the yard) have received any training.
There is a clear-cut shortage of PPE (personal Protective Equipments) in general and appropriate PPE in Particular. Laborers are not provided safety facilities and working equipments such as helmets, gumboots etc. The only time these are seen in sufficient quantity and of a proper quality, are at the time of an inspection or safety audit.
There is no equipment for machine safety, fire safety, chemical safety and water safety. What equipment does exist, is poorly maintained, which increases the risk of accident. Lack of coordination for work procedures and the absence of safety control of available tools including cutting tools, put workers at risk of bodily harm and injuries.
There is no work plan or working hours. Sometimes laborers work in the yard for 24 hours without getting any wages for overtime.
Workers get no compensation for the loss of fingers, toes or even hands. According to sources from the workers that Greenpeace spoke to, 4 to 5 persons are dying every month. Reports of accidents are neither easily obtainable, nor reliable.
Past research clearly indicates that workers are exposed to poisons 24 hours a day. The sediments in Alang were more contaminated than the most heavily industrialized port area.
Role of stakeholders
There are four major stakeholders involved in the ship-breaking activities. These stakeholders are ship-owners, ship-breakers, fleet-owning countries, Indian Government authorities (including the Gujarat Maritime Board) and International
Maritime Organization. Each of these stakeholders has a significant role to play for changing the reality on ground.
On a national level respective authorities Government of India have not tried to persuade other ship-breaking countries to force the IMO for a “legal binding mandatory regime”. Whereas at the local level, the Gujarat Maritime Board (GMB) has not taken the responsibilities for the implementation of rules and regulation seriously.
Rules and regulations are flouted at the cost of human lives.
The Gujarat Maritime Board, which is charged with the responsibility of regulating the industry, including the implementation of safety measures, is not doing enough. There is no transparency in the system. Ship breakers are given a free hand to dismantle the ships without observing any safety measures. Even the GMB drafted circular on environmentally sound management for ship recycling dated 31st August 2000 has not been implemented till now. It was dropped by GMB under pressure from ship-breakers.
Ship-breakers do not provide adequate hygienic living conditions. Workers operate under unsafe, un-standardized working conditions, with no proper sanitary and health facilities. They are not even provided any economic structure – they work on a daily-wages basis, and get no provident fund, bonus, overtime benefits etc.
Ship owners and fleet-owning countries do little to fulfill their obligations towards environmentally sound ship-breaking, and instead export their liabilities to the ship-breaking nations. Most ship-owners are unwilling to spend even a fraction
of their profits on making the ships gas free for hot works, a very simple thing to do. They dump toxic and rusted ships in the yard without decontamination. They never provide inventory of hazardous materials to ship-breakers.
IMO, despite being an intergovernmental body with the highest powers, has never accepted the responsibilities and liabilities to stop pollution and protect human lives in the ship-breaking countries. Even the recently developed Guidelines on ship recycling by IMO put the onus for environmentally sound practices on the ship recycling state. Greenpeace is opposed to these guidelines because they fail to recognize the Basel convention, which deals with the trans -boundary movement of hazardous waste, and because the IMO has declared that these are voluntary guidelines. It means illegal export of toxic wastes will continue to the developing countries, and only widen the chasm as the “Fat become fatter and the thin become thinner’.
Stakeholders for Solutions
Each of the stakeholders has a vital part to play towards arriving at concrete solutions. They have to work in better coordination to solve this problem of environmentally unsound ship-breaking. Only the creation of a ‘level-playing field or legal binding mandatory regime’ can solve the problems.
Therefore in order to end the environmental, occupational safety and health hazards related to Ship-Breaking, Greenpeace demands that:
a) Ships be recognized as toxic waste.
b) It should be mandatory for ship-owners to decontaminate the ships-for-scrap prior to export.
c) Shipowners must present a complete inventory of all hazardous material on board the vessel.
d) All ships-for-scrap must be certified as ‘gas-free for hot works’ prior to export for breaking.
e) Shipbreakers and Indian authorities must implement existing rules and regulation and carry out activities without risk to workers’ health or to the environment.
f) Ship-breaking facilities should be freely accessible for inspections by citizen groups, environmental NGOs and Trade unions.
g) Ship-breaking should be subject to a global regime, rather than being a matter of unilateral measures.
As it is evident from the above demands, Greenpeace is not opposed to ship-breaking industry. We will, however, actively oppose the export of ships that are not decontaminated, and we will continue to stand up for the protection of the
environment and workers’ health against unsound breaking practices.
Click here to visit our Document Repository on Shipbreaking
For Further information on Ship Breaking click here
.
|