Need for financial mechanism to hold shipowners accountable and
prevent reflagging is urgent
Brussels, 5 February 2013 – A record-breaking number
of 365 toxics-laden ships were sent for breaking by European shipowners to the
beaches of South Asia in 2012, according to a list released today by the NGO Shipbreaking
Platform, a global coalition of environmental, human rights and labour
rights organisations working for safe and sustainable ship recycling. This
number represents a 75% increase from 2011, when 210 EU-owned ships were sent
for breaking in India, Bangladesh and Pakistan[1].
“Despite the possibility of proper disposal in Europe or other developed
countries, the vast majority of European shipping companies continue to profit
by having their ships broken cheaply and dangerously on the beaches of South
Asia. The EU must adopt mechanisms that will prevent European shipowners from
exporting toxic ships for breaking in developing countries and instead recycle
them according to the health, safety and environmental laws and standards of
their own countries,” says Patrizia Heidegger, Executive Director of the
NGO Shipbreaking Platform.
Of the top 10 European “global dumpers” in 2012, Greek shipowners were
number one, dumping 167 ships on South Asian beaches, or nearly half of all
ships sent by European shipowners in 2012. German shipowners represented the
second largest group of toxic ship dumpers (48 ships) followed by shipowners
from the UK (30 ships), Norway (23 ships), Cyprus (13 ships), Bulgaria (8
ships), Denmark (6 ships) and the Netherlands (5 ships). Shipowners from all
countries, except the Netherlands and Norway[2], increased the number of
end-of-life ships exported to Asia, with Italian shipowners sending three times
as many ships in 2012 compared to the year before and MSC, the main Swiss
containership and cruise ships company[2], beaching 23 ships in 2012, compared
to only 5 in 2011. The rest was sent by shipowners based in Estonia (3 ships),
Sweden (3 ships), Lithuania (2 ships), Belgium (2 ships), Romania (2 ships),
Latvia (1 ship) and Poland (1 ship).
The Platform’s 2012 list shows that most of the end-of-life ships sent by
European shipowners did not fly an EU flag[3]. In fact, 240 of them used what
is commonly referred to as the “flags of convenience” phenomenon, using flags
such as Panama, Liberia, the Bahamas or St Kitts-and-Nevis, which makes it more
difficult for the EU to prevent their dismantling in substandard facilities.
The NGO Shipbreaking Platform is currently working with the European Parliament
to introduce a financial mechanism that would help shipowners internalize the
costs of proper disposal of the hazardous materials found in end-of-life
vessels. The Platform wants the mechanism to apply to all ships calling at
European ports, instead of only addressing EU-flagged vessels. The financial
mechanism could be a fund financed by fees paid by shipowners; an insurance; or
a savings account guaranteeing that funds are put aside for safe and
environmentally sound ship recycling. The EU Commission failed to introduce
such a financial mechanism in its proposal for a European Regulation on ship
recycling published in March 2012. Under the Cypriot Presidency, which ended in
December, the EU Council failed to strengthen the Commission proposal.
Coincidentally, in 2012, Cypriot shipowners sent 13 ships to the South Asian
beaches. Also Greece and Germany, the two biggest European ships dumpers, do
not show the political will to stop the export of end-of-life vessels.
China is another major destination of concern for end-of-life ships sold by
EU-based shipowners. Both China and the EU have ratified the Basel Ban
Amendment that prohibits any transboundary movement of hazardous waste exported
from OECD to non-OECD countries. While today’s list focuses on end-of-life
ships sent to beaches in South Asia, and even though the Shipbreaking Platform
welcomes the fact that China has outlawed beaching and uses a higher level of
mechanization, it notes with continued concern, the absence of independent
trade unions in China, the lack of proper downstream management of toxic
residues such as PCBs as well as the fact that such exports are likely to
violate the Basel Ban Amendment.
CONTACT:
Patrizia Heidegger
Executive Director
NGO Shipbreaking Platform
Rue de la Linière 11
1060 Brussels patrizia@shipbreakingplatform.org
+32 2 6094 419
Executive Director
NGO Shipbreaking Platform
Rue de la Linière 11
1060 Brussels patrizia@shipbreakingplatform.org
+32 2 6094 419
NOTES:
[1] The 2011 list is available here: http://bit.ly/A89gAS
[2] Although Norway and Switzerland are not amongst the 27 Member States of
the European Union, both are part of EFTA (the European Free-Trade Association)
and shipping companies based in these countries need to abide by certain EU
laws, including the Waste Shipment Regulation.
[3] In 2012, out of the 365 EU-owned ships sent for breaking to South Asia,
only 83 flew European flags. 90 ships used the flag of Panama; 60 used Liberia;
30 used Saint Kitts-and-Nevis; 23 used the Marshall Islands; 15 used Comoros;
12 used Saint Vincent-and-Grenadines; and 10 used the Bahamas. Some shipping
companies based outside of the European Union also used a European flag for
their end-of-life ship, amongst whom: Japan (1 Dutch flag), Ukraine (1
Slovakian flag), the United Arab Emirates (1 Maltese flag), Croatia (1 Maltese
flag), the USA (1 Greek flag), Singapore (1 Norwegian flag and 1 Cypriot flag),
China (2 Cypriot flags), Monaco (2 British flags) and Russia (3 Cypriot flags).
ABOUT THE LIST
The European origin of the ships is determined either by their use of a
European/EFTA flag (Iceland, Norway, Switzerland, and Liechtenstein) and/or
because the last owner of the ship before the shipbreakers bought it was
European-based. We have chosen to use the last beneficial owner of the ship as
a reference in all previous reports. As defined by maritime database Lloyd’s
List, the beneficial owner “may be the vessel’s management company or the
trading name of a group, both of which are generally perceived to represent the
ultimate owners of the vessel”. Therefore when looking at the report both these
factors need to be taken into account when considering the data. The only
destinations for end-of-life ships taken into account in this report, as for
the Platform’s previous reports, are Gadani in Pakistan; Alang, Sachana, and
Mumbai in India; and Chittagong in Bangladesh. Some ships may be missing from
this list, which does not pretend to be exhaustive. Some data are provided by
the industry on a voluntary basis. The list was compiled using Lloyd’s List,
Intermodal, Robin des Bois reports, Equasis, and other relevant sources.
Source: NGO Shipbreaking. 5 February 2013
No comments:
Post a Comment