STOP. Talking on the proposed Green Recycling Yard in Eemshaven

Tanker and Platform Dismantling Foundation, (Stichting Tanker Ontmanteling Platforms) - STOP. Talking on the proposed Green Recycling Yard in Eemshaven

Summary:

This was the first IMIF buffet luncheon to be held outside the United Kingdom and it continued the IMIF "Green" ship recycling discussions entered into with the Chinese Shipscrapping Association in September. The UK based delegation travelled by Eurostar from Waterloo to Lille and then by road courtesy of Vroon to the Vroon offices at Breskens.

Peter Vroon welcomed the assembled delegates to Breskens and began by giving a brief introduction to the Vroon group which comprised cattle ships, petrol tankers, chemical tankers, car carriers, reefers and offshore supply vessels. He added that he was proud to be a long term member of IMIF.

Jim Davis responded thanking Peter for "the honour of being here in the centre of the shipping universe". He referred to the wide spread of the IMIF membership throughout the maritime industries. He recalled IMIF's original suggestions for Scrap and Build, the problems of oversupply of tonnage, the dangers of buying 'cheap' unnecessarily and the 'dear' consequences. He talked of the predictable life of a ship, say 20 years? - and its residual lwt value. "We need to find an end to a ship's life" he said. He referred to a visit to a breaking yard in Taiwan "it was a shade of hell" with people perched on the fo'c'sle of the ship, cutting away the plate they were actually standing on - and little women chipping away asbestos with a copper pipe.

Greenpeace and the ecologists are very critical - 'You are killing people' they say while the breakers themselves say 'We need the work to survive'. Jim reminded everyone that the Dutch had been the first to bring in a 'scrapping premium' built into the purchase price of new cars to cover the cost of their eventual disposal. Jim asked, "Why not the same for ships!"

Mr Mulder and STOP say it can be done. IMIF should listen to STOP and promote their ideas. We have recently met and talked to the Chinese Shipscrapping Association which is thinking along the same lines. And of course events are now unfolding at Hartlepool in the UK with the US reserve fleet. IMIF is observing all of it very carefully.

Doebren Mulder, Chairman of STOP reminded us that until the 1970's most ships were broken up in Europe. But with stricter regulations concerning the environment, health and safety dismantling became expensive and the industry moved away to the Third World, with many ships ending their lives in India, Bangladesh, China, Pakistan and Turkey and today 90% of all vessels from the richer countries finish up on these beaches where no proper standards are enforceable.

Over 100,000 men, women and children work in ship demolition, breaking ships with no protective clothing and with their bare hands. Referring to Alang he added that many workers are injured or killed through fire, explosions, failing steel plates and poison gasses. They are exposed daily to noxious substances, mercury, lead, cadmium, arsenic, asbestos with significant damage to their health and many of these noxious substances find their way into the immediate environment including soil, rivers and the sea itself. Pollution is worldwide and the seas are all connected. The number of ships requiring demolition is predicted to rise rapidly now with the phasing out of some 1300 singlehull tankers - most of them expected to end up on the same third-world beaches. Greenpeace, the Royal Association of Netherlands Shipowners and IMO are all making efforts to bring about the global regulation of ship recycling.

The Basel Convention, set up in 1989 and signed by over 100 countries with the intention of restricting the production and export of dangerous substances is issuing guidelines on the environmentfriendly recycling of old ships. Mr Mulder reminded the group that the Netherlands actually detained 'Sandrien' in 2001 under the Basel Convention when the tanker, containing asbestos, was on its way to Asia for demolition. STOP suggests that 'dirty' ships could perhaps be cleaned up during maintenance work, with poisonous materials being replaced by safer alternatives - and where the use of dangerous materials is unavoidable they should be registered. To be fully 'green' any demolition centre would need to have a watertight dry dock, highly skilled workers with protective clothing, specialist equipment and responsible waste disposal management. China is halfway there. And in Holland we have begun to talk.

On 20 November 2002 the Stichting Tanker Ontmanteling Platforms (Tanker and Platform Dismantling Foundation) STOP was set up to create just such a yard at Eemshaven, a location bordering on the vulnerable natural environment of the Wadden Sea. The Foundation is therefore undertaking a 'zero pollution strategy'. It is initially estimated that the yard will require 75 workers to process between 10 and 12 tankers a year. The yard will take two years to build. STOP approached Greenpeace. They were very positive about it. Mr Mulder reminded the delegates that Dutch labour is not cheap and that Holland has the toughest legislation in the world with regard to health and safety.

Participants in the scheme will include Barn nbm infra; Isotechniek; P&O Nedlloyd; Steenhuis Recycling; BGP engineers (who own the land to be used for the project);Groningen Seaports and various local councils. STOP's aim is to set and apply the necessary standards that could and should be developed globally - at present there are none. It should lead to worldwide certification and education. Mr Mulder contemplated a future scenario with up to 400 workers. All the best environmental factors were present including the railway and a harbour 12 metres in depth so everything was in place. He too was following the saga of the US 'ghost ships' including the possibility of 'building' suitably 'green' ships for the US navy. Certainly the potential for scrapping was there.

Apart from 700 regular ships coming up to scrapping age there were the 1300 single-hull tankers due for demolition before 2007. There were the 119 US 'ghost' ships, 270 drilling platforms in the North Sea and, in Europe 32 'problem' ships including 'Sandrien'. STOP proposed three drydocks initially, 310 metres x 55 metres (Panamax) and the development of 'green' energy using wind farms. Mr Mulder regarded cooperation between STOP and IMIF as an important step forward.

The meeting then adjourned to a most delightful restaurant set within a farm complex, the Restaurant de Vijverhoeve at Sluis where the discussions continued with Peter Vroon, Ravi Mehrotra and Jean Richards putting present day shipowners' viewpoints in contrast to the proposed ideal future scenario. Ravi emphasised that the world is governed by economics, with books to balance and that the scrap endprice was brought about by the demand for steel - it was not set by the breakers. Current prices are up simply because China needs 120 million tonnes of steel and at present there is a shortfall. Jim Davis summarized by saying that STOP should limit itself initially to specialist demolition of e.g. rigs and US Sealift vessels to test the practical methods of STOP and to demonstrate how eco-friendly demolition can be done. STOP should also concentrate on consulting / joint venturing with eg the Chinese once their methods are proven.

IMIF would like to thank our extremely generous host Peter Vroon, our guest speaker Doebren Mulder and his team and all the IMIF delegates for participating. It is very much appreciated.

Participants:

Jim Davis CBE -   Chairman, IMIF

Maria Dixon - Shipping Consultant Panamanian Consulate General

John Faraclas - Shipping International Monthly Review

Ravi K Mehrotra - Chairman Foresight Group

Struan Robertson - Partner Stephenson Harwood & Deputy Chairman IMIF

Jean Richards - Managing Director Fairwind Shipping

Veronica Vallarino - Consul- General of the Republic of Panama

Ian Bouskill - Secretary IMIF

Dutch Delegates:

Peter Vroon - Host Vroon B.V.

Doebren Mulder - Guest speaker Chairman STOP

Pieter Baan - ING Bank

Peter Buijs - Secretary & co-founder STOP

Remeo Jongkind  - Fortis Bank

Casper Kroon - ING Bank

Albert Lenting - Advisor STOP

Herman Marks - Commercial Director Vroon B.V.

Paul van Baasbank - Vice President Shipping ABN Amro

Bertjan Volbeda - Director Transport & Energy Division NIB Capital Bank

Venue: Vroon B.V.,Haven Westzijde 21, 4510 AA Breskens, The Netherlands and the Restaurant de Vijverhoeve, Sluis, The Netherlands

Hosted by: Peter Vroon

Guest Speaker: Mr Doebren Mulder, Chairman,

Source: IMIF. Monday, 8 September 2004

http://www.imif.org/200403/buffet.htm

Safer shipbreaking could boost Bangladesh industry :UNDP

Media Release:

ATTENTION: NEWS EDITORS

For immediate release   

29 June 2004

Safer shipbreaking could boost Bangladesh industry

People involved in ship breaking, from workers’ representatives to shipyard owners, agreed that the industry, which makes a vital contribution to the national economy, needed support to improve safety and environmental standards. The consensus was voiced during a workshop organized by the United Nations in Dhaka earlier today.

“Ship recycling in its current state is under scrutiny,” said Mr. Aage Bjorn Andersen, an international shipping expert who participated in the workshop. In recent years ship recycling in South Asia has come under a lot of criticism mainly because the public has become more aware of the difficult conditions workers experience, he said.

The huge task of dismantling ships is done manually in Bangladesh, with basic protection like helmets, gloves or goggles not provided to the workers. Each year many workers are injured, disabled or die. Despite the danger faced by them, their wages, hours of work and overtime payments, fail to meet minimum labour standards. Moreover, the improper disposal of harmful chemicals around shipbreaking yards is hazardous for the workers and a serious source of pollution in the surrounding environment.

Until now this industry has never been regulated and falls short of national and international standards. 

However, it is an industry that Bangladesh can ill afford to lose.  The nation has no domestic sources of iron ore and is faced with high prices for “new” steel in the international markets. Shipbreaking produces 80% of the steel Bangladesh needs. The industry also provides an important source of revenue for the Government, and generates much-needed employment. 

Vice President of the Bangladesh Ship Breakers Association, Mr. Yasin Ali said during the worksh hop that shipyard owners had already drawn up a number of recommendations for improving practices. However, until now, there had been little support for introducing change to this vital industry. Therefore, he welcomed the proposed activities to be undertaken by the Government’s Safe and Environment Friendly Ship Recycling project (SEFSR), supported by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the International Labour Organization (ILO).  

The 3-year initiative is ultimately aimed at regulating shipbreaking in Bangladesh. It seeks to achieve this by bringing together all concerned parties -- the relevant ministries, the Bangladesh Navy, importers, the Ship Breakers Association, survey companies, banks, traders, related industries, and workers. The workshop earlier today was the first activity under this project.

“I hope through this project we would be able to reach a consensus between the Government, employers and workers to strengthen the shipbreaking industry, so that safer jobs and more jobs could be created,” said Mr. Ashikul Alam Chowdhury of the National Coordination Committee of Workers Education. 

Experts believe if the industry can meet agreed standards the nation could benefit greatly. Mr. Andersen explained that the International Maritime Organization is closely monitoring shipbreaking practices in South Asia.  “Bangladesh could attract an increasing number of vessels for disposal if the industry here demonstrates better environmental and occupational safety standards,” he said.

The next activities under the project will include the establishment of an office in Chittagong, a national workshop to involve an even broader group of stakeholders, and some initial safety training for workers.

Project details in brief:

Title: Safe and Environment-friendly Ship-Recycling

Start Date: November 2003

Estimated end date: June 2006

National Implementing Agency: Department of Inspections for Factories and Establishments

Implementing Agencies: The International Labour Organization (ILO)

Executing Agency: Ministry of Labour and Employment

Budget: USD 1. 29 million

Source: UNDP. 29 June 2004

http://www.undp.org.bd/media%20releases/2004/Ship%20recycling%20official%20launch%2029%20June%202004%20inbrief.pdf

New rules over ghost ships urged:

The arrival of the "ghost ships" sparked a massive protest

The government is being urged to create a ship recycling policy to avoid any more rows over so-called "ghost ships".

The Environment Agency is also calling in its top level report for an international agreement on the issue.

The calls are in response to legal disputes over Able UK's plan to dismantle a fleet of US Navy ships said to contain toxic materials in Teesside.

Green group Friends of the Earth (FoE) welcomed the report which says "lessons should be learnt" from the drama.

FoE and Teesside residents launched a string of legal challenges to the multi-million pound contract going ahead at Able UK's Environmental Reclamation and Recycling Centre at the end of 2003.

The firm has been told it cannot carry out any work until waste management and planning regulations are met.

However, the paper entitled US Navy Ships Review and written by the Environment Agency chief executive Baroness Young of Old Scone, criticises FoE for "portraying the ships as placing the environment and public at risk".

"The agency considers that the transport of ships did not pose a threat to the environment or human health, and indeed no harm has occurred," her report reads.

But it also criticised Able UK for not ensuring it had all the correct procedures in place before undertaking the dismantling contract.

Important lessons must be learnt from the fiasco, she concluded.

"A national policy on ship recycling should be established, including imports and exports and whether minimum environmental standards should be applied to all facilities involved in recovering UK flagged vessels," she wrote.

"The government should also consider whether it should promote an international agreement on ship scrapping and recovery facilities."

Waste

FoE campaigns director Mike Childs said he was pleased the Environment Agency has learnt the lessons of the ghost ship saga.

"Proper environmental investigations are now being carried out into the environmental risks posed by developing a ship-scrapping facility and local people will be fully consulted."

But he said FoE believed rich countries should deal with their own waste, rather than export it.

The group also pledged to continue to do what it could to ensure the globally important wildlife site in the Tees Estuary is fully protected.

Source: BBC. 12 May 2004

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3705969.stm

Q&A: Ghost Ships

The fate of up to 13 ageing US warships destined for the UK for recycling hangs in the balance. These are the key issues.

What is the controversy about?

The first of the contaminated former US warships due to be dismantled at a UK yard are being stored on Teesside pending a decision on their future.

The yard's owner, Able UK, has a $16m (£10m) contract to break up the vessels, but has run into problems over planning consent and waste-management licences.

Campaigners fearing major environmental implications persuaded the High Court to prevent any work until regulators had decided whether to grant permission.

What are the principal dangers?

The ships are up to 60 years old and are said to be fragile and at risk of breaking up, sparking pollution fears.

They contain a range of toxic materials, including lead, mercury, asbestos and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), which have been linked to cancer and other health conditions.

Conservationists fear nearby wildlife sites are threatened by possible leaks.

But the Environment Agency says risks are low - if the facilities are safe.

Why is US toxic waste coming to the UK?

An American subsidiary of Able UK won the contract to recycle 13 of the obsolete ships, and chose to carry out the work at Able's Hartlepool shipyard.

Environmental campaigners say the US has the technology to do the work.

But the UK's Environment Agency initially agreed to the transfer on the basis that all approvals were in place.

It subsequently transpired they were not - so new consents must be sought.

Why were the ships allowed to be moved?

The Environment Agency, which regulates waste shipments and treatment in England and Wales, approved licence amendments.

But subsequent investigations showed that planning permission for a dry dock and waste-management documents on which it based its decision were not valid.

By the time the true situation was established, the first four ships were on their way. The government agreed to allow them to dock, but no work can be done until and unless various consents are granted.

So what happens now?

Able UK must apply again for permission to build a dry dock at its base near Hartlepool to carry out the dismantling.

It also needs to apply for a new waste-management licence. Both applications will require assessments of their impact on the environment.

In the meantime, a government select committee is investigating how the ships were allowed to leave for the UK without the requisite permissions.

And the EU plans to tighten its own laws on importing and exporting ships for decommissioning.

• Oils and oily ballast water could cause damage to the marine environment.
• Asbestos is a known carcinogen but is denser than water and non-soluble so would only pose a problem if blown on shore.
• PCBs have been called a "probable carcinogen" and have been linked with neurological and developmental problems in humans.
• Mercury, lead, chromium and cadmium are highly toxic metals which accumulate in the body.

Source: BBC NEWS. Wednesday, 7 January, 2004

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/uk_news/england/3377417.stm

European Effort to Ban Asbestos Fails:

At the tenth meeting of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-10) for an International Legally Binding Instrument for the Application of the Prior Informed Consent Procedure (PIC) for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade (Rotterdam Convention) — held from 17-21 November in Geneva — Canada and Russia blocked the listing of asbestos-chrysotile. Had the listing gone through, trading of the chemical substance would only be allowed with the prior informed consent of the importing country. Countries also discussed future cooperation with the WTO as well as other issues pending prior to the expected entry into force of the Rotterdam Convention in 2004.

No ban on economically valuable asbestos: 

Four forms of asbestos were added to the Convention’s PIC list. However, the decision on whether to add the fifth form — chrysotile asbestos — was postponed, despite the fact that chrysotile asbestos accounts for 94 percent of the commercial asbestos production and is known to cause cancer. The EU was the main demandeur for listing chrysotile asbestos, supported by Switzerland, Chile, Argentina, Norway, the Gambia and the Congo. However, the proposal was blocked by Canada and Russia, supported by the Ukraine, China, Zimbabwe, India, Indonesia, South Africa, Egypt and Morocco. For most of the opposing countries, chrysotile asbestos is an economically valuable substance. Canada, for example, is the leading exporter of chrysotile asbestos, with an industry estimated to bring in CAD 2,500 million annually and employs 2,000 workers. Russia, on the other hand, is the world’s largest producer of asbestos. Zimbabwe and China are also large asbestos producers and exporters.

As decisions under the Rotterdam Convention need to be taken by consensus, countries decided to give Canada more time to conduct national consultations on the issue and postponed a final decision. Environmental groups such as WWF criticised Canada and Russia for being overly focused on their self-interest. Clifton Curtis, Director of WWF’s Toxic Programme said “chrysotile unequivocally met the Convention’s requirements, and those governments opposing its listing blatantly disregarded the treaty obligations”.

In light of the chrysatile asbestos discussion, Parties have expressed concern that the conflict between environmental and health concerns on the one hand and economic and trade concerns on the other hand would arise frequently once the Convention has entered into force. The Chair of INC-10 thus also reminded delegates that the Convention does not take into account economic and trade considerations when listing a chemical.

Consensus was reached on adding DNOC and its salt to the Convention’s PIC list as well as dustable powder formulations of benomyl, carbofuran and thiram.

Background of the Rotterdam Convention:

The Rotterdam Convention was adopted in 1998 under the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO). To date, it has been signed by 73 states and ratified by 49; it will enter into force once 50 nations have ratified it. 

The Convention aims to assist governments, particularly in developing countries to avoid accidents and pollution related to chemicals and to protect people and the environment from the harmful results of chemicals trade. The PIC procedure, which is part of the Rotterdam Convention, is aimed at making information about hazardous chemicals readily available in order to facilitate informed decisions on the import of chemicals and the associated risks. When a chemical is added to the PIC procedure list, a country cannot export the chemical unless the importing country, in writing, has accepted to receive the shipment. Should a country agree to import the chemical, the Convention would promote its safe use through labelling measures and through technical assistance.

The Rotterdam Convention is one of six multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) that WTO Members are focusing on in their Committee on Trade and Environment debate on the relationship between WTO rules and specific trade obligations in MEAs (see BRIDGES Trade Biores, 11 July 2003).

“Summary of the Tenth Session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee for an international legally binding instrument for the application of the prior informed consent procedure for certain hazardous chemicals and pesticides in international trade,” IISD’s Earth Negotiations Bulletin, 24 November, 2003; “Asbestos Nations Block Placement of Chrysotile on Danger List,” ENS, 18 November 2003; “WWF Slams Canada and Russia for blocking listing of asbestos as a dangerous substance,” WWF, 18 November 2003.

Source: International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD). 28 November 2003

http://ictsd.org/i/news/biores/9212/