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/

Death is All in a Day's Work

ALANG/ MUMBAI — The Shipbreaking yards at Alang have become synonymous with death, disease and despair, says G. Ananthapadmanabhan, Executive Director, Greenpeace India.

Seven people are dead, six others are injured, and more than 10 people are 'missing' as another shipbreaking explosion rocks Alang on the 19th of May. But as Greenpeace has been reiterating for the past many years, death should be no surprise at Alang. The abysmal working conditions, the high levels of toxicity, the blatant violation of all rules and regulations have combined to make the workers of ship-breaking yards one of the most vulnerable communities - so much so that death is almost casually treated as another 'occupational hazard.'

The most recent explosion in yard no 5 of Arya Shipbreaking yard on 19th of May involved the ship INVALLE, an oil tanker originally from Belgium. What is more noteworthy, is that this is the fourth major accident in the last two and a half months. Each of these accidents leaves behind several dead, and many others so severely maimed and disfigured that even veteran war-photographers would cringe to see their gory images.

The explosion on the INVALLE was a typical example of shipbreaking accidents, yet particularly ironical. The accident occurred when workers were trying to cut a pipe in the erstwhile engine room. According to one source, this basement-level engine room had one big tank full of oil that caught fire, generating gaseous fumes that resulted in the explosion. This accident proves that the INVALLE (like so many other ships brought to Alang) was not delivered in "Gas free for hot works" condition - even though that is mandatory according to the regulations of the Gujarat Maritime Board (GMB). But even though the ship-owners recover millions of dollars in selling their decrepit vessels to breakers' yards, they do not invest the little amount of money it would take to make their ships "Gas free for hot work".

As with every accident in Alang, the next-of-kin of the dead place the blame on the ship-owners and on the GMB. The GMB seems to have inadequate regulatory systems to monitor the lack of safety procedures in place at the yards. The ship-owners pay no attention to removal of toxic waste from the ships, and transfer their responsibilities to Shipbreaking countries.

Although discussion of the liability for decontaminating ships before sending them to the yards has been going on for several years, this year, according to Greenpeace, will be "crucial". There is commitment at the IMO to have guidelines on ship recycling adopted by the end of this year. Greenpeace will urge the IMO to go for mandatory rules on ships for scrap and oblige owners to clean their ships before exporting them, and ensure that tanks are delivered gas-free for hot work. Until the time that ship owners are held legally responsible for their end-of-life vessels, hazardous old ships will continue to go to the countries where regulation of environmental laws is at its weakest.

Greenpeace would like to see binding international legislation that will force the shipping industry to deal with hazardous waste in ships. But the proposed moratorium on exporting ships for scrap has seen setbacks - especially with the United States plan to back out of it.

Towards the end of last year, Greenpeace, BAN, Toxics Link, the National Alliance of People's Movement (NAPM), the All India Trade Union Congress (CITU AITUC, Indian National Trade Union Congress (INTUC) and the Indian Federation of Trade Unions (IFTU) wrote to the Consul of the US in New Delhi, making plain their views about the Bush administration's plan to break out of the moratorium on exporting ships for scrap.

In the letter the organizations said: "We would like to bring to your attention the implications of recent deliberations in the US to dispose of more than 300 ships without decontamination in… Asian shipbreaking yards."

"You may recall that the then US vice president Al Gore placed a moratorium on the sale of US government-owned ships for scrap… after Indian trade unions and environmental organisations protested outside the US embassy in New Delhi in January 1998."

"While we are in no way opposed to the reclamation of steel for reuse… we have repeatedly indicated our opposition to the export to any country… of any form of hazardous waste. Ships for scrap, unless decontaminated, are hazardous waste by virtue of the fact that most, if not all, ships contain a range of hazardous material in their structure."

“Various legal precedents exist to confirm that ships for scrap (unless decontaminated) should be treated as hazardous wastes," said the letter. "Furthermore," it claimed, "such an export is illegal under… international law and would, if exported to India, violate the May 5, 1997, Supreme Court ruling prohibiting the import of hazardous wastes."

"The ships in question are too old… to travel on their own steam. They would need to be towed to the shipbreaking yard. There is no reason why the ships cannot be decontaminated prior to towing to the shipbreaking yard," concluded the authors of the letter.

The astonishing regularity with which fatal accidents occur in Alang, clearly indicate that a strong and mandatory framework must be set up by the IMO to make sure that the same rules apply to every ship for scrap.

Greenpeace is demanding:

1. That all ships brought to the Asian shipbreaking yards be thoroughly decontaminated and be made gas- free for hot works and man entry before arrival.

2. That the International Maritime Organisation develops a strong and mandatory framework to make sure that the same rule apply to all ships and that shipowners are held accountable and liable for their End of Life Vessels and for any hazardous materials they contain.

3. That the Basel Convention be strictly adhered to, and transboundary movement and disposal of hazardous wastes be regulated as per international law.

Source: GreenPeace, Press release – 28 April 2003

http://www.greenpeace.org/india/en/news/death-is-all-in-a-day-s-work/