Brussels -- On 26th and 27th
September, the “8th Annual Ship Recycling Conference” took place, an industry
event held in London every year. An array of speakers shared their expertise on
clean and safe ship recycling, and presented solutions for ensuring, for
instance, proper Inventories of Hazardous Materials (IHM) or safe asbestos
removal. Despite the expertise available, the conditions on the ground however
have not yet changed substantially and a vast majority of end-of-life vessels
are still broken without the necessary precautions for workers and the
environment, says NGO Shipbreaking Platform, participating in the conference.
Who`s
responsible?
Ship owners, cash buyers or yard
owners present at the conference continued blaming each other for the lack of
safe and green ship recycling. Ship owners, represented by the German Ship
Owners Association and the International Chamber of Shipping, argued that the
cash buyers to whom they sell their ships are responsible for choosing a
dismantling yard, and that the ship-owning community anyways cannot afford
being responsible for clean and safe recycling in times of economic downturn.
Cash buyers claimed similarly
that their profit margins would go negative should they have to pay for safe
and green recycling. Since they are primarily facilitators or "middle
men" helping ship owners to obtain the highest price for their vessels,
the cash buyers argued that it should be up to the ship owners to demand green
and safe recycling and for the yards to provide green and safe dismantling
methods. The Indian yard owners on the other hand blamed the ship owners for
not even providing a proper Inventory of Hazardous Materials and complained
that investments in better methods did not bring them more business.
Needs to pay for safety
“Everyone who earns money in the
shipbreaking business needs to pay his share for making the sector clean and
safe,” said Patrizia Heidegger, Executive Director of the NGO Shipbreaking
Platform and invited speaker at the Ship Recycling Conference. “The primary
responsibility however lies with the ship owners: They economically benefit
from their ships over years, they take the decision to sell the vessel for
demolition and they dictate the practice used for dismantling by the price they
demand for their ship. If ship owners demand clean and safe ship recycling,
they can have it”.
The Platform is seriously
concerned to hear that ship owners even questioned their responsibility for
providing an Inventory of Hazardous Materials. The German Ship Owners
Association questioned why the ship recycling yards could not come up with an
IHM prior to dismantling the ship instead.
One percent asking for safe and
green recycling
"Apart from the fact that a
proper IHM localising and quantifying hazardous materials on board allows the
recycler to understand what he actually buys, if he can deal with the type and
quantity hazardous wastes on board the ship and to offer a price taking into
account environmentally sound management of these wastes, an IHM also allows
for the safe operation of the vessel and the safety of the seafarers on board
during its operational use”, Patrizia Heidegger comments, “this is the very
least ship owners can do - and the maritime industry has agreed on the
necessity for an IHM years ago”.
Whilst the ship owners expressed
unwillingness to reduce their profit margins so that money can be invested in
proper safe recycling and hazardous waste management practices, all industry
stakeholders seemed confident that the market will provide for gradual
improvements of ship recycling practices. Major cash buyer GMS however informed
the conference that only a measly on percent of the ship owners ask for safe
and green recycling.
Six arguments for an economic
incentive
In a panel debate on whether an
economic incentive to push ship owners towards green ship recycling is needed,
Patrizia Heidegger shared the following six arguments in favour of such a
mechanism:
• In the current market situation
the additional costs for clean and safe recycling are the bottleneck for real
improvements. Only a handful of ship owners are currently willing to reduce the
price they obtain for their end-of-life vessel to allow for clean and safe
recycling in return. An economic incentive would cover the price difference.
• An economic incentive will
ensure implementation of ‘polluter pays’ and the internalisation of costs that
are currently being externalised to people and the environment in developing
countries.
• An economic incentive will
ensure successful implementation of any legislation that seeks to promote safe
and green ship recycling, and will prevent the flagging out prior to selling a
vessel for dismantling in an attempt to circumvent the law.
• An economic incentive covering
all ships calling at EU ports will create a level playing field as a large
share of the global fleet is dependent on trade with the EU. Such a mechanism
could potentially also be turned into an international instrument.
• A differentiated economic
mechanism will in addition implement producer responsibility and encourage
green ship design.
• An economic incentive will have
an immediate effect on improving shipbreaking practices. This is crucial as it
is now and within the coming years that vessels built with toxic materials are
and will be decommissioned.
The European Commission (EC) is
going to report on the possibilities of an economic instrument at the European
level and informed the Conference that they will tender such a study very soon.
Source:
recycling portal. 30 September 2013
No comments:
Post a Comment