Experts opined that intention of violating the environmental law has increasingly grown among the scrap ship importers recently. As a result, the scrap ships which are risky for environment are being beached at different ship breaking yards of Sitakunda without taking due permission from the DoE.

DoE authorities have already informed the ship breakers that they will not be able to give ‘no objection certificate’ for the ships already beached and wrote to the director general of DoE to take actions against the ship breaking yards for beaching the ships without complying with the rules framed by the Ministry of Forest and Environment.

According to DoE sources, owners of ship breaking yards— Taher and Company Limited, S N Corporation, Mack International, Super Six Star Ship Breaking Yard, Golden Iron Works Limited, Darus Salam Enterprise, SK Steel and Mabia Ship Breakers—have applied for permission for beaching as many as nine scrap ships.

Seven of the ships have already been beached in the last 15 days and two more are waiting at the outer anchorage to be beached. Director of DoE, Chittagong, Zafar Alam told The Independent that owners of the ship breaking yards applied to DoE seeking ‘no objection certificate’ for beaching nine ships that had not been inspected by any technical expert team.

“According to the rules framed by the Ministry of Forests and Environment, we do not have the authority to issue ‘no objection certificate’ for beaching or scrapping a ship that has not been inspected properly by a team of experts. So we informed the ship yard owners about our inability to issue the certificate and wrote a letter to the DG of DoE for taking actions in this regard,” he added.

But the ship breaking yard owners have claimed that they had beached the ships after taking permission from the Industries Ministry. President of Bangladesh Ship Breakers Association (BSBA) Hefazutur Rahman told The Independent that the ship breakers opened Letter of Credit (LC) to import the ships after getting permission from the Industries Ministry following the rules framed by the ministry for Ship Breaking and Ship Recycling Industry.

Accordingly, the ships were imported and beached, but now the DoE is not issuing the ‘no objection certificate’ to scrap the ships, he said adding that there might be some misunderstanding about rules as they were framed recently.

It might take time to understand the new rules and implement them properly, he said further. On the other hand, experts said that the Industries Ministry has no authority to give permission to beach ships following the rules drafted by the ministry as the draft has not been nodded by the High Court and published by the government as a gadget.
They also said that the draft rules framed by the Industries Ministry are full of contradiction with the High Court directives and the rules framed by the Ministry of Forest and Environment.

Mohammad Ali Shahin, program manager of non-government development organisation YPSA and a ship breaking expert, told The Independent that the rules drafted by the Industries Ministry has been full of contradiction to the existing rules framed by the DoE, Labor Law 2006, and other laws. While drafting the rules, the Industries Ministry did not follow the directives given by the High Court.

As a result, the court did not accept the rules and asked for their revision as per its directives, Shahin said, adding, but the ministry published the rules on its website asking for feedback from the stakeholders. Rezwana Hasan, executive Director of Bangladesh Environment Lawyers Association (BELA), told the Independent that the rules framed by the Industries Ministry are not only contradictory to the existing law but also very poor.

10 February 2012- Ship recyclers are firing off claims that class societies have failed to police the industry and wrongly issued safety certificates.

Scores of ships built in the past 10 years containing substantial amounts of banned asbestos have triggered claims that classification societies have failed to police the industry. Critics say they have been lax and accuse them of wrongly issuing safety certificates.

A major asbestos ban was introduced for ship installations in 2002 and a total ban at the beginning of last year. But it is acknowledged that a large-scale problem persists and the International Association of Classification Societies (IACS) has now submitted a paper to the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) focussing on a “unified interpretation” of the regulations, seeking to clarify especially where responsibility lies.

It has sparked, however, a scathing criticism by a well-known figure in the ship-recycling industry where asbestos in end-of-life vessels continues to be of major concern.

Henning Gramann, managing director of Green Ship Recycling (GSR) Services and a former ship recycling boss at Germanischer Lloyd, has accused classification societies for many years of wrongly issuing Safety of Life at Sea (Solas) certificates for ships containing asbestos.

Gramann says he has come across numerous cases of asbestos while surveying vessels for inventories of hazardous materials (IHMs), a requirement of the still to-be ratified Hong Kong Convention for the Safe and Environmentally Sound recycling of Ships. Classification societies, he claims, have been lax in accepting asbestos-free certificates or statements from shipyards for equipment installations without checking their accuracy.

Surveyors have not been properly trained, it is alleged, to identify asbestos and where it is most likely to be found. “And of course, these declarations from the shipyards are useless if they have not fully controlled the incoming materials themselves and that their suppliers don’t have a fully-controlled supply chain,” said Gramann.

The IACS paper goes before the IMO’s sub-committee on ship design and equipment, which meets next week.

In July 2002, the IMO’s Maritime Safety Committee (MSC) banned under Solas the installation of asbestos on newbuildings and existing ships, with a few exceptions. A total ban was introduced on 1 January 2011.

Gramann claims IACS members want to start taking positive action only a decade after the Solas ban became effective and for which the issuing of Solas certificates had earned them a lot of money.

If the IACS’s paper on how to  implement the Solas ban is accepted, it will legitimise the past failings of classification societies and prevent shipowners from seeking compensation once they discover asbestos exists on board, argues Gramann.

In the meantime, he says, owners risk being caught by surveys, already being carried out in Australia and the Netherlands, targetting asbestos on ships.

Gramann notes that since 1 December 2011, owners can only place a vessel under the Dutch flag after undergoing an asbestos survey or commissioning an IHM in accordance with the new Hong Kong recycling convention.

The extent that the Solas ban has been flouted, says Gramman, is illustrated by figures from a colleague handling asbestos surveys on ships entering Australia.

It is claimed that of 140 vessels he had inspected, asbestos was discovered on 114. The checks covered ships delivered by yards since 1 January 2003, which meant they all fell under the Solas convention.

Often, says Gramann, asbestos is discovered in flange gaskets, coatings, pipe insulation and in accommodation areas.

The issue has been simmering below the surface for some time. A letter from former IMO secretarygeneral Efthimios Mitropoulos in December 2010 to IACS noted that despite being prohibited, the IMO knew of several contraventions.

It added that some ships considered to be asbestos-free now appeared to have materials containing the substance because of repairs at shipyards and/or purchasing spare parts.

“This may pose serious risks to the health of crew members, ship surveyors and inspectors and persons working in shipbuilding, repairing and recycling yard facilities,” said the Mitropoulos letter.

The same month, the MSC issued a circular to raise awareness in which it warned that asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) were still being found in such places as fire blankets, joint and insulation materials, some sealants and friction material for brakes, as well as wall and ceiling coverings.

It stressed the importance of training surveyors and inspectors in detecting asbestos and ACMs on board ships.

When asbestos is detected on board in contravention of Solas, it must be removed by professionals within three years. “This is at the cost of the shipowner,” said Gramann, who argues that in some instances, following a risk assessment, it may be safer to leave the asbestos in situ rather than disturb it.

‘Robust verification process’ needed to stamp out menace

Paul Sadler, International Association of Classification Societies (IACS) permanent representative to the International Maritime Organisation(IMO), says IACS is concerned at the emphasis being placed on classification societies and recognised organisations (ROs) to discover asbestos once it is on board ships.

A better way of dealing with the problem is to ensure that when equipment is ordered a “robust verification process” is in place, he says. The issue was currently being tackled from the “wrong end”.

Sadler says the thrust of IACS’s paper to next week’s sub-committee on ship design and equipment is how such verification should be achieved.

“We believe, as far as possible, that the emphasis should be on getting asbestos-free declarations and supporting documentation at the time equipment is supplied to the shipyard or repair yard,” he said.

Added Sadler: “We think the original wording of the MSC (Maritime Safety Committee) circular didn’t necessarily hit the right emphasis. We have a reasonable duty to address the issue but you have to realise the physical limitations of visual examination to detect this stuff.”

He says it was evidence produced by the Netherlands that alerted the IMO to the fact that asbestos prohibition was not being achieved as intended. The Netherlands found that ships were still being built with significant amounts of asbestos on board.

Sadler says he does not know on what Henning Gramann of Green Ship Recycling (GSR) Services bases his claim that IACS is now seeking to legitimise what has happened over the past 10 years since asbestos was banned from most areas of a ship.

“We want to bring to people’s attention that it isn’t all down to the guy trying to find it once it is on board,” said Sadler. “There is no magic bullet like putting a magnet to it to find out whether it is metallic or non-metallic.”

The only answer would be to send every piece of material installed on a ship to a laboratory for testing but this was not practical.

“I think it is getting the balance right of who is responsible,” said Sadler. “We don’t want to say to the suppliers and shipyards ‘don’t worry, it will be found if it gets on board’.”

The responsibility of class societies going forward requires further discussion, he says. It is clear what the policymakers want but more consideration is needed on how to deliver.

Broadcast on 23 January 2012
Director: Res Gehriger
Abstract: Like so many other shipping companies, Geneva-based MSC (Mediterranean Shipping Company) scrapped its vessels on the beach at Alang in India. Environmental organizations heavily criticize this practice, which endangers workers and pollutes the environment. Last week, “ECO” reported the case of the ship MSC Chitra, which MSC along with remnants of the dangerous cargo sank in the sea.

(The video is in German)

19 January 2012

La coalition Shipbreaking Platform, qui regroupe des ONG combattant le démantèlement des vieux navires dans des conditions humaines et environnementales déplorables, a publié la liste des compagnies européennes qui ont envoyé en 2011 des navires en fin de vie « sur les plages de démantèlement tristement célèbres d’Asie du Sud ». Un exercice que la coalition effectue tous les ans afin de sensibiliser aux conditions environnementales et de travail qui entourent cette pratique. La liste 2011 de la coalition contient 20 pays européens dont sont originaires les compagnies qui ont vendu des bateaux en fin de vie à des chantiers de démantèlement du sud de l’Asie (Inde, Pakistan, Bangladesh) : la Grèce (100 bateaux), la Norvège (24 bateaux), le Royaume-Uni (13 bateaux), les Pays-Bas (12 bateaux), l’Allemagne (11 bateaux), l’Italie (9 bateaux), Chypre et la Suisse (5 bateaux), la Bulgarie, le Danemark et la Roumanie (4 bateaux), la Lettonie, la Lituanie, la Pologne, l’Espagne et la Suède (3 bateaux), la Belgique, la Finlande, l’Irlande et la Slovénie (1 bateau).

« La vaste majorité des compagnies maritimes européennes continue à éviter le coût d’un démantèlement propre en vendant leurs bateaux à des chantiers d’Asie du Sud connus pour leur manque de respect des règles environnementales et du travail, exposant quelques-unes des communautés les plus pauvres à des conditions de travail dangereuses et à une sévère pollution », dénonce la coalition. Qui pointe aussi le recours très fréquent aux pavillons de complaisance – Panama, Libéria, Bahamas en tête – auxquels ont recours les armateurs pour échapper aux taxes, règles de sécurité et autres exigences sociales concernant leurs équipages.

La coalition demande à la Commission européenne d’agir pour mettre fin au vaste transfert de déchets toxiques qui s’opèrent ainsi chaque année entre l’UE et les pays en voie de développement. La Commission l’a elle-même reconnu lors de la publication, en 2008, d’une « Stratégie de l’UE pour l’amélioration des pratiques de démantèlement des navires » (Com(2008) 767) : chaque année, entre 400 000 et 1,3 million de tonnes de produits toxiques contenus dans les bateaux en fin de vie sont exportés de l’UE vers l’Asie du Sud. Et la législation relative au transfert de déchets (Règlement 1013/2003), qui interdit les exportations de déchets dangereux depuis l’UE à destination des pays non membres de l’OCDE, est mal appliquée dans ce cas-ci. « Etant donné que la quasi-totalité des navires contiennent des quantités considérables de substances dangereuses, comme des huiles, des boues d’hydrocarbures, de l’amiante, de la laine de verre, des PCB, du TBT et des métaux lourds contenus dans les peintures, ceux qui partent à la démolition doivent être considérés comme des déchets dangereux », disait pourtant la Commission en 2008. Laquelle devrait présenter, au cours de ce semestre, des propositions visant à s’assurer une meilleure application de la loi.

Twelve old ships whose last owners were Dutch companies ended up in India in 2011, according to the NGO Shipbreaking Platform, a coalition of international human rights and environmental organisations.

The group campaigns for the sustainable scrapping of end-of-life ships. It has released a list of the ‘top ten’ EU member states, where companies are guilty of selling old ships to be gutted on the beaches of southeast Asia.

Toxic waste

After about 30 years, a ship is no longer of use as a sea-going vessel and is sold for scrap, which includes the steel making up much of its structure. Each year around 800 old ships are scrapped, many of them on the beaches of India, Bangladesh and Pakistan.

Shipbreaking Platform complains that international regulations for the safe disposal of the toxic waste left by the process- this includes asbestos, oil and heavy metals – are rarely complied with in these countries. Wages are low and the work is often hazardous, with injury and even death among workers a regular occurrence. Local environmental damage is also considerable, according to the group.

It is pushing for the Netherlands and the European Commission to improve compliance with the international regulations. Shipbreaking Platform says alternatives do exist and that the sustainable scrapping of ships takes place in many parts of the world, for instance in China.

Abstract

“List of European ships broken in South Asia in 2011. The list was created by the NGO Shipbreaking Platform staff using shipping and shipbrokering data. Ships may be missing based on the fact that data are sometimes provided by industry on a voluntary basis.”

The NGO Shipbreaking Platform calls on the EU Commission to act
and prevent toxic waste trade of European end-of-life ships

Brussels, 16 January 2012 – The NGO Shipbreaking Platform, a coalition of human rights, labour rights and environmental organisations working on the shipbreaking issue, has released its third yearly list of European companies that have sent end-of-life ships to the infamous scrap beaches of South Asia. The European Waste Shipment Regulation – which incorporates international law such as the 1989 Basel Convention on the control of transboundary movements of hazardous wastes – prohibits European Union Member States from exporting hazardous wastes, including those present in the structure of ships to developing countries. Still, the vast majority of European shipping companies continue to avoid the costs of proper disposal by selling their ships to South Asian breaking yards known for the lack of enforcement of environmental and labour laws, exposing some of the poorest communities to extremely dangerous working conditions and severe pollution.

The top 10 European “global dumpers” in 2011 are [1]:

Once more, the listing of European dumpers also highlights the problem of “flags of convenience” (FOC). Unscrupulous ship-owners have long used FOCs to evade tax rules, licence regulations, safety standards and social requirements for the treatment of crew. Backed by shell companies, joint-ventures and hidden owners, FOCs are also considerable constraints to combating illegal toxic waste dumping as they make it extremely difficult to locate and penalise the real owners of vessels. In 2011, the top five flags used by European companies were so-called “flags of convenience” as listed by the International Transport Workers Federation, and accounted for 64% of the total (almost two thirds) of flags. These are:

1. Panama(55 times)
2. Liberia(33 times)
3. Bahamas, St Kitts-Nevis (12 times each)
4. Comoros(11 times)
5. Marshall Islands, St Vincent & Grenadines (7 times each)

Pollution and deaths caused by obsolete European ships

Each year, approximately 800 ocean ships reach the end of their service life and are broken down to recover steel.  Yet only a fraction is handled in a safe, sustainable manner.  About 80% of all end-of-life ships are simply run ashore on tidal beaches in developing countries such as Bangladesh, India  and Pakistan, where unscrupulous shipbreaking companies exploit minimal enforcement of environmental and safety rules to maximize profits.

On the beaches of South Asia, poor and unskilled migrant workers are deployed by the thousands to break down the ships manually, which are often full of toxics such as asbestos, lead, PCBs and heavy metals.  Little care is given to worker safety or protection of the environment.  The toxics sicken the workers and ravage coastal ecosystems.  The muddy sand and shifting grounds of tidal beaches cannot support heavy lifting equipment or safety gear, therefore accidents maim or kill hundreds of workers each year.

The statistics are alarming. The European Commission estimates that 40,000 to 1.3 million tonnes toxics (including 3,000 tonnes of asbestos) on board end-of-life vessels are exported each year to South Asia from the EU alone [2]. In Bangladesh, children under 15 years of age count for 20% of the workforce [3].  There and elsewhere, the total death toll runs into the thousands [4]. Also, miles of protected mangrove trees, essential to ecosystem health and protection from monsoons, are being cut to make way for ships.  This and the accompanying poisons from shipbreaking have killed or devastated dozens of aquatic species, destroying also the livelihoods of surrounding fishing communities.

The European Commission needs to take action

In March 2012, the European Commission is expected to release proposals for better enforcement of laws related to shipbreaking. Since the Commission first announced in 2006 that it would be working on this issue, publishing also a “Strategy for better ship dismantling” in 2008, no improvement has been made to the current state of play.

The NGO Shipbreaking Platform and its coalition members, including organisations based in the largest shipbreaking countries (India, Bangladesh and Pakistan), will continue to actively advocate for a European policy that gives promise of effectively reversing the current trend where end-of-life ships constitute one of the largest streams of toxic waste dumped by European companies in developing countries. More than 100 non-governmental organisations around the world; the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Toxics; and the European Parliament have voiced their support to the Platform’s human rights and environmental objectives to end the dangerous and polluting practice of breaking ships on tidal beaches.

Forceful and sustained action at the European level is especially urgent because the global phase-out of single hulled oil tankers and the current backlog of old vessels still in operation mean that the number of retired ships that are sent for breaking is reaching an all-time high. The NGO Shipbreaking Platform’s 2011 list shows more than 200 European ships were sent for breaking on the beaches of South Asia last year.

Contact :

Delphine Reuter
Communication and Research Assistant
NGO Shipbreaking Platform
delphine@shipbreakingplatform.org
+32 (0) 2 609 44 19

Notes on the list:

The European origin of the ships is determined either by their use of a European/EFTA flag (Iceland, Norway, Switzerland, and Liechtenstein) 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 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 Chittagongin 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. Also, as we only compile ships that were declared “dead” in 2011, some ships that were sold but not yet broken in 2011 may not be on this list. For example, the ferries of French company SeaFrance, the Cézanne and the Renoir, are currently being broken down and therefore cannot yet be counted as “dead” in 2011.

The list was compiled using Lloyd’s List, Intermodal, Robin des Bois, Equasis, and other relevant sources.

2011 TOP EUROPEAN COMPANIES

THAT DUMP THEIR VESSELS ON SOUTH ASIAN BEACHES

Probo Koala

Other names: Probo Baoning (1986-1999), Gulf Jash (2006-2011), Hua Feng
(2011-)
IMO: 8309816
Flag: Panama
Current position: China
Built: 1986

The Probo Koala was at the centre of a waste scandal in 2006. That year, the ship was used by the company Trafigura to perform dangerous handling of highly hazzardous substances onboard. The waste was later disposed of in Abidjan, capital of the Ivory Coast, causing the death of at least 16 people according to Ivorian authorities. Today thanks to successful campaigning by Platform member organisations BELA and LIFE, the ship was prevented from entering Bangladeshi and Indian waters. It is now sailing in Chinese waters.

>> Read our press release

The history of the Probo Koala

Clik on the icons below to follow the ship from her arrival in Abidjan in 2006 to her solitary course in the Chinese waters today.