Although ship-breaking plots in Lakri Bunder, on Mumbai's eastern coast remains off the radar of media, occupational and environmental health crisis remains unattended.
There have been 10 accidents at the Darukhana ship-breaking yards, resulting eight injuries and five deaths since April 1, 2010.
It has come to light that three workers were killed and six more grievously injured when a petrol-related fire broke out during ship-breaking at Powder Works Bunder in February, 2011.
Fire-related accidents and work-related injuries are a common reality for these workers. ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA) demands that the Inter-Ministerial Committee (IMC) on shipbreaking led by S. Machendranathan must take note of ccupational and environmental health crisis at Mumbai and Alang to set matters rights. So far IMC's work has been far from satisfactory. It has not submitted any action taken report to Supreme Court.
02/06/2011
GMB, Customs Admit Inability to Verify Fake Documents of Ship Owners
Note: Relieable sources have revealed that Gulf Jash, ex- Probo Koala, is anchored in Halong Bay, Vietnam. An anonymous source has claimed that "the cashbuyer will try to beach the vessel no matter what the government or environmental agencies think. Please note sir, that the timing is important. With the monsoon about to hit the breaking yards the Gujarat Maritime Board issues a precautionary warning to all vessels waiting to take shelter or take necessary action to avoid collision. Taking this opportunity GMS is going to deliberately ground the vessel close to the breaking yards. Then the issue becomes of wreck removal rather than braking, thus making it all legal." It merits further verification but this gives a sense of deja vu. This what happened in the case of dead European vessel SS Blue Lady (ex SS Norway, SS France) and in the case of dead US vessel Platinum II (ex-MV Oceanic, SS Independence). In the case of US toxic ship, Environment Ministry's Office Memorandum (9th November, 2009) with the explicit sanction of the Union Environment Minister has been outwitted by GMB and DG Shipping, Ministry of Shipping because of the blessings of a senior Congressmen. Will the Ministry order a probe into what happened to Platinum II and its fake documents?
As per PTI release Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh sought a "factual report" from Gujarat Government following reports that a toxic-laden ship is headed towards the state's shores for dismantling after being denied entry in Bangladesh. "Yes, I have asked the state Government for a factual report," he told PTI when asked about reports that the ship is headed for Alang Ship Breaking Yard in Gujarat after being banned in Bangladesh. The Ministry reacted in a similar manner in the case of Platinum II but did not take its findings to its logical conclusion because Platinum II (ex-MV Oceanic, SS Independence) remains in Indian waters revealing the structural weakness of the Environment Ministry. Therefore, its response does not inspire confidence. Will the Ministry ever act to combat the menace of fake documents or will choose to be outwitted once again? Is the Ministry aware that most of the 120 ships currently on Alang beach have entered Indian waters on fake documents?
Gopal Krishna
ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA)
Press Release
GMB, Customs Admit their Inability to Verify Fake Documents of Ship Owners
TWA Demands that documents of Dead Ships Currently on Alang Beach be Probed
Its Official, Supreme Court’s Order on Shipbreaking Violated
New Delhi, 2/6/2011: In an Office Memorandum No.29-3/2009-HSMD, Government of India, Ministry of Environment & Forests, (HSM Division) dated 9th May, 2011 relating to implementation of Supreme Court directions in respect of ship breaking activities, it has been admitted that the issue regarding the submission of fake certificates by the ship owners/agents remains unresolved. The Memorandum is attached.
Consequently, the identity of ship owners like those of Gulf Jash, an end-of-life European vessel remains hidden behind corporate veils. In the matter of toxic US ship Platinum II (Ex-SS Independence, MV Oceanic), ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA) had provided documentary evidence of fake documents to the Environment Ministry which was referred to the Ministry of Steel. It wrote a letter to Shri S. Machendranathan Chiarman, Inter-Ministerial Committee (IMC) on shipbreaking (constituted by Supreme Court’s 14th October, 2003 order) drawing his attention to non-compliance with the Court’s order and the issue of the hazardous and dead European vessel on 1st June, 2011 (the letter is given below). The copies of the letter have been sent to the Union Ministers of Environment and Shipping and other senior officials.
It has come to light from the Office Memorandum dated May 2011 that Ministry of Environment & Forests (MoEF)’s Standing Monitoring Committee (SMC) on Shipbreaking has suggested that since Gujarat Maritime Board (GMB) and Customs were not able to verify the authenticity/genuineness of ship’s registry/flag in the fast in respect of some ships referred to them, this task in respect of each ship may be referred to the Directorate General Shipping, Ministry of Shipping ought to undertake such verification henceforth. The GMB officials informed MoEF that “the suggestion of the committee is acceptable to them subject to such verification by DG Shipping is done within a period of 2 working days. If no information is received from the DG Shipping within 2 working days, it will be presumed that the certificate submitted is authentic and genuine.” TWA disapproves of such presumption of genuineness of fabricated documents. It demands that documents of some 120 dead ships currently on Alang Beach, Bhavnagar, Gujarat must be investigated.
The Committee observed that “at present there is no single point access to the yards and therefore, hazardous waste is being illegally dumped at various places. It was suggested to have a single point access to the yards in order stop such illegal dumping activity.”
It has come to light from the report of the site visit of the committee that they visited the existing Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage & Disposal Facility (TSDF) site and it was observed that the existing cell is almost full. TWA has confirmed it from the sources in the ship breaking industry that the TSDF is full. The report of the site visit by SMC is attached.
Before it was filled up Gujarat Enviro Protection and Infrastructure Ltd (GEPIL), Alang Unit has been operating and maintaining Common Hazardous waste TSDF on behalf of GMB, since October’ 2005.The site was constructed and developed by GMB. GEPIL was awarded this TSDF for Operation and Maintenance through competitive Bidding Process in September’ 2005. Its total Notified Area is 7 hectares. The site is situated at Alang Ship breaking yard. It is designed to collect, transport, Receipt, Store, treat and dispose off wide range of hazardous waste. GEPIL (Alang Unit) is also associated with Sweeping, collection, transportation, treatment and disposal of Municipal wastes generated during the ship breaking activities. GEPIL (Unit Alang) has been providing its services to more than 80 industries of region. The facility receives wastes from Ship breaking and Ship recycling industrial sectors. In its myopia GMB has suggested that “they may raise the height of the embankment of the cell and compress the existing material to enhance its capacity within designed parameters. This work needs to be taken up on urgent basis to ensure that this facility is available to shipbreakers at the existing site at least for another one year.”
TWA disapproves of creation such facilities for hazardous wastes that originated in developed countries. The million dollar question is that even if this is done what happens after one year and the year thereafter. Will Bhavnagar become a Hazardous Waste TSDF capital for the ship owning companies and countries in order to appear vibrant to the developed world?
Given the emergency situation that has emerged for the GMB, the SMC informed to the stakeholders that without the TSDF facility the shipbreaking activities should not be allowed by the GPCB as per the Supreme Court directions. It is evident to TWA that the shipbreaking activity that is currently in operation is happening in the absence of TSDF, thus, in clear violation of the Court’s directions.
SMC has recommended that “ship breaking yard shall not commence breaking of the ship till such time proper decontamination certificate is issued by GPCB after thorough inspection.” This recommendation does not take cognizance of Hon'ble Court's order that reads, "(16) At the international level, India should participate in international meetings on ship-breaking at the level of the International Maritime Organisation and the Basel Convention's Technical Working Group with a clear mandate for the decontamination of ships of their hazardous sub-stances such as asbestos, waste oil, gas and PCBs, prior to export to India for breaking." One of the fourteen Terms of Reference on which the High Powered Committee was to give its report and recommendations "Decontamination of ships before they are exported to India for breaking.” The apex court's order endorsed Basel Convention. (Order is attached).
SMC has suggested that monitoring of asbestos in ambient air at shipbreaking yards on Alang beach “shall be commissioned by GMB for carrying out the same by a reputed institute like NIOH, as a one time study.” TWA has been demanding that asbestos cannot be handled safely or in a controlled manner. Therefore, International Labour Organisation’s resolution of June 2006 and World Health Organisation’s resolution of 2005 seek elimination of future use of asbestos. Indian workers in general and migrant workers of Alang should not be made to handle asbestos under any situation.
TWA demands that Gujarat Pollution Board (GPCB) should make the study for sea water and sediment analysis public so that the extent of pollution at Alang beach can be comprehended.
Standing Monitoring Committee (SMC) on Shipbreaking comprises of (1) Dr. M. Subba Rao, Director, MoEF, (2) Shri B. R. Naidu, Scientist-D and Zonal Officer, CPCB, Vadodara (3) Shri B. D. Ghosh, Addl. Industrial Adviser, Ministry of Steel, (4) Capt. J. S. Uppal, Principal Officer, Mercantile Marine Department, DG Shipping, (5) Dr. S. R. Tripathi, Asstt. Director, NIOH, and (6) Dr. R. R. Tiwari, Scientist-C, NIOH. SMC visited the Ship Breaking Yards on Alang beach on 24th January, 2011.
TWA demands that the funds collected by GMB and Steel Ministry’s Ferrous Scrap Committee (FSC) must be used for remediation and decontamination of Alang beach and for workers and villagers’ environmental and occupational health rights.
For Details: Gopal Krishna, ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA), Mb: 9818089660, E-mail: krishna2777@gmail.com, Blog: imowatch.blogspot.com, Web: www.toxicswatch.com
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Gopal Krishna
Date: Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 7:23 PM
Subject: Non-compliance of Supreme Court Order on Ship Breaking
To: asfasteel@nic.in
Cc: jairam54, gkvasan@sasnsad.nic.in,
t.chatterjee@nic.in, secy-shipping@nic.in, m.mehrishi@nic.in,
jp.shukla@nic.in, Rajiv Gauba, sarojmoef <
sarojmoef@yahoo.com>, pknag@nioh.org, pranabnag@yahoo.com, nioh@nioh.org,
aasharma_env@yahoo.com, eembvr-gmb@gujarat.gov.in,
eemdbvr-gmb@gujarat.gov.in, ms-gpcb@gujarat.gov.in, gpcb-bav@gujarat.gov.in,
cusdiv-bvr@nic.in, commi-labour@gujarat.gov.in, sbagnihotri@dgshipping.com,
jasjeetsuppal@vsnl.net, mmdkandla_1@dataone.in, barun.deb@nic.in,
fasli@dgfasli.nic.in, bvbabu.cpcb@nic.in, tripathinioh@yahoo.co.in,
srtripathi@nioh.org, Claude Alvares, Sanjay Parikh
To
Shri S. Machendranathan
Chiarman
Inter-Ministerial Committee (IMC) on shipbreaking
Union Ministry of Steel
Government of India
New Delhi
Subject-Non-compliance of Supreme Court Order on Ship Breaking
Sir,
With reference to news reports in The Times of India and Hindustan Times
dated 1st June, 2011 in the matter of European toxic ship Gulf Jash
(ex-Probo Koala), the letter dated 9th may, 2011 sent to your ministry
by Hazardous Substances Management Division, Ministry of Environment &
Forests and pursuant to my earlier letters to IMC on shipbreaking, I wish to
draw your attention towards the formation of a Standing Monitoring Committee
on Shipbreaking by the Environment Ministry to monitor/review compliance to
the recommendations of the Committee of Technical Experts (CTE) and the
Hon’ble Supreme Court directions dated 6.9.2007 on ship breaking activities
in the country.
It appears that Standing Monitoring Committee on Shipbreaking is
duplicating the work being done by Hon'ble Supreme Court
constituted Inter-Ministerial Committee (IMC) on shipbreaking by it order
dated 14th October, 2003. While I appreciate that IMC has ensured that the
minutes of its meeting are uploaded on Steel Ministry's website, I am quite
eager read the minutes of the last meeting of IMC that was held in early
2011 as I wish to make submission prior to the next meeting of IMC on 8th
July, 2011. I must submit that since its formation till date IMC has not
submitted its Action Taken Report to the Hon'ble Court. It is about time it
did so.
I have also learnt that the Standing Monitoring Committee visited Alang
Shipbreaking Yards on 24th January, 2011 and held meetings to review the
present status of compliance to the recommendations of the CTE and the
directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
I am attaching the letter dated 9th may, 2011 and the Standing Monitoring
Committee's site visit report for your perusal and consideration. From the
report of the Standing Monitoring Committee on Shipbreaking, it is clear
that Hon'ble Court order has not been complied with.
I wish to draw your attention towards one very core aspect of the Hon'ble
Court's order that reads, "(16) At the international level, India should
participate in international meetings on ship-breaking at the level of the
International Maritime Organisation and the Basel Convention's Technical
Working Group with a clear mandate for the decontamination of ships of their
hazardous sub-stances such as asbestos, waste oil, gas and PCBs, prior to
export to India for breaking." One of the fourteen Terms of Reference on
which the High Powered Committee was to give its report and recommendations
"Decontamination of ships before they are exported to India for breaking.”
The apex court's order endorsed Basel Convention. (Order is attached). I am
also attaching a UN report that refers to the situation at Alang beach and
Basel Convention's Guidelines for Dismantling of Ships.
I submit that IMC should seek compliance with Hon'ble Supreme Court’s order
that endorsed UN’s Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary
Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal from the Ministries of
Environment & Forests, Shipping and Steel and Gujarat Maritime Board.
In the specific case of 182 meter long hazardous vessel Gulf Jash (ex-Probo
Koala) which is reported to be on the way to Indian waters, IMC must
recommend refusal of entry to this vessel that is laden with hazardous
asbestos, PCBs, toxic paints, fuel and chemical residues and it has been
established that it has not been pre-cleaned. The list of hazardous
substances is attached. The ship’s IMO number is 8309816. The picture of the
ship is attached. The ship currently has the flag of Panama. As of 14 May,
2011, the vessel was in Indian Ocean. It last port was Abu Dhabi. Probo
Koala was renamed in Gulf Jash in 2007.
I wish to inform that TWA has learnt from officials in Alang that Indian
Coast Guards and Indian Navy would be the first to know about its possible
entry in Indian waters.
It is apprehended that Global Marketing Systems (GMS), a US company
specialised in the brokering of vessels for demolition has bought the ship.
It is hiding its final destination. It is noteworthy that earlier the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) took legal action against Global
Marketing Services (GMS) and sister company Global Shipping LLC (GSL), both
companies set up by the famous ship-breaking cash buyer Mr. Anil Sharma, for
exporting the ship from in violation of the U.S. Toxic Substances Control
Act (TSCA) in past in the matter of Platinum II (ex-SS Oceanic, SS
Independence). This US based Cash-Buyer, GMS is trying to deviate the vessel
towards Alang beach, India or Gadani beach, Pakistan. GMS is owned by a US
citizen of Indian origin. The ownership history is attached.
I submit that prior to this In July 2010, Trafigura, an Amsterdam,
Netherlands based transnational company founded in 1993 was found guilty of
illegal export of waste from an EU country to states in Africa, Carribean
and Pacific. It attempted to deliver goods from onboard the Gulf Jash
(ex-Probo Koala) to the Amsterdam port reception facility while concealing
their hazardous nature. The court stated that Trafigura knew the waste was
toxic and chose to dispose of it at a cheap price. The company was fined 1
million euros but appealed the decision. In 2006, the company Trafigura used
the Gulf Jash (ex-Probo Koala) to illegally dump 528 tonnes of toxic waste
in Abidjan, the largest city of the Ivory Coast, causing the death of 16
people.
Its registered owner in 2006 was "Celtic Legend Shipping Inc." of Norway.
Later, the "beneficial owner" (and manager and operator) is Prime Marine
Management, of Athens, Greece. The Probo Koala was chartered by Trafigura
LTD, a subsidiary of the NL trading company Trafigura Beheer BV (the parent
company of the 55 trading companies operated by Trafigura). Probo Koala's
agent in Abidjan was WAIB-CL, and there was an intermediate company, between
Trafigura LTD and WAIB-CL, called "Societe Tommy". Tommy was the entity that
actually "disposed" of the hundreds of metric tonnes of toxic waste
throughout and around the city of Abidjan. The role of Puma Energy (100%
owned by Trafigura based in Amstelveen, NL and controlled from Trafigura's
Lucerne, Switzerland offices) remains unclear, as does its association with
the company, "Tommy" and WAIB-CL, though the Ivorian authorities had
arrested those directing each of WAIB-CL, Tommy and Puma Energy. Puma Energy
had a local office in Abidjan, Cote d'Ivoire. On July 2, 2006 the Probo
Koala was in Amsterdam where the chartering company of the ship, Trafigura,
declined paying higher costs to offload and treat waste that it claimed were
residues from routine tank washing operations.
As you are aware that it is a matter if fact that “The multiplicity of
private structures intervening in trade and maritime transport (flag, owner,
ship owner, charterer, manager, consignee, emptier, etc) and the vagueness
presiding voluntarily or involuntarily in the allocation of roles and
responsibilities meant that a huge amount of time was wasted in
investigations. Nowadays, maritime activity is increasingly an activity
where opacity in actions remains significant, in particular in the high
seas, outside the territorial waters of each State.” (Report of Committee on
Toxic Waste in Abidjan, Ivory Coast Attached).
It is noteworthy that Dutch authorities had allowed the ship to sail
unimpeded. Under the Basel Convention the responsibility for the dumping of
wastes should be tied to the generator of the hazardous wastes; the exporter
of the wastes (charterer Trafigura) or to the country of export. Under EU
law, exports of hazardous wastes from the EU to non-OECD countries are
strictly prohibited.
I submit that European Commission must engage the European Union law
enforcement organisation EUROPOL to coordinate member states' activities in
order to prevent the ship, its captain, owners and operators escaping
prosecution. EUROPOL is the European Law Enforcement Organisation which
exists to improve the effectiveness and co-operation of the competent
authorities in the Member States in preventing and combating terrorism and
other serious forms of international organised crime. This vessel must be
denied entry. European Commission must recall this vessel to Europe in
compliance with the October 2006 European Parliament Resolution.
I submit that Indian environmental borders have been compromised with
enormous amounts of hazardous wastes and ships waste moving inside our
borders to exploit cost externalization possibilities and in the process
exploit fragile coastal environment of Alang beach in Bhavnagar, Gujarat.
I wish to draw your attention towards the hazardous wastes/shipbreaking
matter that came up for hearing in the Supreme Court on May 25, 2011. The
vacation bench of Justice G S Singhvi and Justice Chandramauli Kr Prasad
observed, "Why don't they break these ships in their own countries," Justice
Singhvi asked, adding "If there is a threat to environment, then this court
will intervene". This observations of the bench are quite welcome.
I submit that TWA will apprise the court and pray for its intervention if
the Ministries of Environment & Forests, Shipping and Steel do not stop the
entry of this end-of life vessel laden with hazardous wastes and toxic
materials. The next date of hearing in the Supreme Court is on 5th July,
2011.
I submit that any vessel that has been rejected by a neighbouring country
must be rejected in India well. The vessel’s entry has been banned in
Bangladesh in May 2011. This vessel cannot be allowed entry because India is
a party to the UN treaty on hazardous wastes and the tenth meeting of the
Conference of the Parties to the Basel Convention will be held at Cartagena
de Indias, Colombia from 17 -21 October 2011.
The Convention was initiated in response to numerous international scandals
regarding hazardous waste trafficking that began to occur in the late 1980s.
The Convention entered into force on 5 May 1992 with its Secretariat in
Geneva, Switzerland. It is eminently clear that the Basel Ban is needed now
more than at any point since the Convention was adopted. In the Third
Conference of the Parties to the Basel Convention (COP3) in September 1995
made an amendment to include the request of the G-77 countries including
India for the total ban on all exports of hazardous wastes from Organization
of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries to non-OECD
countries that was passed by consensus and came to be known as the Basel Ban
Amendment.
TWA has been warning concerned authorities to abandon the Free Trade
Agreements (FTAs) with countries like EU and Japan who have been promoting
hazardous wastes trade along with countries such as US, Germany, and the UK
by indulging in linguistic corruption.
The Basel Ban amendment effectively banned as of 1 January 1998, all forms
of hazardous waste exports from the 29 wealthiest most industrialized
countries of the (OECD to all non-OECD countries. In order for the Ban
amendment to enter the force of law it will need to be ratified by 62 of the
Basel Parties. The Basel Ban has been ratified by 70 countries (Parties to
the Convention). For entry into force of the Ban Amendment, only the
official deposits equalling 63 of the 62 are needed (representing 3/4ths of
the 82 Parties present at COP3). India must ratify it to safe guard its
environment for the sake of intergeneration equity instead of pursuing the
path of FTAs with countries EU and Japan or International Maritime
Organisation (IMO)’s ship recycling convention which is anti- environment,
anti-worker and anti-human rights.
In such a backdrop, Supreme Court’s observations of May 2011 are reminiscent
of what the head of the Indian delegation, said at the first Conference of
the Parties (COP 1) to the Basel Convention in 1992, in Uruguay. Requesting
industrialized countries to refrain from exporting hazardous wastes to
developing countries, he said, "You industrialized countries have been
asking us to do many things for the global good – to stop cutting down our
forests, to stop using your CFC’s – now we are asking you to do something
for the global good – keep your own waste." India should revive its
exemplary position on the matter of waste trade and take the ship-breaking
activity off the Alang beach, which at present appears to have been
outsourced for ship owning countries and companies to contaminate the
coastal environment for ever ridiculing Coastal Regulation Zone.
I submit that in the 58 page Draft Code on Regulations for Safe and
Environmentally Sound Ship Recycling, having studied the Draft it is matter
of relief that Ministry of Steel is making sincere efforts to comply with
the Supreme Court order of 14th October, 2003 and 6th September 2007 to
protect the fragile coastal environment of Alang Beach. In Chapter 3 of the
Code at Section 3.1.2 there is mention of "dry dock" method for ship
recycling among others. And in Chapter 6 of the Code at Section 6.6.1 (a)
there is reference to Coastal Regulation Zone-1991 which has decreed the
following regulation on 19th February 1991 under the reference Coastal
Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification, “For regulating development activities,
the coastal stretches within 500 metres of the high tide line of the
landward side are classified into 4 categories. Paragraph 2 of the
Notification lists out the 'Prohibited activities and exceptions' The
activities declared as prohibited within the CRZ, namely, Para 2 (ii)
states, " manufacture, handling, storage or disposal of hazardous substances
as specified in the 'Notifications of the Government of India in the
Ministry of Environment and Forests' No. S.O. 594 (E) dated 28th July 1989,
S.O. 996 (E) dated 27th November 1989 and G.S.R. 1037 (E) dated 5th December
1989. Para 2 (v) states, “discharge of untreated wastes and effluents from
industries, cities towns and other human settlements." It is clearly that
there is a case for revisiting the conditional environmental clearance given
to the ship-breaking industrial activity on Alang beach, which is attracting
vessels like Gulf Jash (ex-Probo Koala).
In view of the above, I submit that besides stopping the entry of this
end-of-life hazardous vessel in Indian waters, it would be apt for the
Indian authorities to verify the documents of some 120 ships which are
currently on the Alang beach and forewarn the Pakistani authorities about
the harmful ramifications of allowing such a ship in their territory well.
I will be glad share more information.
Thanking You
Yours faithfully
Gopal Krishna,
Convener
ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA)
New Delhi
Mb: 9818089660,
E-mail: toxicswatchalliance@gmail.com
Blog: imowatch.blogspot.com
Web: www.toxicswatch.com
Cc/
Union Minister of Environment & Forests
Union Minister of Shipping
Secretary, Ministry of Environment & Forests
Secretary, Ministry of Shipping
Additional Secretary, Ministry of Environment & Forests (HSMD)
Joint Secretary, Ministry of Environment & Forests (HSMD)
Joint Secretary, Ministry of Steel
Dr Saroj, Director, Ministry of Environment & Forests
Members of Standing Monitoring Committee on Shipbreaking
Dr Claude Alvares, Member, Supreme Court's Monitoring Committee (SCMC) on
Hazardous Wastes
As per PTI release Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh sought a "factual report" from Gujarat Government following reports that a toxic-laden ship is headed towards the state's shores for dismantling after being denied entry in Bangladesh. "Yes, I have asked the state Government for a factual report," he told PTI when asked about reports that the ship is headed for Alang Ship Breaking Yard in Gujarat after being banned in Bangladesh. The Ministry reacted in a similar manner in the case of Platinum II but did not take its findings to its logical conclusion because Platinum II (ex-MV Oceanic, SS Independence) remains in Indian waters revealing the structural weakness of the Environment Ministry. Therefore, its response does not inspire confidence. Will the Ministry ever act to combat the menace of fake documents or will choose to be outwitted once again? Is the Ministry aware that most of the 120 ships currently on Alang beach have entered Indian waters on fake documents?
Gopal Krishna
ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA)
Press Release
GMB, Customs Admit their Inability to Verify Fake Documents of Ship Owners
TWA Demands that documents of Dead Ships Currently on Alang Beach be Probed
Its Official, Supreme Court’s Order on Shipbreaking Violated
New Delhi, 2/6/2011: In an Office Memorandum No.29-3/2009-HSMD, Government of India, Ministry of Environment & Forests, (HSM Division) dated 9th May, 2011 relating to implementation of Supreme Court directions in respect of ship breaking activities, it has been admitted that the issue regarding the submission of fake certificates by the ship owners/agents remains unresolved. The Memorandum is attached.
Consequently, the identity of ship owners like those of Gulf Jash, an end-of-life European vessel remains hidden behind corporate veils. In the matter of toxic US ship Platinum II (Ex-SS Independence, MV Oceanic), ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA) had provided documentary evidence of fake documents to the Environment Ministry which was referred to the Ministry of Steel. It wrote a letter to Shri S. Machendranathan Chiarman, Inter-Ministerial Committee (IMC) on shipbreaking (constituted by Supreme Court’s 14th October, 2003 order) drawing his attention to non-compliance with the Court’s order and the issue of the hazardous and dead European vessel on 1st June, 2011 (the letter is given below). The copies of the letter have been sent to the Union Ministers of Environment and Shipping and other senior officials.
It has come to light from the Office Memorandum dated May 2011 that Ministry of Environment & Forests (MoEF)’s Standing Monitoring Committee (SMC) on Shipbreaking has suggested that since Gujarat Maritime Board (GMB) and Customs were not able to verify the authenticity/genuineness of ship’s registry/flag in the fast in respect of some ships referred to them, this task in respect of each ship may be referred to the Directorate General Shipping, Ministry of Shipping ought to undertake such verification henceforth. The GMB officials informed MoEF that “the suggestion of the committee is acceptable to them subject to such verification by DG Shipping is done within a period of 2 working days. If no information is received from the DG Shipping within 2 working days, it will be presumed that the certificate submitted is authentic and genuine.” TWA disapproves of such presumption of genuineness of fabricated documents. It demands that documents of some 120 dead ships currently on Alang Beach, Bhavnagar, Gujarat must be investigated.
The Committee observed that “at present there is no single point access to the yards and therefore, hazardous waste is being illegally dumped at various places. It was suggested to have a single point access to the yards in order stop such illegal dumping activity.”
It has come to light from the report of the site visit of the committee that they visited the existing Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage & Disposal Facility (TSDF) site and it was observed that the existing cell is almost full. TWA has confirmed it from the sources in the ship breaking industry that the TSDF is full. The report of the site visit by SMC is attached.
Before it was filled up Gujarat Enviro Protection and Infrastructure Ltd (GEPIL), Alang Unit has been operating and maintaining Common Hazardous waste TSDF on behalf of GMB, since October’ 2005.The site was constructed and developed by GMB. GEPIL was awarded this TSDF for Operation and Maintenance through competitive Bidding Process in September’ 2005. Its total Notified Area is 7 hectares. The site is situated at Alang Ship breaking yard. It is designed to collect, transport, Receipt, Store, treat and dispose off wide range of hazardous waste. GEPIL (Alang Unit) is also associated with Sweeping, collection, transportation, treatment and disposal of Municipal wastes generated during the ship breaking activities. GEPIL (Unit Alang) has been providing its services to more than 80 industries of region. The facility receives wastes from Ship breaking and Ship recycling industrial sectors. In its myopia GMB has suggested that “they may raise the height of the embankment of the cell and compress the existing material to enhance its capacity within designed parameters. This work needs to be taken up on urgent basis to ensure that this facility is available to shipbreakers at the existing site at least for another one year.”
TWA disapproves of creation such facilities for hazardous wastes that originated in developed countries. The million dollar question is that even if this is done what happens after one year and the year thereafter. Will Bhavnagar become a Hazardous Waste TSDF capital for the ship owning companies and countries in order to appear vibrant to the developed world?
Given the emergency situation that has emerged for the GMB, the SMC informed to the stakeholders that without the TSDF facility the shipbreaking activities should not be allowed by the GPCB as per the Supreme Court directions. It is evident to TWA that the shipbreaking activity that is currently in operation is happening in the absence of TSDF, thus, in clear violation of the Court’s directions.
SMC has recommended that “ship breaking yard shall not commence breaking of the ship till such time proper decontamination certificate is issued by GPCB after thorough inspection.” This recommendation does not take cognizance of Hon'ble Court's order that reads, "(16) At the international level, India should participate in international meetings on ship-breaking at the level of the International Maritime Organisation and the Basel Convention's Technical Working Group with a clear mandate for the decontamination of ships of their hazardous sub-stances such as asbestos, waste oil, gas and PCBs, prior to export to India for breaking." One of the fourteen Terms of Reference on which the High Powered Committee was to give its report and recommendations "Decontamination of ships before they are exported to India for breaking.” The apex court's order endorsed Basel Convention. (Order is attached).
SMC has suggested that monitoring of asbestos in ambient air at shipbreaking yards on Alang beach “shall be commissioned by GMB for carrying out the same by a reputed institute like NIOH, as a one time study.” TWA has been demanding that asbestos cannot be handled safely or in a controlled manner. Therefore, International Labour Organisation’s resolution of June 2006 and World Health Organisation’s resolution of 2005 seek elimination of future use of asbestos. Indian workers in general and migrant workers of Alang should not be made to handle asbestos under any situation.
TWA demands that Gujarat Pollution Board (GPCB) should make the study for sea water and sediment analysis public so that the extent of pollution at Alang beach can be comprehended.
Standing Monitoring Committee (SMC) on Shipbreaking comprises of (1) Dr. M. Subba Rao, Director, MoEF, (2) Shri B. R. Naidu, Scientist-D and Zonal Officer, CPCB, Vadodara (3) Shri B. D. Ghosh, Addl. Industrial Adviser, Ministry of Steel, (4) Capt. J. S. Uppal, Principal Officer, Mercantile Marine Department, DG Shipping, (5) Dr. S. R. Tripathi, Asstt. Director, NIOH, and (6) Dr. R. R. Tiwari, Scientist-C, NIOH. SMC visited the Ship Breaking Yards on Alang beach on 24th January, 2011.
TWA demands that the funds collected by GMB and Steel Ministry’s Ferrous Scrap Committee (FSC) must be used for remediation and decontamination of Alang beach and for workers and villagers’ environmental and occupational health rights.
For Details: Gopal Krishna, ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA), Mb: 9818089660, E-mail: krishna2777@gmail.com, Blog: imowatch.blogspot.com, Web: www.toxicswatch.com
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Gopal Krishna
Date: Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 7:23 PM
Subject: Non-compliance of Supreme Court Order on Ship Breaking
To: asfasteel@nic.in
Cc: jairam54
t.chatterjee@nic.in, secy-shipping@nic.in, m.mehrishi@nic.in,
jp.shukla@nic.in, Rajiv Gauba
aasharma_env@yahoo.com, eembvr-gmb@gujarat.gov.in,
eemdbvr-gmb@gujarat.gov.in, ms-gpcb@gujarat.gov.in, gpcb-bav@gujarat.gov.in,
cusdiv-bvr@nic.in, commi-labour@gujarat.gov.in, sbagnihotri@dgshipping.com,
jasjeetsuppal@vsnl.net, mmdkandla_1@dataone.in, barun.deb@nic.in,
fasli@dgfasli.nic.in, bvbabu.cpcb@nic.in, tripathinioh@yahoo.co.in,
srtripathi@nioh.org, Claude Alvares
To
Shri S. Machendranathan
Chiarman
Inter-Ministerial Committee (IMC) on shipbreaking
Union Ministry of Steel
Government of India
New Delhi
Subject-Non-compliance of Supreme Court Order on Ship Breaking
Sir,
With reference to news reports in The Times of India and Hindustan Times
dated 1st June, 2011 in the matter of European toxic ship Gulf Jash
(ex-Probo Koala), the letter dated 9th may, 2011 sent to your ministry
by Hazardous Substances Management Division, Ministry of Environment &
Forests and pursuant to my earlier letters to IMC on shipbreaking, I wish to
draw your attention towards the formation of a Standing Monitoring Committee
on Shipbreaking by the Environment Ministry to monitor/review compliance to
the recommendations of the Committee of Technical Experts (CTE) and the
Hon’ble Supreme Court directions dated 6.9.2007 on ship breaking activities
in the country.
It appears that Standing Monitoring Committee on Shipbreaking is
duplicating the work being done by Hon'ble Supreme Court
constituted Inter-Ministerial Committee (IMC) on shipbreaking by it order
dated 14th October, 2003. While I appreciate that IMC has ensured that the
minutes of its meeting are uploaded on Steel Ministry's website, I am quite
eager read the minutes of the last meeting of IMC that was held in early
2011 as I wish to make submission prior to the next meeting of IMC on 8th
July, 2011. I must submit that since its formation till date IMC has not
submitted its Action Taken Report to the Hon'ble Court. It is about time it
did so.
I have also learnt that the Standing Monitoring Committee visited Alang
Shipbreaking Yards on 24th January, 2011 and held meetings to review the
present status of compliance to the recommendations of the CTE and the
directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
I am attaching the letter dated 9th may, 2011 and the Standing Monitoring
Committee's site visit report for your perusal and consideration. From the
report of the Standing Monitoring Committee on Shipbreaking, it is clear
that Hon'ble Court order has not been complied with.
I wish to draw your attention towards one very core aspect of the Hon'ble
Court's order that reads, "(16) At the international level, India should
participate in international meetings on ship-breaking at the level of the
International Maritime Organisation and the Basel Convention's Technical
Working Group with a clear mandate for the decontamination of ships of their
hazardous sub-stances such as asbestos, waste oil, gas and PCBs, prior to
export to India for breaking." One of the fourteen Terms of Reference on
which the High Powered Committee was to give its report and recommendations
"Decontamination of ships before they are exported to India for breaking.”
The apex court's order endorsed Basel Convention. (Order is attached). I am
also attaching a UN report that refers to the situation at Alang beach and
Basel Convention's Guidelines for Dismantling of Ships.
I submit that IMC should seek compliance with Hon'ble Supreme Court’s order
that endorsed UN’s Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary
Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal from the Ministries of
Environment & Forests, Shipping and Steel and Gujarat Maritime Board.
In the specific case of 182 meter long hazardous vessel Gulf Jash (ex-Probo
Koala) which is reported to be on the way to Indian waters, IMC must
recommend refusal of entry to this vessel that is laden with hazardous
asbestos, PCBs, toxic paints, fuel and chemical residues and it has been
established that it has not been pre-cleaned. The list of hazardous
substances is attached. The ship’s IMO number is 8309816. The picture of the
ship is attached. The ship currently has the flag of Panama. As of 14 May,
2011, the vessel was in Indian Ocean. It last port was Abu Dhabi. Probo
Koala was renamed in Gulf Jash in 2007.
I wish to inform that TWA has learnt from officials in Alang that Indian
Coast Guards and Indian Navy would be the first to know about its possible
entry in Indian waters.
It is apprehended that Global Marketing Systems (GMS), a US company
specialised in the brokering of vessels for demolition has bought the ship.
It is hiding its final destination. It is noteworthy that earlier the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) took legal action against Global
Marketing Services (GMS) and sister company Global Shipping LLC (GSL), both
companies set up by the famous ship-breaking cash buyer Mr. Anil Sharma, for
exporting the ship from in violation of the U.S. Toxic Substances Control
Act (TSCA) in past in the matter of Platinum II (ex-SS Oceanic, SS
Independence). This US based Cash-Buyer, GMS is trying to deviate the vessel
towards Alang beach, India or Gadani beach, Pakistan. GMS is owned by a US
citizen of Indian origin. The ownership history is attached.
I submit that prior to this In July 2010, Trafigura, an Amsterdam,
Netherlands based transnational company founded in 1993 was found guilty of
illegal export of waste from an EU country to states in Africa, Carribean
and Pacific. It attempted to deliver goods from onboard the Gulf Jash
(ex-Probo Koala) to the Amsterdam port reception facility while concealing
their hazardous nature. The court stated that Trafigura knew the waste was
toxic and chose to dispose of it at a cheap price. The company was fined 1
million euros but appealed the decision. In 2006, the company Trafigura used
the Gulf Jash (ex-Probo Koala) to illegally dump 528 tonnes of toxic waste
in Abidjan, the largest city of the Ivory Coast, causing the death of 16
people.
Its registered owner in 2006 was "Celtic Legend Shipping Inc." of Norway.
Later, the "beneficial owner" (and manager and operator) is Prime Marine
Management, of Athens, Greece. The Probo Koala was chartered by Trafigura
LTD, a subsidiary of the NL trading company Trafigura Beheer BV (the parent
company of the 55 trading companies operated by Trafigura). Probo Koala's
agent in Abidjan was WAIB-CL, and there was an intermediate company, between
Trafigura LTD and WAIB-CL, called "Societe Tommy". Tommy was the entity that
actually "disposed" of the hundreds of metric tonnes of toxic waste
throughout and around the city of Abidjan. The role of Puma Energy (100%
owned by Trafigura based in Amstelveen, NL and controlled from Trafigura's
Lucerne, Switzerland offices) remains unclear, as does its association with
the company, "Tommy" and WAIB-CL, though the Ivorian authorities had
arrested those directing each of WAIB-CL, Tommy and Puma Energy. Puma Energy
had a local office in Abidjan, Cote d'Ivoire. On July 2, 2006 the Probo
Koala was in Amsterdam where the chartering company of the ship, Trafigura,
declined paying higher costs to offload and treat waste that it claimed were
residues from routine tank washing operations.
As you are aware that it is a matter if fact that “The multiplicity of
private structures intervening in trade and maritime transport (flag, owner,
ship owner, charterer, manager, consignee, emptier, etc) and the vagueness
presiding voluntarily or involuntarily in the allocation of roles and
responsibilities meant that a huge amount of time was wasted in
investigations. Nowadays, maritime activity is increasingly an activity
where opacity in actions remains significant, in particular in the high
seas, outside the territorial waters of each State.” (Report of Committee on
Toxic Waste in Abidjan, Ivory Coast Attached).
It is noteworthy that Dutch authorities had allowed the ship to sail
unimpeded. Under the Basel Convention the responsibility for the dumping of
wastes should be tied to the generator of the hazardous wastes; the exporter
of the wastes (charterer Trafigura) or to the country of export. Under EU
law, exports of hazardous wastes from the EU to non-OECD countries are
strictly prohibited.
I submit that European Commission must engage the European Union law
enforcement organisation EUROPOL to coordinate member states' activities in
order to prevent the ship, its captain, owners and operators escaping
prosecution. EUROPOL is the European Law Enforcement Organisation which
exists to improve the effectiveness and co-operation of the competent
authorities in the Member States in preventing and combating terrorism and
other serious forms of international organised crime. This vessel must be
denied entry. European Commission must recall this vessel to Europe in
compliance with the October 2006 European Parliament Resolution.
I submit that Indian environmental borders have been compromised with
enormous amounts of hazardous wastes and ships waste moving inside our
borders to exploit cost externalization possibilities and in the process
exploit fragile coastal environment of Alang beach in Bhavnagar, Gujarat.
I wish to draw your attention towards the hazardous wastes/shipbreaking
matter that came up for hearing in the Supreme Court on May 25, 2011. The
vacation bench of Justice G S Singhvi and Justice Chandramauli Kr Prasad
observed, "Why don't they break these ships in their own countries," Justice
Singhvi asked, adding "If there is a threat to environment, then this court
will intervene". This observations of the bench are quite welcome.
I submit that TWA will apprise the court and pray for its intervention if
the Ministries of Environment & Forests, Shipping and Steel do not stop the
entry of this end-of life vessel laden with hazardous wastes and toxic
materials. The next date of hearing in the Supreme Court is on 5th July,
2011.
I submit that any vessel that has been rejected by a neighbouring country
must be rejected in India well. The vessel’s entry has been banned in
Bangladesh in May 2011. This vessel cannot be allowed entry because India is
a party to the UN treaty on hazardous wastes and the tenth meeting of the
Conference of the Parties to the Basel Convention will be held at Cartagena
de Indias, Colombia from 17 -21 October 2011.
The Convention was initiated in response to numerous international scandals
regarding hazardous waste trafficking that began to occur in the late 1980s.
The Convention entered into force on 5 May 1992 with its Secretariat in
Geneva, Switzerland. It is eminently clear that the Basel Ban is needed now
more than at any point since the Convention was adopted. In the Third
Conference of the Parties to the Basel Convention (COP3) in September 1995
made an amendment to include the request of the G-77 countries including
India for the total ban on all exports of hazardous wastes from Organization
of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries to non-OECD
countries that was passed by consensus and came to be known as the Basel Ban
Amendment.
TWA has been warning concerned authorities to abandon the Free Trade
Agreements (FTAs) with countries like EU and Japan who have been promoting
hazardous wastes trade along with countries such as US, Germany, and the UK
by indulging in linguistic corruption.
The Basel Ban amendment effectively banned as of 1 January 1998, all forms
of hazardous waste exports from the 29 wealthiest most industrialized
countries of the (OECD to all non-OECD countries. In order for the Ban
amendment to enter the force of law it will need to be ratified by 62 of the
Basel Parties. The Basel Ban has been ratified by 70 countries (Parties to
the Convention). For entry into force of the Ban Amendment, only the
official deposits equalling 63 of the 62 are needed (representing 3/4ths of
the 82 Parties present at COP3). India must ratify it to safe guard its
environment for the sake of intergeneration equity instead of pursuing the
path of FTAs with countries EU and Japan or International Maritime
Organisation (IMO)’s ship recycling convention which is anti- environment,
anti-worker and anti-human rights.
In such a backdrop, Supreme Court’s observations of May 2011 are reminiscent
of what the head of the Indian delegation, said at the first Conference of
the Parties (COP 1) to the Basel Convention in 1992, in Uruguay. Requesting
industrialized countries to refrain from exporting hazardous wastes to
developing countries, he said, "You industrialized countries have been
asking us to do many things for the global good – to stop cutting down our
forests, to stop using your CFC’s – now we are asking you to do something
for the global good – keep your own waste." India should revive its
exemplary position on the matter of waste trade and take the ship-breaking
activity off the Alang beach, which at present appears to have been
outsourced for ship owning countries and companies to contaminate the
coastal environment for ever ridiculing Coastal Regulation Zone.
I submit that in the 58 page Draft Code on Regulations for Safe and
Environmentally Sound Ship Recycling, having studied the Draft it is matter
of relief that Ministry of Steel is making sincere efforts to comply with
the Supreme Court order of 14th October, 2003 and 6th September 2007 to
protect the fragile coastal environment of Alang Beach. In Chapter 3 of the
Code at Section 3.1.2 there is mention of "dry dock" method for ship
recycling among others. And in Chapter 6 of the Code at Section 6.6.1 (a)
there is reference to Coastal Regulation Zone-1991 which has decreed the
following regulation on 19th February 1991 under the reference Coastal
Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification, “For regulating development activities,
the coastal stretches within 500 metres of the high tide line of the
landward side are classified into 4 categories. Paragraph 2 of the
Notification lists out the 'Prohibited activities and exceptions' The
activities declared as prohibited within the CRZ, namely, Para 2 (ii)
states, " manufacture, handling, storage or disposal of hazardous substances
as specified in the 'Notifications of the Government of India in the
Ministry of Environment and Forests' No. S.O. 594 (E) dated 28th July 1989,
S.O. 996 (E) dated 27th November 1989 and G.S.R. 1037 (E) dated 5th December
1989. Para 2 (v) states, “discharge of untreated wastes and effluents from
industries, cities towns and other human settlements." It is clearly that
there is a case for revisiting the conditional environmental clearance given
to the ship-breaking industrial activity on Alang beach, which is attracting
vessels like Gulf Jash (ex-Probo Koala).
In view of the above, I submit that besides stopping the entry of this
end-of-life hazardous vessel in Indian waters, it would be apt for the
Indian authorities to verify the documents of some 120 ships which are
currently on the Alang beach and forewarn the Pakistani authorities about
the harmful ramifications of allowing such a ship in their territory well.
I will be glad share more information.
Thanking You
Yours faithfully
Gopal Krishna,
Convener
ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA)
New Delhi
Mb: 9818089660,
E-mail: toxicswatchalliance@gmail.com
Blog: imowatch.blogspot.com
Web: www.toxicswatch.com
Cc/
Union Minister of Environment & Forests
Union Minister of Shipping
Secretary, Ministry of Environment & Forests
Secretary, Ministry of Shipping
Additional Secretary, Ministry of Environment & Forests (HSMD)
Joint Secretary, Ministry of Environment & Forests (HSMD)
Joint Secretary, Ministry of Steel
Dr Saroj, Director, Ministry of Environment & Forests
Members of Standing Monitoring Committee on Shipbreaking
Dr Claude Alvares, Member, Supreme Court's Monitoring Committee (SCMC) on
Hazardous Wastes
Ramesh seeks Gujarat report on toxic ship
Chetan Chauhan, Hindustan Times
New Delhi, June 01, 2011
The government rushed into action a day after report of toxic ship Probo Koala, now known as Gulf Jash, heading to Gujarat for dismantling even as country’s law fails to prevent entry of such ships.
Environment minister Jairam Ramesh on Wednesday said that he has sought a report on Gulf Jash from the Gujarat government after Bangladesh refused entry to the ship involved in controversial death of 16 persons in Ivory Coast, where it dumped its toxins in 2006.
“Yes, I have asked for the report,” the minister said.
For many environmental activists such as Gopal Krishna, convener of NGO Toxic Watch Alliance, preventing entry of Gulf Jash into Indian territorial waters will not be easy.
“Many ships enter India on basis of fake papers hiding the fact that they have toxins. Most of these toxic ships originally of the companies registered in Europe are sold to buyers who then register them in Panama. Its entire history is then wiped out,” he said.
Gulf Jash is also registered in Panama and an official of US based Global Marketing Systems, the alleged owner of the ship, told HT that the ship does not contain any toxins. “It has been used to ferry dry cargo since the Ivory Coast incident,” the person who identified himself as Rizwan said.
He explained the history of the ship since illegal dumping of toxins in Ivory Coast allegedly caused death of 16 persons but claimed that the company is not its owner. He, however, did not deny that it was negotiating to buy Gulf Jash. “We negotiate to buy many ships,” he said.
As the news of Gulf Jash entering India spread, Alang based Leela Group was prompt to claim that it has not bought the ship. “We have no connection to her or have any information regarding the vessel,” a statement issued by Corporate Communication department of the company said.
As per rules, a foreign ship for dismantling is allowed entry only if it has an Indian buyer. In the past, ships denied entry into Bangladesh such as SS Blue Lady was bought by Indian ship breakers and were dismantled in Alang in Gujarat.
If the government wants the environment ministry can direct the port and coast guard authorities prevent to a ship from entering India on the grounds of containing toxins. In 2009, the ministry has stopped entry of US ship Platinum II allegedly carrying 200 tonnes of asbestos and 210 tonnes of materials containing toxic polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) from entering Alang.
This time, the ministry’s action will depend on the report it receives from the Gujarat government.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/Ramesh-seeks-Gujarat-report-on-toxic-ship/Article1-704582.aspx
Govt unaware of owners of ships coming to Alang, says report
Jun 2, 2011
NEW DELHI: The government is unaware of who really owns the ships that are coming to Alang for ship-breaking, an internal report of the government accessed by TOI admits.
The report prepared by the Standing Monitoring Committee on Shipbreaking Yards at Alang notes that the customs officials and the Gujarat Maritime Board are unable to verify whether the documents provided to them when the ship beaches at Alang are falsified or not.
The committee has recommended that the Director-General Shipping be made responsible for verifying the documents of the 'end-of-life' ships coming to Alang for being broken down.
But the Gujarat Maritime Board has attempted to create a loophole in this. It has said that if the DG Shipping does not clear the documents within 48 hours then it would be presumed that the certificates submitted are authentic and genuine.
The committee had noted that the customs and GMB officials had been unable to "verify the authenticity and genuineness of ship's registry/flag in the past in respect of some ships referred to them".
The issue of ownership had become important with a Naval intelligence report. The report had warned in 2004 that the Dawood gang had invested heavily in the business of ship-breaking. "A large number of cash buyers (who buy these condemned ships against cash) are Pak nationals based at London/UAE. Due to large profit margins, Dawood group appears to have invested heavily in Cash Buyers thus having a stake in most deals," Directorate of Naval Intelligence had noted.
Almost 40-50% of the metal trade arising from breaking down a ships was done through the hawala route, it had also recorded.
The intelligence report had warned that smuggling of contraband, explosives and agents on these ships on to Indian soil was a distinct possibility. It had said that the defence ministry should give clearance for all such vessels before the ship is allowed to enter Indian waters.
It has been reported several times that ships bearing registration with shell companies in countries like Liberia, Comoros Islands, Kiribati and Panama come for breakage at Alang. The real owners of the ships remain hidden behind these shell companies with the ships carrying what are called 'flags of convenience'.
New Delhi, June 01, 2011
The government rushed into action a day after report of toxic ship Probo Koala, now known as Gulf Jash, heading to Gujarat for dismantling even as country’s law fails to prevent entry of such ships.
Environment minister Jairam Ramesh on Wednesday said that he has sought a report on Gulf Jash from the Gujarat government after Bangladesh refused entry to the ship involved in controversial death of 16 persons in Ivory Coast, where it dumped its toxins in 2006.
“Yes, I have asked for the report,” the minister said.
For many environmental activists such as Gopal Krishna, convener of NGO Toxic Watch Alliance, preventing entry of Gulf Jash into Indian territorial waters will not be easy.
“Many ships enter India on basis of fake papers hiding the fact that they have toxins. Most of these toxic ships originally of the companies registered in Europe are sold to buyers who then register them in Panama. Its entire history is then wiped out,” he said.
Gulf Jash is also registered in Panama and an official of US based Global Marketing Systems, the alleged owner of the ship, told HT that the ship does not contain any toxins. “It has been used to ferry dry cargo since the Ivory Coast incident,” the person who identified himself as Rizwan said.
He explained the history of the ship since illegal dumping of toxins in Ivory Coast allegedly caused death of 16 persons but claimed that the company is not its owner. He, however, did not deny that it was negotiating to buy Gulf Jash. “We negotiate to buy many ships,” he said.
As the news of Gulf Jash entering India spread, Alang based Leela Group was prompt to claim that it has not bought the ship. “We have no connection to her or have any information regarding the vessel,” a statement issued by Corporate Communication department of the company said.
As per rules, a foreign ship for dismantling is allowed entry only if it has an Indian buyer. In the past, ships denied entry into Bangladesh such as SS Blue Lady was bought by Indian ship breakers and were dismantled in Alang in Gujarat.
If the government wants the environment ministry can direct the port and coast guard authorities prevent to a ship from entering India on the grounds of containing toxins. In 2009, the ministry has stopped entry of US ship Platinum II allegedly carrying 200 tonnes of asbestos and 210 tonnes of materials containing toxic polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) from entering Alang.
This time, the ministry’s action will depend on the report it receives from the Gujarat government.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/Ramesh-seeks-Gujarat-report-on-toxic-ship/Article1-704582.aspx
Govt unaware of owners of ships coming to Alang, says report
Jun 2, 2011
NEW DELHI: The government is unaware of who really owns the ships that are coming to Alang for ship-breaking, an internal report of the government accessed by TOI admits.
The report prepared by the Standing Monitoring Committee on Shipbreaking Yards at Alang notes that the customs officials and the Gujarat Maritime Board are unable to verify whether the documents provided to them when the ship beaches at Alang are falsified or not.
The committee has recommended that the Director-General Shipping be made responsible for verifying the documents of the 'end-of-life' ships coming to Alang for being broken down.
But the Gujarat Maritime Board has attempted to create a loophole in this. It has said that if the DG Shipping does not clear the documents within 48 hours then it would be presumed that the certificates submitted are authentic and genuine.
The committee had noted that the customs and GMB officials had been unable to "verify the authenticity and genuineness of ship's registry/flag in the past in respect of some ships referred to them".
The issue of ownership had become important with a Naval intelligence report. The report had warned in 2004 that the Dawood gang had invested heavily in the business of ship-breaking. "A large number of cash buyers (who buy these condemned ships against cash) are Pak nationals based at London/UAE. Due to large profit margins, Dawood group appears to have invested heavily in Cash Buyers thus having a stake in most deals," Directorate of Naval Intelligence had noted.
Almost 40-50% of the metal trade arising from breaking down a ships was done through the hawala route, it had also recorded.
The intelligence report had warned that smuggling of contraband, explosives and agents on these ships on to Indian soil was a distinct possibility. It had said that the defence ministry should give clearance for all such vessels before the ship is allowed to enter Indian waters.
It has been reported several times that ships bearing registration with shell companies in countries like Liberia, Comoros Islands, Kiribati and Panama come for breakage at Alang. The real owners of the ships remain hidden behind these shell companies with the ships carrying what are called 'flags of convenience'.
01/06/2011
Alang Beach, Gujarat Wary of Notorious European Vessel, Gulf Jash
Press Release
Alang Beach, Gujarat Wary of Notorious European Vessel, Gulf Jash
Indian Coast Guards & Indian Navy Must Stop Its Entry in Indian Waters
Supreme Court’s Order Prohibits Entry of Dead Vessels sans Pre-cleaning
European Commission must recall this Toxic vessel
New Delhi 1
June, 2011 –Demanding compliance with Supreme Court’s order which has endorsed UN’s Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal, ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA), an applicant in the Court demands that the Ministries of Environment & Forests, Shipping and Steel must refuse entry of this 182 meter long hazardous vessel Gulf Jash (ex-Probo Koala) in Indian waters. This vessel is laden with hazardous asbestos, PCBs, toxic paints, fuel and chemical residues and it has been established that it has not been pre-cleaned. The list of hazardous substances is attached.
The ship’s IMO number is 8309816. The picture of the ship is attached.
The ship currently has the flag of Panama. As of 14 May, 2011, the vessel was in Indian Ocean. It last port was Abu Dhabi. Probo Koala was renamed in Gulf Jash in 2007.
TWA has learnt from officials in Alang that Indian Coast Guards and Indian Navy would be the first to know about its possible entry in Indian waters.
Reliable sources suggest that Global Marketing Systems (GMS), a US company specialised in the brokering of vessels for demolition has bought the ship. It is hiding its final destination. It is noteworthy that earlier the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) took legal action against Global Marketing Services (GMS) and sister company Global Shipping LLC (GSL), both companies set up by the famous ship-breaking cash buyer Mr. Anil Sharma, for exporting the ship from in violation of the U.S. Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) in past in the matter of Platinum II (ex-SS Oceanic, SS Independence). This US based Cash-Buyer, GMS is trying to deviate the vessel towards Alang beach, India or Gadani beach, Pakistan. GMS is owned by a US citizen of Indian origin. The ownership history is attached.
Prior to this In July 2010, Trafigura, an Amsterdam, Netherlands based transnational company founded in 1993 was found guilty of illegal export of waste from an EU country to states in Africa, Carribean and Pacific. It attempted to deliver goods from onboard the Gulf Jash (ex-Probo Koala) to the Amsterdam port reception facility while concealing their hazardous nature. The court stated that Trafigura knew the waste was toxic and chose to dispose of it at a cheap price. The company was fined 1 million euros but appealed the decision. In 2006, the company Trafigura used the Gulf Jash (ex-Probo Koala) to illegally dump 528 tonnes of toxic waste in Abidjan, the largest city of the Ivory Coast, causing the death of 16 people.
Its registered owner in 2006 was "Celtic Legend Shipping Inc." of Norway. Later, the "beneficial owner" (and manager and operator) is Prime Marine Management, of Athens, Greece. The Probo Koala was chartered by Trafigura LTD, a subsidiary of the NL trading company Trafigura Beheer BV (the parent company of the 55 trading companies operated by Trafigura). Probo Koala's agent in Abidjan was WAIB-CL, and there was an intermediate company, between Trafigura LTD and WAIB-CL, called "Societe Tommy". Tommy was the entity that actually "disposed" of the hundreds of metric tonnes of toxic waste throughout and around the city of Abidjan. The role of Puma Energy (100% owned by Trafigura based in Amstelveen, NL and controlled from Trafigura's Lucerne, Switzerland offices) remains unclear, as does its association with the company, "Tommy" and WAIB-CL, though the Ivorian authorities had arrested those directing each of WAIB-CL, Tommy and Puma Energy. Puma Energy had a local office in Abidjan, Cote d'Ivoire. On July 2, 2006 the Probo Koala was in Amsterdam where the chartering company of the ship, Trafigura, declined paying higher costs to offload and treat waste that it claimed were residues from routine tank washing operations.
It is a matter if fact that “The multiplicity of private structures intervening in trade and maritime transport (flag, owner, ship owner, charterer, manager, consignee, emptier, etc) and the vagueness presiding voluntarily or involuntarily in the allocation of roles and responsibilities meant that a huge amount of time was wasted in investigations. Nowadays, maritime activity is increasingly an activity where opacity in actions remains significant, in particular in the high seas, outside the territorial waters of each State.” (Report of Committee on Toxic Waste in Abidjan, Ivory Coast Attached).
Dutch authorities had allowed the ship to sail unimpeded. Under the Basel Convention the responsibility for the dumping of wastes should be tied to the generator of the hazardous wastes; the exporter of the wastes (charterer Trafigura) or to the country of export.
Under EU law, exports of hazardous wastes from the EU to non-OECD countries are strictly prohibited.
TWA demands that European Commission must engage the European Union law enforcement organisation EUROPOL to coordinate member states' activities in order to prevent the ship, its captain, owners and operators escaping prosecution. EUROPOL is the European Law Enforcement Organisation which exists to improve the effectiveness and co-operation of the competent authorities in the Member States in preventing and combating terrorism and other serious forms of international organised crime.
This vessel must be denied entry. TWA demands that the European Commission must recall this vessel to Europe in compliance with the October 2006 European Parliament Resolution.
Indian environmental borders have been compromised with enormous amounts of hazardous wastes and ships waste moving inside our borders to exploit cost externalization possibilities and in the process exploit fragile coastal environment of Alang beach in Bhavnagar, Gujarat.
The hazardous wastes/shipbreaking matter came up for hearing in the Supreme Court on May 25, 2011. The vacation bench of Justice G S Singhvi and Justice Chandramauli Kr Prasad observed, "Why don't they break these ships in their own countries," Justice Singhvi asked, adding "If there is a threat to environment, then this court will intervene". TWA welcomes the observations of the bench.
TWA will apprise the court and pray for its intervention if the Ministries of Environment & Forests, Shipping and Steel do not stop the entry of this end-of life vessel laden with hazardous wastes and toxic materials. The next date of hearing in the Supreme Court is on 5th July, 2011.
TWA holds that any vessel that has been rejected by a neighbouring country must be rejected in India well. The vessel’s entry has been banned in Bangladesh in May 2011.
This vessel cannot be allowed entry because India is a party to the UN treaty on hazardous wastes and the tenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Basel Convention will be held at Cartagena de Indias, Colombia from 17 -21 October 2011. The Convention was initiated in response to numerous international scandals regarding hazardous waste trafficking that began to occur in the late 1980s. The Convention entered into force on 5 May 1992 with its Secretariat in Geneva, Switzerland. It is eminently clear that the Basel Ban is needed now more than at any point since the Convention was adopted. In the Third Conference of the Parties to the Basel Convention (COP3) in September 1995 made an amendment to include the request of the G-77 countries including India for the total ban on all exports of hazardous wastes from Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries to non-OECD countries that was passed by consensus and came to be known as the Basel Ban Amendment.
TWA has been warning concerned authorities to abandon the Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) with countries like EU and Japan who have been promoting hazardous wastes trade along with countries such as US, Germany, and the UK.
The Basel Ban amendment effectively banned as of 1 January 1998, all forms of hazardous waste exports from the 29 wealthiest most industrialized countries of the (OECD to all non-OECD countries. In order for the Ban amendment to enter the force of law it will need to be ratified by 62 of the Basel Parties. The Basel Ban has been ratified by 70 countries (Parties to the Convention). For entry into force of the Ban Amendment, only the official deposits equalling 63 of the 62 are needed (representing 3/4ths of the 82 Parties present at COP3). India must ratify it to safe guard its environment for the sake of intergeneration equity instead of pursuing the path of FTAs with countries EU and Japan or International Maritime Organisation (IMO)’s ship recycling convention which is anti- environment, anti-worker and anti-human rights.
In such a backdrop, Supreme Court’s observations of May 2011 are reminiscent of what the head of the Indian delegation, said at the first Conference of the Parties (COP 1) to the Basel Convention in 1992, in Uruguay. Requesting industrialized countries to refrain from exporting hazardous wastes to developing countries, he said, "You industrialized countries have been asking us to do many things for the global good – to stop cutting down our forests, to stop using your CFC’s – now we are asking you to do something for the global good – keep your own waste." India should revive its exemplary position on the matter of waste trade and take the ship-breaking activity off the Alang beach, which at present appears to have been outsourced for ship owning countries and companies to contaminate the coastal environment for ever ridiculing Coastal Regulation Zone.
In the 58 page Draft Code on Regulations for Safe and Environmentally Sound Ship Recycling, having studied the Draft it is matter of relief that Ministry of Steel is making sincere efforts to comply with the Supreme Court order of 14th October, 2003 and 6th September 2007 to protect the fragile coastal environment of Alang Beach. In Chapter 3 of the Code at Section 3.1.2 there is mention of "dry dock" method for ship recycling among others. And in Chapter 6 of the Code at Section 6.6.1 (a) there is reference to Coastal Regulation Zone-1991 which has decreed the following regulation on 19th February 1991 under the reference Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification, “For regulating development activities, the coastal stretches within 500 metres of the high tide line of the landward side are classified into 4 categories. Paragraph 2 of the Notification lists out the 'Prohibited activities and exceptions' The activities declared as prohibited within the CRZ, namely, Para 2 (ii) states, " manufacture, handling, storage or disposal of hazardous substances as specified in the 'Notifications of the Government of India in the Ministry of Environment and Forests' No. S.O. 594 (E) dated 28th July 1989, S.O. 996 (E) dated 27th November 1989 and G.S.R. 1037 (E) dated 5th December 1989. Para 2 (v) states, “discharge of untreated wastes and effluents from industries, cities towns and other human settlements." Clearly, there is a case for revisiting the conditional environmental clearance given to the ship-breaking industrial activity on Alang beach, which is attracting vessels like Gulf Jash (ex-Probo Koala).
Besides stopping the entry of this end-of-life hazardous vessel in Indian waters, it would be apt for the Indian authorities to verify the documents of some 120 ships which are currently on the Alang beach and forewarn the Pakistani authorities about the harmful ramifications of allowing such a ship in their territory well.
For Details: Gopal Krishna, ToxicsWatch Alliance, Mb: 9818089660,
E-mail: toxicswatchalliance@gmail.com, Web: imowatch.blogspot.com
http://www.shipbreakingplatform.org
Greenpeace reports on the Probo Koala:
http://www.greenpeace.nl/reports/coplaint-dutch-advertising-cod/
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/toxics/trafigura/
FIDH report on the Probo Koala:
http://fidh.org/IMG/pdf/FIDH-LIDHO-MIDH_Rapport_ProboKoala_avril2011.pdf
UN Special Rapporteur Report on the investigation into the dumping of waste in Ivory Coast:
http://bit.ly/iiZi9I
Alang Beach, Gujarat Wary of Notorious European Vessel, Gulf Jash
Indian Coast Guards & Indian Navy Must Stop Its Entry in Indian Waters
Supreme Court’s Order Prohibits Entry of Dead Vessels sans Pre-cleaning
European Commission must recall this Toxic vessel
New Delhi 1
June, 2011 –Demanding compliance with Supreme Court’s order which has endorsed UN’s Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal, ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA), an applicant in the Court demands that the Ministries of Environment & Forests, Shipping and Steel must refuse entry of this 182 meter long hazardous vessel Gulf Jash (ex-Probo Koala) in Indian waters. This vessel is laden with hazardous asbestos, PCBs, toxic paints, fuel and chemical residues and it has been established that it has not been pre-cleaned. The list of hazardous substances is attached.
The ship’s IMO number is 8309816. The picture of the ship is attached.
The ship currently has the flag of Panama. As of 14 May, 2011, the vessel was in Indian Ocean. It last port was Abu Dhabi. Probo Koala was renamed in Gulf Jash in 2007.
TWA has learnt from officials in Alang that Indian Coast Guards and Indian Navy would be the first to know about its possible entry in Indian waters.
Reliable sources suggest that Global Marketing Systems (GMS), a US company specialised in the brokering of vessels for demolition has bought the ship. It is hiding its final destination. It is noteworthy that earlier the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) took legal action against Global Marketing Services (GMS) and sister company Global Shipping LLC (GSL), both companies set up by the famous ship-breaking cash buyer Mr. Anil Sharma, for exporting the ship from in violation of the U.S. Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) in past in the matter of Platinum II (ex-SS Oceanic, SS Independence). This US based Cash-Buyer, GMS is trying to deviate the vessel towards Alang beach, India or Gadani beach, Pakistan. GMS is owned by a US citizen of Indian origin. The ownership history is attached.
Prior to this In July 2010, Trafigura, an Amsterdam, Netherlands based transnational company founded in 1993 was found guilty of illegal export of waste from an EU country to states in Africa, Carribean and Pacific. It attempted to deliver goods from onboard the Gulf Jash (ex-Probo Koala) to the Amsterdam port reception facility while concealing their hazardous nature. The court stated that Trafigura knew the waste was toxic and chose to dispose of it at a cheap price. The company was fined 1 million euros but appealed the decision. In 2006, the company Trafigura used the Gulf Jash (ex-Probo Koala) to illegally dump 528 tonnes of toxic waste in Abidjan, the largest city of the Ivory Coast, causing the death of 16 people.
Its registered owner in 2006 was "Celtic Legend Shipping Inc." of Norway. Later, the "beneficial owner" (and manager and operator) is Prime Marine Management, of Athens, Greece. The Probo Koala was chartered by Trafigura LTD, a subsidiary of the NL trading company Trafigura Beheer BV (the parent company of the 55 trading companies operated by Trafigura). Probo Koala's agent in Abidjan was WAIB-CL, and there was an intermediate company, between Trafigura LTD and WAIB-CL, called "Societe Tommy". Tommy was the entity that actually "disposed" of the hundreds of metric tonnes of toxic waste throughout and around the city of Abidjan. The role of Puma Energy (100% owned by Trafigura based in Amstelveen, NL and controlled from Trafigura's Lucerne, Switzerland offices) remains unclear, as does its association with the company, "Tommy" and WAIB-CL, though the Ivorian authorities had arrested those directing each of WAIB-CL, Tommy and Puma Energy. Puma Energy had a local office in Abidjan, Cote d'Ivoire. On July 2, 2006 the Probo Koala was in Amsterdam where the chartering company of the ship, Trafigura, declined paying higher costs to offload and treat waste that it claimed were residues from routine tank washing operations.
It is a matter if fact that “The multiplicity of private structures intervening in trade and maritime transport (flag, owner, ship owner, charterer, manager, consignee, emptier, etc) and the vagueness presiding voluntarily or involuntarily in the allocation of roles and responsibilities meant that a huge amount of time was wasted in investigations. Nowadays, maritime activity is increasingly an activity where opacity in actions remains significant, in particular in the high seas, outside the territorial waters of each State.” (Report of Committee on Toxic Waste in Abidjan, Ivory Coast Attached).
Dutch authorities had allowed the ship to sail unimpeded. Under the Basel Convention the responsibility for the dumping of wastes should be tied to the generator of the hazardous wastes; the exporter of the wastes (charterer Trafigura) or to the country of export.
Under EU law, exports of hazardous wastes from the EU to non-OECD countries are strictly prohibited.
TWA demands that European Commission must engage the European Union law enforcement organisation EUROPOL to coordinate member states' activities in order to prevent the ship, its captain, owners and operators escaping prosecution. EUROPOL is the European Law Enforcement Organisation which exists to improve the effectiveness and co-operation of the competent authorities in the Member States in preventing and combating terrorism and other serious forms of international organised crime.
This vessel must be denied entry. TWA demands that the European Commission must recall this vessel to Europe in compliance with the October 2006 European Parliament Resolution.
Indian environmental borders have been compromised with enormous amounts of hazardous wastes and ships waste moving inside our borders to exploit cost externalization possibilities and in the process exploit fragile coastal environment of Alang beach in Bhavnagar, Gujarat.
The hazardous wastes/shipbreaking matter came up for hearing in the Supreme Court on May 25, 2011. The vacation bench of Justice G S Singhvi and Justice Chandramauli Kr Prasad observed, "Why don't they break these ships in their own countries," Justice Singhvi asked, adding "If there is a threat to environment, then this court will intervene". TWA welcomes the observations of the bench.
TWA will apprise the court and pray for its intervention if the Ministries of Environment & Forests, Shipping and Steel do not stop the entry of this end-of life vessel laden with hazardous wastes and toxic materials. The next date of hearing in the Supreme Court is on 5th July, 2011.
TWA holds that any vessel that has been rejected by a neighbouring country must be rejected in India well. The vessel’s entry has been banned in Bangladesh in May 2011.
This vessel cannot be allowed entry because India is a party to the UN treaty on hazardous wastes and the tenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Basel Convention will be held at Cartagena de Indias, Colombia from 17 -21 October 2011. The Convention was initiated in response to numerous international scandals regarding hazardous waste trafficking that began to occur in the late 1980s. The Convention entered into force on 5 May 1992 with its Secretariat in Geneva, Switzerland. It is eminently clear that the Basel Ban is needed now more than at any point since the Convention was adopted. In the Third Conference of the Parties to the Basel Convention (COP3) in September 1995 made an amendment to include the request of the G-77 countries including India for the total ban on all exports of hazardous wastes from Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries to non-OECD countries that was passed by consensus and came to be known as the Basel Ban Amendment.
TWA has been warning concerned authorities to abandon the Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) with countries like EU and Japan who have been promoting hazardous wastes trade along with countries such as US, Germany, and the UK.
The Basel Ban amendment effectively banned as of 1 January 1998, all forms of hazardous waste exports from the 29 wealthiest most industrialized countries of the (OECD to all non-OECD countries. In order for the Ban amendment to enter the force of law it will need to be ratified by 62 of the Basel Parties. The Basel Ban has been ratified by 70 countries (Parties to the Convention). For entry into force of the Ban Amendment, only the official deposits equalling 63 of the 62 are needed (representing 3/4ths of the 82 Parties present at COP3). India must ratify it to safe guard its environment for the sake of intergeneration equity instead of pursuing the path of FTAs with countries EU and Japan or International Maritime Organisation (IMO)’s ship recycling convention which is anti- environment, anti-worker and anti-human rights.
In such a backdrop, Supreme Court’s observations of May 2011 are reminiscent of what the head of the Indian delegation, said at the first Conference of the Parties (COP 1) to the Basel Convention in 1992, in Uruguay. Requesting industrialized countries to refrain from exporting hazardous wastes to developing countries, he said, "You industrialized countries have been asking us to do many things for the global good – to stop cutting down our forests, to stop using your CFC’s – now we are asking you to do something for the global good – keep your own waste." India should revive its exemplary position on the matter of waste trade and take the ship-breaking activity off the Alang beach, which at present appears to have been outsourced for ship owning countries and companies to contaminate the coastal environment for ever ridiculing Coastal Regulation Zone.
In the 58 page Draft Code on Regulations for Safe and Environmentally Sound Ship Recycling, having studied the Draft it is matter of relief that Ministry of Steel is making sincere efforts to comply with the Supreme Court order of 14th October, 2003 and 6th September 2007 to protect the fragile coastal environment of Alang Beach. In Chapter 3 of the Code at Section 3.1.2 there is mention of "dry dock" method for ship recycling among others. And in Chapter 6 of the Code at Section 6.6.1 (a) there is reference to Coastal Regulation Zone-1991 which has decreed the following regulation on 19th February 1991 under the reference Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification, “For regulating development activities, the coastal stretches within 500 metres of the high tide line of the landward side are classified into 4 categories. Paragraph 2 of the Notification lists out the 'Prohibited activities and exceptions' The activities declared as prohibited within the CRZ, namely, Para 2 (ii) states, " manufacture, handling, storage or disposal of hazardous substances as specified in the 'Notifications of the Government of India in the Ministry of Environment and Forests' No. S.O. 594 (E) dated 28th July 1989, S.O. 996 (E) dated 27th November 1989 and G.S.R. 1037 (E) dated 5th December 1989. Para 2 (v) states, “discharge of untreated wastes and effluents from industries, cities towns and other human settlements." Clearly, there is a case for revisiting the conditional environmental clearance given to the ship-breaking industrial activity on Alang beach, which is attracting vessels like Gulf Jash (ex-Probo Koala).
Besides stopping the entry of this end-of-life hazardous vessel in Indian waters, it would be apt for the Indian authorities to verify the documents of some 120 ships which are currently on the Alang beach and forewarn the Pakistani authorities about the harmful ramifications of allowing such a ship in their territory well.
For Details: Gopal Krishna, ToxicsWatch Alliance, Mb: 9818089660,
E-mail: toxicswatchalliance@gmail.com, Web: imowatch.blogspot.com
http://www.shipbreakingplatform.org
Greenpeace reports on the Probo Koala:
http://www.greenpeace.nl/reports/coplaint-dutch-advertising-cod/
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/toxics/trafigura/
FIDH report on the Probo Koala:
http://fidh.org/IMG/pdf/FIDH-LIDHO-MIDH_Rapport_ProboKoala_avril2011.pdf
UN Special Rapporteur Report on the investigation into the dumping of waste in Ivory Coast:
http://bit.ly/iiZi9I
28/05/2011
Alang Beach faces competition from Chittagong Beach & Gadani Beach
Note: Is it a coincidence that Alang beach in India, Chittagong beach in Bangladesh and Gadani beach in Pakistan on the Bay of Bengal have become the dustbin of the shipping companies of the industrialized countries from EU, Japan, US and others. A EU report on Ship breaking in South Asia refers to Alang and Sosiya on the west coast in the State of Gujarat, India; Chittagong on the shores of Sitakund on Bay of Bengal, Bangladesh; and Gadani in Karachi, Pakistan as "the ideal ship breaking location" unmindful of the fragile coastal environment. This report appears quite insensitive to the historical context in which hazardous industries and end-of-life products (wastes) are transferred to South Asian countries.
ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA) disagrees with most of the motivated observations mentioned in the report based on its field visit with a UN team. The yards on beach are always in a mess. Contrary to the observations in the report that "Asbestos was packed separately in plastic bags and stored near a garbage collection point", the fact is asbestos is never found in isolation, it is always embedded in some other structure. The landfill at Alang is completely filled up. TWA disapproves of Japanese, EU, International Chamber of Shipping and IMO's myopic approach of financing or recommending such landfills ad infinitum.
EU's motivated interest in South Asian beaches results from the fact that some 40 per cent of ships/vessels demolished are under European flags or belonged to ship owners established in the European Union or to members of the European Free Trade Association.
It may be recalled that the first ship breaking activity in undivided India was reported near Garden Reach, Kolkata in 1912. In post-divided India, first vessel MV Kota Tenjong was beached at Alang beach for ship breaking purpose in 1983. There is a need to examine the circumstances of such hazardous, dirty and degrading activity which makes Alang beach, Chittagong beach and Gadani beach, the most polluted beaches in the world even as the beaches of the ship owning countries are protected and cherished by them. Such manifest double standards are unacceptable.
The fact is Alang Beach, Chittagong Beach and Gadani Beach are competing with each other to get themselves contaminated beyond remediation for short-sighted financial gains without comprehending the motives of ship owning companies and countries.
Gopal Krishna
ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA)
Alang faces tough competition as Bangladesh yards resume work
Business at Alang’s ship-breaking yards plummeted by half in April as rival facilities in Bangladesh reopened after a 10-month closure ordered by the courts there over environmental concerns.
This is the sharpest month-on-month fall in two years at Alang, near the Gujarat town of Bhavnagar and home to Asia’s largest ship-breaking facility.
“The fall is due to competition from Bangladesh, which resumed ship-breaking operations at around 60 of its 110 ship-breaking slots from April after getting conditional permission from a Bangladesh court, which had banned ship-breaking activity for almost 10 months on environmental issues,” said a port official at Alang on condition of anonymity, as he was not authorized to speak to the media.
Alang received 20 ships with a tonnage of 139,596 in April compared with 34 ships and 302,356 tonnes in March.
“The fall in tonnage and ship arrival in April is the sharpest in the last one year. The fall is also the sharpest if compared with April last year,” said Vishnu Gupta, president, Ship Recycling Industries Association India (SRIA). “This is mainly due to competition from Bangladesh, which has started buying ships aggressively.”
This may be the beginning of a slow growth cycle for the Indian ship-breaking industry as the situation is likely to worsen in the next few months.
“We are offering around $500 (Rs.22,650) per tonne rates to sellers while Bangladeshi recyclers are offering more than $520 per tonne as they want to make up for lost business, which is why most sellers are preferring Bangladesh over India,” explained an Alang-based recycler who did not want to be named.
He said Indian ship-breakers cannot afford to buy ships at higher prices as they mostly sell their scrap steel in the domestic market, where there is a disparity in the prices between ship-buying rates and scrap steel rates.
“We are buying ships at around $500 per tonne while scrap steel prices are at Rs.23,000 ($507) per tonne. We are losing our business to Bangladesh as they can afford to buy ships at higher rates because of lower labour costs,” the ship-breaker said.
Indian ship breakers have seen profit margins shrink, said SRIA vice-president Vippin Agrawal. He didn’t elaborate on the extent of this shrinkage.
The neighbouring nation is also attracting companies that intend to scrap larger vessels, which is a concern for Indian ship-breakers.
“Bangladesh has bought dozens of ships in the last one-and-a-half months and is in final negotiations with two international firms willing to scrap two VLCCs (very large crude carriers that weigh 200,000-320,000 tonnes each),” said a ship-breaker at Alang, also requesting anonymity.
Email and phone calls to Hefazatur Rahman, president of the Bangladesh Ship Breakers Association, did not elicit any response.
“We are already facing problems of smaller ships coming for dismantling for the last one year. Competition from Bangladesh has added to it,” said SRIA’s Gupta.
In 2010-11, Alang scrapped 357 vessels against 348 vessels in 2009-10. However, tonnage at Alang’s 173 slots fell to 2.8 million tonnes (mt) from about 2.96 mt in 2009-10, the highest in 12 years, Gupta said. The fall in tonnage despite more vessels is because of their smaller sizes, he said.
Alang’s ship-breakers have cancelled plans to hire more workers, Gupta said.
“In 2009-10, when the industry was faring well, we were planning to raise the workforce to 25,000 from the current 15,000. That plan has been cancelled. If the situation doesn’t improve in the coming months then we may be forced to reduce the workforce,” Gupta said.
http://www.livemint.com/2011/05/26215625/Alang-faces-tough-competition.html?atype=tp
ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA) disagrees with most of the motivated observations mentioned in the report based on its field visit with a UN team. The yards on beach are always in a mess. Contrary to the observations in the report that "Asbestos was packed separately in plastic bags and stored near a garbage collection point", the fact is asbestos is never found in isolation, it is always embedded in some other structure. The landfill at Alang is completely filled up. TWA disapproves of Japanese, EU, International Chamber of Shipping and IMO's myopic approach of financing or recommending such landfills ad infinitum.
EU's motivated interest in South Asian beaches results from the fact that some 40 per cent of ships/vessels demolished are under European flags or belonged to ship owners established in the European Union or to members of the European Free Trade Association.
It may be recalled that the first ship breaking activity in undivided India was reported near Garden Reach, Kolkata in 1912. In post-divided India, first vessel MV Kota Tenjong was beached at Alang beach for ship breaking purpose in 1983. There is a need to examine the circumstances of such hazardous, dirty and degrading activity which makes Alang beach, Chittagong beach and Gadani beach, the most polluted beaches in the world even as the beaches of the ship owning countries are protected and cherished by them. Such manifest double standards are unacceptable.
The fact is Alang Beach, Chittagong Beach and Gadani Beach are competing with each other to get themselves contaminated beyond remediation for short-sighted financial gains without comprehending the motives of ship owning companies and countries.
Gopal Krishna
ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA)
Alang faces tough competition as Bangladesh yards resume work
Business at Alang’s ship-breaking yards plummeted by half in April as rival facilities in Bangladesh reopened after a 10-month closure ordered by the courts there over environmental concerns.
This is the sharpest month-on-month fall in two years at Alang, near the Gujarat town of Bhavnagar and home to Asia’s largest ship-breaking facility.
“The fall is due to competition from Bangladesh, which resumed ship-breaking operations at around 60 of its 110 ship-breaking slots from April after getting conditional permission from a Bangladesh court, which had banned ship-breaking activity for almost 10 months on environmental issues,” said a port official at Alang on condition of anonymity, as he was not authorized to speak to the media.
Alang received 20 ships with a tonnage of 139,596 in April compared with 34 ships and 302,356 tonnes in March.
“The fall in tonnage and ship arrival in April is the sharpest in the last one year. The fall is also the sharpest if compared with April last year,” said Vishnu Gupta, president, Ship Recycling Industries Association India (SRIA). “This is mainly due to competition from Bangladesh, which has started buying ships aggressively.”
This may be the beginning of a slow growth cycle for the Indian ship-breaking industry as the situation is likely to worsen in the next few months.
“We are offering around $500 (Rs.22,650) per tonne rates to sellers while Bangladeshi recyclers are offering more than $520 per tonne as they want to make up for lost business, which is why most sellers are preferring Bangladesh over India,” explained an Alang-based recycler who did not want to be named.
He said Indian ship-breakers cannot afford to buy ships at higher prices as they mostly sell their scrap steel in the domestic market, where there is a disparity in the prices between ship-buying rates and scrap steel rates.
“We are buying ships at around $500 per tonne while scrap steel prices are at Rs.23,000 ($507) per tonne. We are losing our business to Bangladesh as they can afford to buy ships at higher rates because of lower labour costs,” the ship-breaker said.
Indian ship breakers have seen profit margins shrink, said SRIA vice-president Vippin Agrawal. He didn’t elaborate on the extent of this shrinkage.
The neighbouring nation is also attracting companies that intend to scrap larger vessels, which is a concern for Indian ship-breakers.
“Bangladesh has bought dozens of ships in the last one-and-a-half months and is in final negotiations with two international firms willing to scrap two VLCCs (very large crude carriers that weigh 200,000-320,000 tonnes each),” said a ship-breaker at Alang, also requesting anonymity.
Email and phone calls to Hefazatur Rahman, president of the Bangladesh Ship Breakers Association, did not elicit any response.
“We are already facing problems of smaller ships coming for dismantling for the last one year. Competition from Bangladesh has added to it,” said SRIA’s Gupta.
In 2010-11, Alang scrapped 357 vessels against 348 vessels in 2009-10. However, tonnage at Alang’s 173 slots fell to 2.8 million tonnes (mt) from about 2.96 mt in 2009-10, the highest in 12 years, Gupta said. The fall in tonnage despite more vessels is because of their smaller sizes, he said.
Alang’s ship-breakers have cancelled plans to hire more workers, Gupta said.
“In 2009-10, when the industry was faring well, we were planning to raise the workforce to 25,000 from the current 15,000. That plan has been cancelled. If the situation doesn’t improve in the coming months then we may be forced to reduce the workforce,” Gupta said.
http://www.livemint.com/2011/05/26215625/Alang-faces-tough-competition.html?atype=tp
Economics of End-of Life Ships
THE ECONOMICS OF SHIP DISMANTLING, SHIP BREAKING AND SHIP RECYCLING
Why Ship-owners Sell Ships for Ship dismantling, shipbreaking and ship
recycling?
When the maintenance costs of the vessel start to exceed possible
revenue, or when the vessel has become unattractive for the second-hand
market.
How Ships are sold for Ship dismantling, ship breaking and ship
recycling?
Ship-owners who have decided to end the economic life of a vessel will
look for a cash buyer. The cash buyer will either be a dedicated broker
or the scrap yard operator himself. Typically, the ship will take cargo
for a final voyage to the area where the scrap yard is located. After
completion of this voyage, the ship will be brought, under its own
power, to the scrap yard where it will be dismantled. The cash buyer
pays a price in US$ per light displacement ton (ldt), which is roughly
equivalent to the steel weight of the ship.
What is normal price at Ships are sold?
For years the price has been around 150 US$/ldt (with lows around 100
US$/ldt and highs around 200 US$/ldt), but recently the strong demand
for steel scrap in China and the low supply of ships have driven prices
up to record levels of nearly 500 US$/ldt for average vessels and more
for particularly valuable ones.
What affects Ship Breaking Industry Most?
Freight market, the number of ships available for scrapping depends on
conditions on the freight market. If ships can still earn good money,
owners will not decide to send the ship for scrapping. In the past two
years, scrapping volumes were very low due to a booming and profitable
freight market.
The large majority of ships for scrapping will have to come from the
deep sea merchant fleet and will be mainly tankers and bulk carriers
(which are the “volume” segments). Other market segments, such as
warships, inland waterways vessels and offshore structures, are of
limited size and availability and so can hardly provide a steady stream
of material for large-scale recycling. The operator of a modern
recycling facility will therefore have difficulty building a business
model that fully covers its amortization costs.
What is life span of normal ship?
Ships are individual constructions with a long life-cycle and will have
undergone many repairs and maintenance in their 20-30 years of
operation. . The ships currently heading for the scrap yards were built
in the 1970s using materials that are no longer used today (e.g.
asbestos).
What is dismantling capacity in the EU?
There are facilities for larger ships mainly in Belgium, Italy and the
Netherlands, with a combined capacity of about 230,000 ldt/year, and a
multitude of smaller facilities for fishing vessels and other small
craft in most other maritime Member States. Taken together, the
existing capacity in the EU for ship dismantling may be estimated at
approximately 500,000 ldt per year. The EU neighbouring Turkey having
20 dismantling yards on the shore of Aliaga (near Izmir) have a joint
capacity of approximately 1 million tons per year. (As on 2007).
Source : http://scrapshipbreaking.com/2011/05/20/the-economics-of-ship-dismantling-ship-breaking-and-ship-recycling/
GADANI SHIP BREAKING YARD, PAKISTAN
Gadani ship-breaking yard is the world’s third largest ship breaking yard. The yard consists of 132 ship-breaking plots located across a 10 km long beachfront at Gadani, Pakistan, about 50 kilometres northwest of Karachi.
In the 1980s, Gadani was the largest ship-breaking yard in the world, with more than 30,000 direct employees. However, competition from newer facilities in Alang, India and Chittagong, Bangladesh resulted in a significant reduction in output, with Gadani, today, producing less than one fifth of the scrap it produced in the 1980s. The recent reduction in taxes on scrap metal has led to a modest resurgence of output at Gadani, which now employs around 6,000 workers.
In the 2009-2010 fiscal year, a record 107 ships, with a combined light displacement tonnage (LDT) of 852,022 tons, were broken at Gadani whereas in the previous 2008-2009 fiscal year, 86 ships, with a combined LDT of 778,598 tons, were turned into scrap.
http://scrapshipbreaking.com/2011/05/08/gadani-ship-breaking-yard-pakistan/
Why Ship-owners Sell Ships for Ship dismantling, shipbreaking and ship
recycling?
When the maintenance costs of the vessel start to exceed possible
revenue, or when the vessel has become unattractive for the second-hand
market.
How Ships are sold for Ship dismantling, ship breaking and ship
recycling?
Ship-owners who have decided to end the economic life of a vessel will
look for a cash buyer. The cash buyer will either be a dedicated broker
or the scrap yard operator himself. Typically, the ship will take cargo
for a final voyage to the area where the scrap yard is located. After
completion of this voyage, the ship will be brought, under its own
power, to the scrap yard where it will be dismantled. The cash buyer
pays a price in US$ per light displacement ton (ldt), which is roughly
equivalent to the steel weight of the ship.
What is normal price at Ships are sold?
For years the price has been around 150 US$/ldt (with lows around 100
US$/ldt and highs around 200 US$/ldt), but recently the strong demand
for steel scrap in China and the low supply of ships have driven prices
up to record levels of nearly 500 US$/ldt for average vessels and more
for particularly valuable ones.
What affects Ship Breaking Industry Most?
Freight market, the number of ships available for scrapping depends on
conditions on the freight market. If ships can still earn good money,
owners will not decide to send the ship for scrapping. In the past two
years, scrapping volumes were very low due to a booming and profitable
freight market.
The large majority of ships for scrapping will have to come from the
deep sea merchant fleet and will be mainly tankers and bulk carriers
(which are the “volume” segments). Other market segments, such as
warships, inland waterways vessels and offshore structures, are of
limited size and availability and so can hardly provide a steady stream
of material for large-scale recycling. The operator of a modern
recycling facility will therefore have difficulty building a business
model that fully covers its amortization costs.
What is life span of normal ship?
Ships are individual constructions with a long life-cycle and will have
undergone many repairs and maintenance in their 20-30 years of
operation. . The ships currently heading for the scrap yards were built
in the 1970s using materials that are no longer used today (e.g.
asbestos).
What is dismantling capacity in the EU?
There are facilities for larger ships mainly in Belgium, Italy and the
Netherlands, with a combined capacity of about 230,000 ldt/year, and a
multitude of smaller facilities for fishing vessels and other small
craft in most other maritime Member States. Taken together, the
existing capacity in the EU for ship dismantling may be estimated at
approximately 500,000 ldt per year. The EU neighbouring Turkey having
20 dismantling yards on the shore of Aliaga (near Izmir) have a joint
capacity of approximately 1 million tons per year. (As on 2007).
Source : http://scrapshipbreaking.com/2011/05/20/the-economics-of-ship-dismantling-ship-breaking-and-ship-recycling/
GADANI SHIP BREAKING YARD, PAKISTAN
Gadani ship-breaking yard is the world’s third largest ship breaking yard. The yard consists of 132 ship-breaking plots located across a 10 km long beachfront at Gadani, Pakistan, about 50 kilometres northwest of Karachi.
In the 1980s, Gadani was the largest ship-breaking yard in the world, with more than 30,000 direct employees. However, competition from newer facilities in Alang, India and Chittagong, Bangladesh resulted in a significant reduction in output, with Gadani, today, producing less than one fifth of the scrap it produced in the 1980s. The recent reduction in taxes on scrap metal has led to a modest resurgence of output at Gadani, which now employs around 6,000 workers.
In the 2009-2010 fiscal year, a record 107 ships, with a combined light displacement tonnage (LDT) of 852,022 tons, were broken at Gadani whereas in the previous 2008-2009 fiscal year, 86 ships, with a combined LDT of 778,598 tons, were turned into scrap.
http://scrapshipbreaking.com/2011/05/08/gadani-ship-breaking-yard-pakistan/
26/05/2011
Supreme Court Worried about Ship Dismatnling on Alang Beach
Note: Some 120 ships are currently standing on once pristine Alang beach. The hazardous industrial operations in this fragile coasatal environment began in the early eighties in the pre-Environment Protection Act, 1986 era. It is about time Alang beach taken away from the vice like grip of ship owning companies and countries and is restored to its earlier glory.
Danish companies have strong stake in ship-breaking in Alang, Gujarat and they pursue goal of dumping hazardous wastes by mutilating Basel Convention and by supporting International Maritime Organisation (IMO) Convention on Shipbreaking calling it recycling.
It may be recalled that the Danish ship “Ricky” (51 year-old asbestos laden ship, Kong Fredrick IX) contained hazardous wastes entered Alang beach for scrapping ilegally as it was bought by Jupiter Ship Management, a Mumbai based company. On 15 April, 2005, Connie Hedegaard, Denmark's environment minister alerted her Indian counterpart A Raja about the illegal movement of this ship. Ricky ('Kong Frederik IX') left Denmark on 16 March 2005. One wonders as to why did it take one month for the Danish Minister to alert the Indian auhtorties? What is the fate of the case that was filed against the original ship owner in Denmark? Letters were sento Danish authorties but no reply was recieved.
Per Stig Moller, the then Danish Minister of Foreign Affairs also wrote to K Natwar Singh, the then Indian Foreign Minister. This was followed-up by meetings between Michael Sternberg, the then Danish ambassador in Delhi and the Pradipto Gosh, the top bureaucrat and Secretary at the Indian Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF).
On 23 April 2005, "Riky" arrived for scrapping at Alang under the jurisdiction of Gujarat Maritime Board. Even the flag under which the ship sailed in isn't perfectly clear. N B Deshmukh, the then Assistant Commissioner, Customs Division, Bhavnagar, Gujarat said that Riky was carrying the flag of Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (North Korea). An application was filed in 2005 challenging the MoEF in the Supreme Court on the ship's admission into India because the ship sailed in under the flag of Roxa, a non-existent "country". The case is till pending in the Supreme Court.
Ship owning countries and compnies are using IMO Convention to make such state of affairs legitimate. If that happens Alang will practically be deemed a place outside the jurisdiction of Government of India.
Is it wild to draw a possible link between India's best kept secret of the night when arms rained over Purulia in Bengal at night on 17th December, 1995 and Alang's ship breakers with business relations with Danish enterprises?
The next date of listing of the hazardous wastes case is 5th August, 2011.
Gopal Krishna
ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA)
The Supreme Court bench of Justice G.S. Singhvi and Justice C.K. Prasad expressed concern over the environmental impact of dismantling and recycling of foreign ships carrying radioactive material and other toxic wastes at Alang port in Gujarat.
The apex court wished to know as to why these ships were not dismantled or broken in the country of their origin. Justice Singhvi said that tonnes of toxic waste was being brought to Alang port and dumped there.
The court said that recycling and breaking of ships at Alang port could be beneficial for some people in Gujarat or in other states but it was adversely impacting the environment.
"Why don't they break these ships in their own countries," Justice Singhvi asked.
The court made it clear that it would not be an indifferent spectator if there was any adverse bearing on the environment because of ship recycling activities. "If there is a threat to environment, then this court will intervene," said Justice Singhvi.
The court's observations came in the course of the hearing of a petition by Alang port-based Ship Recycling Association (India) seeking direction to Gujarat Maritime Board (GMB) not to go ahead with the auction of four plots each measuring 120 square metre.
The association asked the court to direct the board to first implement the recommendation of the committee of technical experts which said that smaller plots of 30 square metre each should be merged to create bigger plots as the smaller plots were not suitable for carrying out ship recycling activities.
The association told the court that the board accepted the recommendation of the committee and decided in favour of larger plots by phasing out the existing smaller plots.
The association sought orders restraining the board from auctioning the four plots without first merging the existing smaller plots to create bigger plots. The court declined the plea.
The court dismissed the application by the association.
The order dated 25/05/2011 by the (VACATION BENCH) is as under:
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
In this application filed by Ship Recycling Association (India), prayer has been made to restrain the Gujarat Maritime Board (for short, 'the Board') from auctioning the four vacant plots measuring 120 square meters at Alang Ship-Recycling Yard and to direct the Board to amalgamate and/or convert the existing smaller plots measuring 30 square meters into bigger plots before auctioning the four vacant plots.
While, learned counsel for the applicant heavily relied upon the recommendations made by the Standing Monitoring Committee on Ship Breaking Yard at Alang which is said to have recommended for merger of the available plots with the smaller plots, learned counsel representing the Board submitted that in view of the provisions contained in the Gujarat Maritime Board Act, 1981 (for short, "the Act"), the Gujarat Maritime Board (Conditions and Procedures for Granting Permission for Utilising Ship Recycling Plots) Regulations, 2006 (for short, "the Regulations") and the policy framed by the Board for amalgamation/merger of the existing plots, the smaller plots on which the members of the applicant association are carrying their operations, cannot be merged with the four plots proposed to be auctioned. Learned counsel also produced site map to show that the plots proposed to be auctioned are far away from the 30 square meters plots and argued that the same cannot be amalgamated or merged with the smaller plots.
We have considered the respective submissions and carefully perused the documents on which reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the parties. We have also gone through the provisions of the Act and the Regulations as also the guidelines framed by the Board for amalgamation of the plots.
In our view, the prayer made by the applicant is thoroughly misconceived and there is no valid ground, much less, justification for restraining the Board from auctioning the four plots or for issue of a direction for conversion of the existing smaller plots into bigger plots by adding portions of the four plots with the smaller plots. Although, there is some dispute between the parties about the exact distance between the smaller plots on which members of the applicant association are carrying their operations, they are ad idem that two kinds of plots are situated at some distance. The Regulations framed by the Board in exercise of the power conferred upon it under Sections 37, 38, 39, 41 and 110 of the Act and Clause-A of the guidelines do not permit for amalgamation of the plots by shifting the existing plots to another plot location.
The guidelines also prohibit amalgamation of two working plots. In terms of sub-clause (2) of Clause-A, the vacant plot located in between two working plots having 30 square meters width can be offered to both adjoining plot holders in equal measure. However, there is no provision for amalgamation of larger plots with the smaller plots irrespective of the distance between two plots. Therefore, there is no warrant for staying the auction of the four plots measuring 120 square meters or for issue of a direction to the Board to merge portions of the bigger plots with the smaller plots.
In the result, the application is dismissed.
Danish companies have strong stake in ship-breaking in Alang, Gujarat and they pursue goal of dumping hazardous wastes by mutilating Basel Convention and by supporting International Maritime Organisation (IMO) Convention on Shipbreaking calling it recycling.
It may be recalled that the Danish ship “Ricky” (51 year-old asbestos laden ship, Kong Fredrick IX) contained hazardous wastes entered Alang beach for scrapping ilegally as it was bought by Jupiter Ship Management, a Mumbai based company. On 15 April, 2005, Connie Hedegaard, Denmark's environment minister alerted her Indian counterpart A Raja about the illegal movement of this ship. Ricky ('Kong Frederik IX') left Denmark on 16 March 2005. One wonders as to why did it take one month for the Danish Minister to alert the Indian auhtorties? What is the fate of the case that was filed against the original ship owner in Denmark? Letters were sento Danish authorties but no reply was recieved.
Per Stig Moller, the then Danish Minister of Foreign Affairs also wrote to K Natwar Singh, the then Indian Foreign Minister. This was followed-up by meetings between Michael Sternberg, the then Danish ambassador in Delhi and the Pradipto Gosh, the top bureaucrat and Secretary at the Indian Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF).
On 23 April 2005, "Riky" arrived for scrapping at Alang under the jurisdiction of Gujarat Maritime Board. Even the flag under which the ship sailed in isn't perfectly clear. N B Deshmukh, the then Assistant Commissioner, Customs Division, Bhavnagar, Gujarat said that Riky was carrying the flag of Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (North Korea). An application was filed in 2005 challenging the MoEF in the Supreme Court on the ship's admission into India because the ship sailed in under the flag of Roxa, a non-existent "country". The case is till pending in the Supreme Court.
Ship owning countries and compnies are using IMO Convention to make such state of affairs legitimate. If that happens Alang will practically be deemed a place outside the jurisdiction of Government of India.
Is it wild to draw a possible link between India's best kept secret of the night when arms rained over Purulia in Bengal at night on 17th December, 1995 and Alang's ship breakers with business relations with Danish enterprises?
The next date of listing of the hazardous wastes case is 5th August, 2011.
Gopal Krishna
ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA)
The Supreme Court bench of Justice G.S. Singhvi and Justice C.K. Prasad expressed concern over the environmental impact of dismantling and recycling of foreign ships carrying radioactive material and other toxic wastes at Alang port in Gujarat.
The apex court wished to know as to why these ships were not dismantled or broken in the country of their origin. Justice Singhvi said that tonnes of toxic waste was being brought to Alang port and dumped there.
The court said that recycling and breaking of ships at Alang port could be beneficial for some people in Gujarat or in other states but it was adversely impacting the environment.
"Why don't they break these ships in their own countries," Justice Singhvi asked.
The court made it clear that it would not be an indifferent spectator if there was any adverse bearing on the environment because of ship recycling activities. "If there is a threat to environment, then this court will intervene," said Justice Singhvi.
The court's observations came in the course of the hearing of a petition by Alang port-based Ship Recycling Association (India) seeking direction to Gujarat Maritime Board (GMB) not to go ahead with the auction of four plots each measuring 120 square metre.
The association asked the court to direct the board to first implement the recommendation of the committee of technical experts which said that smaller plots of 30 square metre each should be merged to create bigger plots as the smaller plots were not suitable for carrying out ship recycling activities.
The association told the court that the board accepted the recommendation of the committee and decided in favour of larger plots by phasing out the existing smaller plots.
The association sought orders restraining the board from auctioning the four plots without first merging the existing smaller plots to create bigger plots. The court declined the plea.
The court dismissed the application by the association.
The order dated 25/05/2011 by the (VACATION BENCH) is as under:
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
In this application filed by Ship Recycling Association (India), prayer has been made to restrain the Gujarat Maritime Board (for short, 'the Board') from auctioning the four vacant plots measuring 120 square meters at Alang Ship-Recycling Yard and to direct the Board to amalgamate and/or convert the existing smaller plots measuring 30 square meters into bigger plots before auctioning the four vacant plots.
While, learned counsel for the applicant heavily relied upon the recommendations made by the Standing Monitoring Committee on Ship Breaking Yard at Alang which is said to have recommended for merger of the available plots with the smaller plots, learned counsel representing the Board submitted that in view of the provisions contained in the Gujarat Maritime Board Act, 1981 (for short, "the Act"), the Gujarat Maritime Board (Conditions and Procedures for Granting Permission for Utilising Ship Recycling Plots) Regulations, 2006 (for short, "the Regulations") and the policy framed by the Board for amalgamation/merger of the existing plots, the smaller plots on which the members of the applicant association are carrying their operations, cannot be merged with the four plots proposed to be auctioned. Learned counsel also produced site map to show that the plots proposed to be auctioned are far away from the 30 square meters plots and argued that the same cannot be amalgamated or merged with the smaller plots.
We have considered the respective submissions and carefully perused the documents on which reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the parties. We have also gone through the provisions of the Act and the Regulations as also the guidelines framed by the Board for amalgamation of the plots.
In our view, the prayer made by the applicant is thoroughly misconceived and there is no valid ground, much less, justification for restraining the Board from auctioning the four plots or for issue of a direction for conversion of the existing smaller plots into bigger plots by adding portions of the four plots with the smaller plots. Although, there is some dispute between the parties about the exact distance between the smaller plots on which members of the applicant association are carrying their operations, they are ad idem that two kinds of plots are situated at some distance. The Regulations framed by the Board in exercise of the power conferred upon it under Sections 37, 38, 39, 41 and 110 of the Act and Clause-A of the guidelines do not permit for amalgamation of the plots by shifting the existing plots to another plot location.
The guidelines also prohibit amalgamation of two working plots. In terms of sub-clause (2) of Clause-A, the vacant plot located in between two working plots having 30 square meters width can be offered to both adjoining plot holders in equal measure. However, there is no provision for amalgamation of larger plots with the smaller plots irrespective of the distance between two plots. Therefore, there is no warrant for staying the auction of the four plots measuring 120 square meters or for issue of a direction to the Board to merge portions of the bigger plots with the smaller plots.
In the result, the application is dismissed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
