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 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

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/

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.

Some IMO Influence on Special Rapporteurs' Report on Shipbreaking, Still Facts Are Glaring

Note: Having accompanied the Special Rapporteur on Toxic waste to Alang, ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA) finds the statement of the Special Rapporteur with regard to "improving health and safety conditions in shipbreaking yards" to be factually incorrect. The assertion that "considerable decrease in the number of work-related injuries resulting in death or permanent or temporary disabilities" at shipbreaking yards is a figment of someone's imagination. Even newspapers reports can reveal the falsehood of this statement. TWA is aware that one IMO official was working overtime to influence the statement and report of Special Rapporteur. Having interacted with Prof. Okechukwu Ibeanu personally, I refuse to believe that he has made this statement. It appears that officials who drafted his report were under some influence. I suspect that someone else has attributed these views without cross-checking it with Prof Ibeanu.

The statement on page 2 of the Special Rapporteurs' report which one finds here also has the resonance of one IMO official:
With specific regard to shipbreaking, the Special Rapporteur notes with satisfaction
the improvement of the health and safety conditions in Alang/Sosiya, as well as the efforts made by the regulatory authority and the industry to improve the health and quality of life of workers and their families.
The Special Rapporteurs' views on hazardous waste management is also evidently incorrect because the National Inventory of Hazardous Wastes Generating Industries & Hazardous Waste Management in India prepared by India's Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) available on its website reveals the correct picture. India has 36, 165 hazardous waste generating industries, generating 62, 32, 507 Metric Tonnes of hazardous wastes every year in the face of paucity of capacity to deal with it.
Out of the total waste generated within the country, as per CPCB, Land Fillable Hazardous Wastes is 27, 28, 326 MTA (Metric Tonnes/Annum), Incinerable Hazardous Waste is 4, 15, 794 MTA and Recyclable Hazardous Wastes is 30, 88, 387 MTA It is obvious that the recyclable portion of Hazardous Wastes is in the range of 49.55 % and is more than other two categories. The land disposable portion and incinerable portion are in the tune of 43.78 % and 6.67 % respectively.

India has only 22 Common Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDF) for the disposal of hazardous wastes in 10 States only namely Gujarat, Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, West Bengal, Punjab, Rajasthan and Tamil Nadu. Total disposal capacity of these facilities, is 15, 00, 568 MTA which is much less than the present generation of 27, 28, 326 MTA of land-disposable hazardous wastes. The deficit of TSDF capacity is 12, 27, 758 MTA. It is obvious that the additional TSDF to the tune of 15, 00, 000 T/A must be developed to accommodate the present and future quantities of land disposable hazardous wastes.

For incinerable hazardous waste as per CPCB, there are 14 Common Incinerators in 7 States and 127 individual incinerators in 12 States. Total incineration capacity of these incinerators is 3, 27, 705 MTA while the present generation of Incinerable hazardous wastes is 4, 15, 794 MTA. It is clear that there is a deficit of 88,089 MTA of incineration capacity of the country. It is proposed by different States to install additional incinerators to provide an additional incineration capacity of 2, 56, 710 MTA. From these figures reported in the “National Inventory of Hazardous Wastes Generating Industries & Hazardous Waste Management in India”, it is quite clear that Special Rapporteur has erred in welcoming "the significant progress the country has made in the area of the management and disposal of hazardous products and wastes" at page of his report.

The inconsistency with regard to his views on ship breaking is quite manifest when he says, "Regulatory authorities in Alang/Sosiya and the shipbreaking industry should
step up their efforts to improve health and safety in the yards" because he also states and observes his major concerns as "the health and safety situation
prevailing at the shipbreaking yards continues to remain critical, as witnessed by the 12 fatal accidents that occurred in Alang/Sosiya during the course of 2009, and there are a number of identifiable shortcomings which need to be addressed" at page 12 of his report. TWA agrees with the latter part of it.

TWA agrees with the report when it states, "Health facilities in Alang/Sosiya do not possess sufficient human, technical and financial resources to provide any treatment other than first aid for minor injuries. The nearest hospital equipped to deal with life-threatening conditions is in Bhavnagar, more than 50 kilometres away. The Red Cross hospital in Alang, which the Special Rapporteur visited, can count on only four medical doctors and nine beds to provide health care not only to some 30,000 workers in the yards, but also to the neighbouring villages of Alang (which has a population of about 18,000 people) and Sosiya (4,000 people)" on page 14.

TWA agrees, "In Mumbai the situation is even worse, with no permanent facilities except first aid and ambulance services."

TWA shares the observation that "most workers, but reportedly also a number of yard owners, are not aware of the serious life-threatening work-related diseases which may result from long-term exposure to toxic and hazardous substances and materials present on end-of-life ships. In particular, it appears that the majority of the
workforce and the local population do not know the adverse consequences of prolonged
exposure to asbestos dusts and fibres and are not familiar with the precautions that need to be taken to handle asbestos-containing materials."

It is true that "The majority of the workforce lives in overcrowded makeshift facilities just outside the yards. Most accommodations lack basic amenities such as kitchens, toilet facilities, electricity and running water. The water and sanitation facilities available in Alang/Sosiya remain grossly inadequate to deal with the consumption, cooking, and personal and domestic hygienic requirements of the 30,000 workers who work and live there. In Mumbai, the situation is even worse, with no safe drinking water available in the yards."

On page 13, he observes, "the vast majority of the workforce in Mumbai do not
receive any information on the hazards or risks to health and safety, nor do they receive any training on how to avoid or minimize them. With regard to safety training, the Special Rapporteur is of the view that existing training opportunities in Alang/Sosiya should be improved, considering the magnitude of the risks associated with shipbreaking activities and the hazardous substances workers are potentially exposed to." He adds, "Due to the informal nature of working arrangements, workers are not covered by social protection schemes, and do not receive any benefit in case of work-related injuries or diseases." TWA agrees with it.

He observes, employers do not pay for long-term medical treatment or for expenses
linked to chronic work-related illnesses. Workers do not usually receive any wages or
benefits when absent from work on medical grounds. TWA agrees with it.

TWA endorses Special Rapporteur's assessment wherein it says "in India ships are
dismantled on beaches, a method commonly referred to as “beaching”.5 This method of
ship dismantling fails to comply with generally accepted norms and standards on
environmental protection. Although very little work has been carried out to assess its
environmental impact, the dismantling of ships on sandy beaches without any containment other than the hull of the ship itself appears to have caused high levels of contamination of soil, air, and marine and freshwater resources in many South Asian countries, and to have adversely affected the livelihood of local communities surrounding the shipbreaking facilities, which often rely on agriculture and fishing for their subsistence" at page 9 of his report.

TWA welcomes Special Rapporteur's recommendation seeking "an independent study be
carried out to assess the actual and potential adverse effects caused by the discharge
of hazardous substances and materials into the natural environment. Such a study
should also assess the steps that need to be taken for the gradual phasing out of
“beaching” in favour of more environmentally friendly methods of shipbreaking" at page 21 of his report.

It appears that while making general observations, the report has erred but in many specific instances it has stated facts which merit the attention of Government of India, ship owning countries, companies and IMO who continue to contaminate South Asian beaches like Alang even as they cherish such beaches in their own countries. IMO treaty on ship recycling by promoting status quo with regard to shipbreaking activities on beach appears racist.
Gopal Krishna
ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA)

Statement of the Special Rapporteur on Toxic waste
concludes his visit to India

The Special Rapporteur on the adverse effects of the movement and dumping of toxic and dangerous products and wastes on the enjoyment of human rights, Mr. Okechukwu Ibeanu, during a 10-day mission, from 11 to 21 January 2010, assessed the progress made India in minimizing the adverse effects that hazardous activities, such as shipbreaking and the recycling of electronic waste (e-waste), have on the human rights of countless individuals working in these sectors or living close to the places where these activities take place.

The Special Rapporteur visited the capital New Delhi and an e-waste recycling facility in Roorkee, informal small-scale laboratories for the dismantling and recycling of electronic products in a suburb of the capital, a facility for the treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous wastes in Ankleshwar, and a number
of shipbreaking yards in Alang and Mumbai.

”I welcome the significant progress India has made in improving health and safety conditions in the shipbreaking yards, as witnessed by the considerable decrease in the
number of work-related injuries resulting in death or permanent or temporary disabilities, but a number of serious concerns remain to be properly addressed”, Mr.
Ibeanu said.

“First and foremost, I urge the owners of the yards to comply with the existing labour and social security legislation, and the Government to monitor its effective
implementation”, he added. Training opportunities need to be improved, and personal protective equipments (PPEs) should be provided to, and used by, all workers in the
yards. Medical facilities do not possess sufficient human, technical and financial resources to provide any treatment other than first aid for inor injuries, and there are no schools or formal education facilities for the children of those employed in the yards, 20 per cent of whom are accompanied by their families. In India , ships are currently dismantled on the beaches, a method commonly referred to as “beaching”, and the impact of this on the surrounding environment and the livelihood of local communities relying on agriculture and fishing for their subsistence continues to be debated.

“In order to ascertain the environmental impact of the shipbreaking industry, I recommend that an independent study be carried out to assess the actual and potential
adverse effects that may be caused by the discharge of hazardous material into the natural environment, as well as the level of risk”, Mr. Ibeanu said.

The Special Rapporteur noted that he was “shocked by the extremely poor conditions in which most workers live in Alang and Mumbai”. Semi-skilled and unskilled workers
live in makeshift facilities lacking basic sanitation facilities, electricity and even safe drinking water. “I call on Governmental authorities to provide appropriate plots of lands, and facilitate the construction of adequate housing facilities for those who work in the yards. Adequate sanitation and drinking water facilities should also be put in place”.

Updates from South Asian Beaches

Accident prone MSC Chitra to be dismantled

On August 7 last year the cargo ship MV Khalija-3 collided with the container vessel MSC Chitra 30 nautical miles off the Mumbai port. This was followed by another accident involving the container ship, which occurred on March 19, 2011. This time the mishap resulted in the ship's anchor chain damaging the winch and other parts. The cause of the same was the breaking of mooring lines leading to drifting of the already damaged vessel.

Finally, according to sources in DG Shipping, the authorities have now opted to tear the ill-fated MSC Chitra down, overriding their earlier decision to wash their hands clean of the ship by selling it to the Alang ship-breaking yard.

With the efforts of salvage company Smith Tech, MSC Chitra re-floated safely on March 11. Soon after, the directorate general of shipping (DGS) decided to get rid of the vessel by way of scrapping, and permitted her sending off to Alang ship-breaking yard. However, delay in clearance processes resulted in the mishap. Currently, the ship lay at Alfa anchorage and the salvage company is spending nearly US$2.5L on it per day.

Earlier, when DGS permitted the sale of MSC Chitra at Alang, Smith Tech had promised to escort the vessel as far as Alang -- nearly 200 miles from Mumbai, and the dead vessel, whilst being towed, would have taken just 4 days to cover the distance. But DGS took too much time to provide clearance to her last voyage, which eventually led to the accident on March 19.

If the ship can safely withstand outer anchorage and be re-floated, being currently grounded 30 to 50 meters in deep water, then it could be brought to Alang. However, the sudden decision to sink her in deep water has raised many questions.

Apr 10, 2011
By Mahebub Kureshi
Bhavnagar
DNA

Wires holding MSC Chitra come apart, ship moved away

The ill-fated ship MSC Chitra has been moved 30 nautical miles off the city harbour as the anchor wires holding it came apart during a strong receding tide, the Directorate General of Shipping said today. During the strong "ebb tide" on Saturday (full moon day), the anchor wires holding the vessel afloat were parted. "Fortunately the vessel was manoeuvred safely out of port without damage to other vessels or blocking the channel," a release issued here by the DGS said, adding that MSC Chitra has been moved to a location about 30 nautical miles north of the entrance of Mumbai Port.

Having partially submerged after an accident in August last year, MSC Chitra was refloated only nine days earlier on March 10 and being prepared to be taken to the Alang ship-breaking yard, the DGS said. During the nine days that it was refloated, it was placed on four point moorings while at its new location, salvors were working with two tugs and one salvage barge to ensure safety of the vessel, it added. The salvors are working again to prepare the vessel for beaching at Alang, it said.

MSC Chitra had collided with the in-bound M V Khalija on August 7 last year while exiting the Mumbai harbour, leading to heavy damage to port operations. After the collision the vessel started taking in water and settled on a shallow patch within Mumbai Port Trust, listed heavily and partly submerged.

March 22,2011
PTI


In the continued absence of ship breakers from Bangladesh from market, both India and Pakistan are proving to valuable outlets for cash buyers and owners alike.


New India Assurance asked to pay for ship wreck loss

The Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal of New India Assurance Company which had rejected the claim of a ship-breaking firm for compensation. The firm bought a Belgian vessel and was bringing it from Singapore on its ‘funeral voyage’ to Alang port in Gujarat for demolition. It wrecked on way in high seas due to bad weather.

The ship was covered by marine insurance and the ship-breaker invoked the policy. The insurer rejected the claim leading to litigation in the consumer forum.

The National Consumer Commission asked the insurance company to pay Rs 14 crore with 9 per cent interest to Priya Blue Industries, the scrap dealer in ships. However, the insurer appealed to the Supreme Court.

It ruled that the loss suffered due to the ship wreck was properly assessed by the surveyors and the commission order was correct.

M J Antony
Business Standard
April 04, 2011


Shipbreaking in Bangladesh

Bangladesh ship breakers have got an interim High Court (HC) order issued in their favour on February 27, 2011. The order says, ship import should not be stopped and sought suggestions from parties concerned to facilitate procurement of old scrap vessels.

Sitakundu in Chittagong emerged as the world's largest ship-breaking destination as Bangladeshi importers had beaten their competitors in India and Pakistan to buy the highest number of scrap vessels sold in the international market during 2007, 2008 and 2009 period.

The active ship breaking yards in Sitakundu, 20 kilometres north of the port city Chittagong, dismantled more than 130 ships in 2007.

Bangladesh used to dismantle nearly 50 per cent of the ships sent to scrap-yards across the globe.

Intelligence Raids Reveals Alang Remains a Fake Document Factory

Press Release

Intelligence Raids Reveals Alang Remains a Fake Document Factory

Dilution of Central Excise Intelligence Opposed

Import of hazardous substances, a Global Threat

New Delhi 7/1/2011: ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA) welcomes the notification of Director General of Central Excise Intelligence (DGCEI), Union Ministry of Finance seeking change in system of invoicing by ship breakers at Alang, Gujarat to ensure more transparency. This Public Notice No. 01/2010 dated on 26/7/2010 vindicates TWA’s allegations about non-transparency in Alang. The document is attached.

Notably, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence functions under the Central Board of Excise and Customs in the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue has taken note of "problems such as import of hazardous substances that will occupy centre stage in the future as the emerging global threats." In such a context, the notification assumes huge significance as it will end up helping systematic quantification of material flow and help detect and segregate goods of hazardous nature.

On 23rd December, 2010, Mr Raju, Commissioner, Central Excise, Bhavnagar issued a Press Note (attached) referring to “ a number of cases of Revenue leakage in Alang against Ship Breakers of Alang, who fraudulently passed on Cenvat Credit worth crores of Rupees. They were also not showing production, clearance, transportation and Service Tax related information in their statutory records. The investigations are going on and some notices have been issued by ADG (CEI). In order to curb these malpractices, the Public Notice No. 02/2010 was issued on 13.12.2010 by the Central Excise Commissionerate, Bhavnagar. The public notice requires them to maintain certain records which would make it difficult for those who choose to evade duties by clandestine clearances.” The Press Note says that “ around 100-150 persons came to Central Excise, Head Quarters office, Bhavnagar and informed that they were from the Alang Ship Breaking Association”, “they continued shouting slogans and fearing damage to public property, and a as matter of abundant precaution, police force was called to ensure peace and security of the Government office”.

In such a backdrop, TWA has learnt that under pressure due to strike, now DGCEI decided to put the notification seeking change in system of invoicing by the ship breakers for transparency, in abeyance for one month after the intervention of Chief Commissioner, Ahmedabad. The TWA opposes any amendment in the notification and demands that the notification of 13.12.2010 be enforced rigorously both in letter and spirit because it is in compliance of the Supreme Court’s order in the hazardous wastes/shipbreaking case. Most ship breakers who are law abiding support this notification. The case is listed for hearing on 21st January, 2011.

It is noteworthy that Office of the Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Bhavnagar, Department of Revenue, Union Ministry of Finance issued on 26/7/2010, a Public Notice No. 01/2010 saying, “It has been brought to the notice of this Commissionerate that the Ship Breaking Units situated in Alang, Sosiya and other areas falling within its jurisdiction are not issuing their Central Excise invoices by declaring correct value and description of the scrap, plates etc generated as a result of their manufacturing activities. Investigations recently initiated by Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, Ahmedabad Zonal Unit revealed that the documentation and procedures followed by the ship breaking units are suffering from several infirmities resulting in substantial loss of Government Revenue.” As per power conferred under Central Excise Rules, 2002, it said, “All ship breaking units are directed to discontinue their present system of mentioning general description of ship breaking materials in their invoices. They should declare the correct and full description of the goods...”

For the first time since 14th October, 2003, in compliance of the Supreme Court order, this Public Notice seeks proper inventory saying, “Ship breaking units are also directed that as soon as they complete dismantling and clearance of materials obtained from each imported ship, vessel or any other floating structure, they should submit a statement to the jurisdictional Range Superintendent indicating the LDT of the imported ship, nature of the imported ship [cargo, passenger, tanker etc], total quantity of scrap of each metal obtained and cleared, total quantity of plates of each metal and different sizes [thickness] obtained and cleared, total quantity of each item of non-excisable goods obtained and cleared [wood, furniture, old engine, machinery, stores etc.], and the percentage difference of total weight of goods and materials obtained and cleared vis-a-vis the LDT of the imported ship etc.”

Earlier, the four-day-long strike by ship breakers at Alang happened to protest this notification asking for a ship-wise break-up of material obtained from dismantled vessels. The notification was issued in July 2010 and ship-breakers were asked to periodically submit details of excisable and non-excisable items obtained from the ships they bring for scraping. Ship-breakers were told to maintain ship-to-ship stock register. At present, ship-breakers submit details goods-wise, and not ship-wise. The notification was issued after a multi-crore excise duty evasion ''racket'' at Alang came to light. The ship breakers were allegedly hiding value addition to scrap and were inflating the quantity of items exempted from excise duty. The strike ended on 31st December, 2010 evening after the representatives of ship-breakers met officials of central excise and other departments. The work at Alang yard was resumed on 1st January, 2011. Ship breaking at Alang came to a halt on December 21, 2010 remained suspended for four days in protest of the notification.

Earlier, the Inter-ministerial Committee (IMC) on Ship breaking, Union Ministry of Steel noted in the minutes of its meeting dated 17th September, 2010 that “The Coast Guard representative brought out some security concerns and incidents of communication sets from ships reportedly finding their way to the local fisherman. It was advised to the Ship recyclers to ensure that such equipment are immediately destroyed by the Customs as per the prescribed procedures. The Chairman also advised the Naval, Coast Guard and GMB to regularly interact as per the decisions taken in the earlier IMC meetings and to resolve the major security issues in the Coastal Security Committee meetings conducted at the State Level.”

In its minute dated 4th February 2009, the IMC noted the Security Concerns, saying, “Both the representative of the Coast Guard and the representative from Naval HQ raised concerns over the entry of ships carrying hazardous cargo to Alang for ship breaking and how no information is made available to them regarding the movement of ships to Alang. Besides this there was no information regarding whether the Alang Port is compliant with the International Ship and Port Facility Security (ISPS) Code. In the context of the present security concerns in the country, the Chairman advised the representative of the Ministry of Shipping, the GMB officials, the Coast Guard representative and the Naval HQs to address the issue expeditiously so that the security gaps are taken care of and also to verify whether the port at Alang has implemented the ISPS codes. The Coast Guard representative and the Naval HQ representative also expressed apprehensions that the vessels coming in for beaching sometimes ply very close to the oil rigs, which could be a potential for accidents.”

It also mentions that the Chairman of the IMC “directed that the Ministry of Shipping may organize a meeting on the matter with GMB, Naval HQ and Coast Guard HQ, Custom etc. immediately and ensure that gaps in the security frame-work issues are addressed immediately.” No action has been taken so far to plug the existing the loop holes.

On the issue of radioactive materials raised by TWA, it observes, “Regarding report of a huge quantity of Smoke Detectors containing radioactive material lying in the Plots at Alang, the AERB informed that due to large volume of non-radioactive materials contained in the smoke detectors, it is difficult for them to accept the material in the present shape for disposal at the BARC facility.” The issue remains unresolved so far.

Even as the Union Steel Ministry is seized with the issue of 58 page Draft Code on Regulations for Safe and Environmentally Sound Ship Recycling prepared in compliance of the Supreme Court's order dated September 6, 2007 to improve the situation, death toll of migrant workers from Bihar, UP, Jharkhand and Orissa in Alang underlines the fact of non-improvement on the Alang beach. In the year 2010 alone, some 20 workers have died while at work. Most of the workers are poor migrants work in a hazardous and toxic working environment. Meanwhile, the ongoing contamination of once pristine Alang beach is yet to see the sight of any effort to remediate the site and take the hazardous industrial activity off the beach, away from coastal environment. Alang is a litmus test for government’s sensitivity towards country’s environmental borders in which it has failed miserably so far.

While such state of affairs prevails, 348 ships were dismantled without complying with environmental and occupational health regulations and Supreme Court’s order in 2010. Since 1983, Alang has so far dismantled 5,200 ships. There are a total of 127 private ship-breaking plots at Alang. The theft of excise duty has been going on for a very long time.

For Details: Gopal Krishna, ToxicsWatch Alliance, Mb: 9818089660, E-mail: krishna2777@gmail.com, Web: imowatch.blogspot.com