Indian ship recyclers oppose IMO draft at Mumbai workshop

Serious differences came to the fore between Indian ship breakers and the international body, as the draft on International Convention for the Safe and Environmentally Sound Recycling of Ships went in for finalisation at the 2nd National Workshop of the International Maritime Organisation (IMO), held jointly by the Directorate General of Shipping and IMO on 23rd February 2009 at Maritime Training Institute of the Shipping Corporation of India, at Powai, Mumbai.

While the Norwegian, Greek and other ship owners of some of the developed nations took a concerted stand of imposing greater liability on ship breakers including doing away with the beaching process that is now being followed at the Alang yard in Gujarat and elsewhere, the Indian side claimed it to be a ploy of the shipowners’ from developed nations to shelf the entire responsibility on ship breakers so that they would not be held accountable in any way.

Jens H Koefoed, Senior Advisor to the Norwegian Maritime Directorate propounding ‘A conceptual approach to the Recycling convention’ insisted that an inventory of hazardous material along with the certification should be maintained on board the ship and at other stages of the ‘ship’s journey from its cradle to the grave’.

Vasuo Nakajo from the Ship Building Research of Japan as well as Hideaki Saito of Japan Ship Centre desired that there should be an approval of the recycling plan and each constituent of the hazardous material should also be identified and an inventory maintained.

Mr PS Nagarsheth, President of the Iron Steel Scrap & Shipbreakers’ Association of India questioned the practicality of keeping track of the TBT and other hazardous material that exists in paints through out the life of a ship. Without insisting on the TBT paint being replaced and allowing over-painting during the life of a ship it only meant that if a few pounds of such material was found short at the time of recycling the ship recycler would have to make up for the shortfall at his cost.

Ms Kate Ware, Sr. Policy Advisor, Shipping & Marine Environment, Dept of Transport, UK pointing to the process of recycling and getting tacit approval questioned the moment of the commencement of the 14 day notice period since there were no proper guidelines on this.

Mr Nagarsheth requested greater clarity with regard to hazardous material and hazardous waste. He went on to state that the definition of a ship which has been accepted under MARPOL 73 and even by MEPC up to the 53rd session is now being changed in the current draft with a new addition being made with the words “or having operated in the marine environment” which seems to be a deliberate attempt to pass on some of the responsibility and liability of the shipowners to the ship recyclers.
“There is no clear demarcation when a ship ceases to be a ship,” stated Mr Nagarsheth. “Once a ship is delivered to the ship recycler, it should cease to be a ship as it becomes merely a ‘floating structure cargo’. Accordingly, the IMO’s role is restricted until the ship remains a ship or a floating structure. Once it is no more a floating structure, the role of IMO should cease. Thereafter, the operations and role of workers at the yard should be addressed by the International Labour Organisation (ILO) and the handling of hazardous waste should be based on Basel norms.”
He also assailed the concept of ‘Maritime Lien’. He pointed out that the debt of a ship and not of a person is operative only in shipping industry and not in any other activity. The ship recycler, the bonafide buyer of the ship, even after taking all precautions, is subject to Maritime Lien risk without any default on his part. So to avoid such a risk to the recycler there should be clear demarcations made to decide when a ship creases to be a ship. Hence, he suggested that it was important to delete the words: ‘or having operated in the marine environment’ from the definition of a ship.
Though some of the Western shipowners’ especially the Norwegians were against the beaching method for recycling which was prevalent in Alang, Mr Nagarsheth stated, “The beaching method is the only economically viable method. A port or dry dock which can be used for building or repairing ships or is used as a port for the cargo movement cannot in any way be economically used for recycling.” He insisted that all hazardous material in a ship destined for recycling should be removed prior to the final voyage to the recycling yard.
Presenting the view of the Indian ship breaking industry Mr Nagarsheth stated, “The present working paper issued by MEPC 58 of the IMO on Ship Recycling is not acceptable to the Indian ship recycling industry.” He claimed that they would be sending a representation to the Indian government not to ratify it. He alleged that the working paper was prepared under the influence of the shipowners and shipowning countries, and is designed to transfer the obligation of observing the entire regulations onto ship recycling countries.
Reacting rather disdainfully Dr. Nikos Mikelis of the IMO, London, who was in the chair, stated that it was not proper for Mr. Nagarsheth to make allegations (without reason) about the draft being the shipowners’ ploy. Now that the draft was in its final stage it was wrong on his part to come up with total rejection and/or objection to it when there had been ample opportunities for the Indian side to make the amendments of choice at the various meetings held so far.
Earlier the IMO Workshop was inaugurated by Ms. Lakshmi Venkatachalam, Director General of Shipping & ex-officio Additional Secretary to the Govt. of India. Dr. Nikos Mikelis in his address stated, “It is not right for us to simply dump our ships in some place and forget about them. It is amazing that in this recycling business all parts of the ship are dismantled and brought to use in some other industry. As the world is becoming interdependent we have to acknowledge and adhere to the standard conventions and regulations.
“With the adoption of the new recycling conventions, I don’t think that IMO’s responsibilities and efforts are over. We depend on the Indian recycling industry for future initiatives to continue to serve the industry.”
Whether the convention gets ratified by India or not, informed an official, there were several loopholes in the draft per se. It is only a question of changing the flag of the ship intended to be recycled. Another spokesman from the shipping trade not wishing to be named considered the whole exercise to be eyewash.