Beaching is considered to be one of the harshest and most dangerous jobs in the world; it is the shipbreaking on beaches in India, Bangladesh or Pakistan, where regulatory mechanisms are weak, ignoring basic safety rules, where labour force is cheap and respect for the environment barely non-existent.
Unskilled workers – many of them under 18 – cut up these coffin-like vessels for an estimated 3 € for a 12 to 16 hour working day. Shipbreaking is the dismantling of end-of-life ships with the aim of recycling its materials.
Martin Siecker, rapporteur of the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC)’s own-initiative opinion on Shipbreaking and the recycling society, which was adopted on 19 October at the EESC’s plenary, commented
“We have to end this dangerous work, which not only exploits the poorest, but also puts their life in danger on a daily basis. It is the EU’s moral duty to defend workers’ basic rights abroad too”
EU ship owners control around 40% of the world’s merchant fleet and account for around one third of the end-of-life tonnage beached in sub-standard yards in South Asia. Every year around 1,000 large ocean-going vessels are sold for dismantling. Over two thirds of these end-of-life ships end up on beaches in the above mentioned countries.
The EESC urges the Commission to come up with more rigorous legislation that recognizes ship owners’ responsibility and duty to dispose of their ships in a decent way. The ‘polluter pays principle’ should also be applied to ship-owners and the EU has a particular responsibility to eliminate the abuses of irresponsible and inhuman ship dismantling, argues the EESC, calling for an economic instrument which can guide developments in the desired direction.
“If Europe wants its ships to be scrapped in a responsible way, it is reasonable that it should ensure that the cost of doing so is integrated into the operating cost of the vessel”, said Richard Adams, co-rapporteur of the EESC opinion.
Commission shows that adding a mere 0.5 % to the operating costs of smaller ships and around 2% for larger categories would be enough to change the behaviour of 42% of ship owners, while a further rate increase or a shortening of the proposed capital accumulation would raise this percentage to 68%, and in the long run 97% of ships calling at EU ports would be dismantled in a proper way.
Several attempts have been made to enforce ship owner responsibility for coffin ships, but with little or no success, such as the International Maritime Organisation (IMO)’s Hong Kong International Convention for the Safe and Environmentally Sound Recycling of Ships (HKC) and its International Ship Recycling Trust Fund. In the EU, the search for an effective solution has been on the agenda for many years.
With the EU Ship Recycling Regulation (EU SRR), which will be applicable at the latest in 2018, the Commission is setting high standards for ship recycling facilities, but ship-owners can easily circumvent this regulation by transferring ownership or simply flagging out of the EU. With the financial instrument proposed by the EESC, however, ship owners could be prevented from abdicating their responsibility because if their ships are not dismantled in a facility that is on an EU approved list they cannot reclaim the money and have to pay a price.
While the majority of ship recycling would probably still take place in countries with low labour costs, it would at least then happen under better working and environmental conditions. But sustainable ship recycling could also be profitable for Europe. Given the scarcity of raw materials and their high and volatile prices, an industry specializing in recycling end-of-life ships could generate growth and jobs in particular in maritime areas and help to reduce the import balance of raw materials.
A recent study on a ship recycling licence may be found below
Source: EESC
Dear Martin,
when an article starts with “Unskilled workers – many of them under 18 – ..” it shows that the focus is on one particular country where this may happen in very very few cases.
Maybe your approach is a good one, you accidently repeat the no-beaching outcry for turning it into a request for a financial instrument. That is your weak Point.
I beleieve this is a questionable approach of yours as green & safe ship recycling capacity is already available. Requesting a financial incentive scheme and arguing against the beaching method in one article reflects a lack of insight and knowledge about safe and soudn Management practcies. It´s time to recognize the huge improvements achieved by some beaching yards which are at least en par with Turkey. Beaching is not related to employing underage workers, that´s a sign of bad management and if this is poor this may happen in a dry-dock as well.
Please, when preparing a public outcry relate this to poor practices and that only others should benefit from a financial incentive. Relating illegal practices to a Recycling method is not appropriate.
Of course only good facilities with a good management should be entitled to benefit, at least indirectly by ensuring that shipowners entering into contracts with them will get some financial support.
If this is generally needed as we´re not talking about paying for getting a ship recycled but about a small reduction from the sale of the ship, is a different question. Of course, when all ship have to be dismantled in Eurpoe, this can become reality and the World Bank will have to get more funds for sending food to developing countries.