Green Ships:Ship breaking Regulations
- 1 Hong Kong Convention
- 2 AFS Convention
- 3 European Commission
- 4 Basel Convention
- 5 Miscellaneous Conventions
- 6 Green Ship Countries
- 7 References
Hong Kong Convention
Of all the conventions in effect, the Hong Kong Convention is the more recent Convention, as well as the IMO in works with Bangladesh, to actively seek more clear and stricter guidelines regarding occupational safety and environmental concerns in ship recycling. The Hong Kong Convention has been adopted under the auspices of the IMO in 2009 after more than five years of negotiations, and is expected to enter into force in 2015. (Alam). The original framework of the Hong Kong convention was very vague and allowed for many countries to slip through the cracks in order to avoid the environmental safety guidelines. The aim of the Convention is to provide regulations for the design, construction, operation and preparation of ships so as to facilitate safe and environmentally sound recycling. (Alam). Clear and concise protocol will enable the countries under the Hong Kong Convention to protect their environment and safety of workers, but also the required accountability leaves no room for liberation from the law, including legislators that may benefit from abusing their role in hopes of personal gain. The Convention requires all vessels to carry detailed, regularly updated inventories of hazardous materials throughout their years of service. (Alam)
Though the Hong Kong Convention has come under much scrutiny for its obscure guidelines, it holds ship owners accountable for hazardous material upon each ship. The Convention requires all vessels to carry detailed, regularly updated inventories of hazardous materials throughout their years of service. (Alam). In addition to holding ship owners responsible for hazardous material on the vessels, the inventory of hazardous material protects the ship-recycling workers and their communities once the ship is no longer usable. Ships to be sent for recycling will have to meet certification standards, including carrying out an inventory of hazardous materials, specific to each ship.(Alam). In order to properly ensure obedience with the policies and inhibit potential loopholes, the ships are required to meet and undergo surveys to secure compliance. Ships will have to have an initial survey to verify the inventory of hazardous materials, surveys during the life of the ship, and a final survey prior to recycling, (Alam). In holding ship owners accountable, there is also a necessity to assure conformity to protect the environment and ship recycling workers. Ship recycling yards must be authorised, and will be required to provide a ‘Ship Recycling Plan’, to specify the manner in which each ship will be recycled, depending on its particulars and its inventory. (Alam). Many conventions were developed as a tertiary prevention approach to ship recycling, protecting the environment and its workers, few conventions have turned their efforts to focus on primary or secondary prevention methods. This Convention tries to cover all aspects of a ship's life (described by Bhattacharjee as ‘the cradle-to-grave-approach. (Alam). Concentrating on primary prevention attempts will potentially diminish means of escape and the use of toxic materials as the construction of the ships will require "green" friendly materials. The Convention addresses the crucial issue of ‘green ship building and design’ which neither the Basel Convention nor any other international treaties directly addresses. (Alam). The Hong Kong Convention was put into effect much later than the Basel Convention, though it has acknowledged it's weaknesses and attempted to reconstruct its guidelines to certify complete compliance and environmental conservation and human safety. In May 2009, the Hong Kong International Convention for Safe and Environmentally Sound Recycling of Ships was adopted. (Chang). The concentration and recognition of likely harms faced in the ship recycling industry lacks focus and attention by other conventions. The Hong Kong Convention is aimed at ensuring ships when recycled after reaching end of operational lives do not pose unnecessary risk to human health and safety or to the environment (Chang). Other conventions allow leniency to visiting ships operating through other parties, enabling them to slip through the cracks through other countries not operating or operating under less restricted policies. The Hong Kong Convention applies to: ships entitled to fly the flag of a Party or operating under its authority and ship-recycling facilities operating under the jurisdiction of a Party (Chang).
Although the Hong Kong Convention can be seen as a more strict amendment to the Basel Convention, it lacks methods guiding the aftermath or processes once the ship has been recycled. Arguably, this is a substantial improvement on the approach of the Basel Convention, though ‘the 2009 Hong Kong Convention itself does not introduce a compulsory and environmentally sound ship recycling method. (Alam). The conventions efforts to seal loopholes and account for all vessels creation through recycling, it does not include all parties utilizing vessels. Furthermore it fails to adequately address ‘final management of waste’, and it has multiple exclusions such as ‘warships, naval auxiliary ships or other ships owned or operated by a Party and used only on governmental, non-commercial service. (Alam).The Hong Kong Conventions aim at primary prevention is extraordinarily beneficial but the vast majority of ships currently in use should also be addressed as their average lifetime of 20 years is a lengthy amount of time to go ignored and harm workers and the environment. However, the newly adopted Convention has been criticised as it does not impose substantial obligations on shipbreaking countries or ship owners to improve the present conditions and it fails to demand decontamination of ships within developed countries prior to the final export. (Alam). The green and environmentally safe development of ships the Convention demands will be extensive, though it is the recycling industries that will require the most improvement and restoration added to their already weak and poor financial status and processes. It seems to shift the responsibility of polluters to the victims by concentrating only on downstream environmentally sound management of ship dismantling whilst ignoring the realities of the true capacity of developing countries to adhere to such obligations. (Alam). Developing countries are vulnerable to ship breaking, as the recycled components and steel obtained from the recycling process is much more than they could afford. In addition of rich countries already taking advantage of poor country's poor financial stability, through this convention we are then asking them to implement and extensively renovate their processes by reason of expensive reconstruction. As shipbreaking is primarily conducted in developing countries—those with the lowest capacity—the Convention's focus on these countries undermines the principle of common but differentiated responsibility. (Alam). The Convention also does not entirely ban the practices of dismantling ships on beaches. In fact, the IMO Ship Recycling Convention is much weaker than the Basel Convention. (Alam). The ratification by the primary ship recycling countries will be difficult as some country's legislators do not view beached ships for recycling without official approval as a legitimate industry. The ultimate difficulty with the Hong Kong Convention relates to its enforcement, for example, it requires ‘the signature of the five main ship recycling States, including Bangladesh, China, India, Pakistan and Turkey. (Alam). Though the developing country's legislators do not perceive ship breaking as a formal industry, they do not refuse the parts obtained through ship recycling. However, domestic law enforcement in Bangladesh is hampered by the lack of recognition of shipbreaking as a formal industry. (Alam)
In 2001, the IMO (International Maritime Organization) met and create the AFS (Anti-Fouling Systems) Convention in response to the harmful effects contributed by the use of anti-fouling systems. According to the AFS Convention, it entered the force and became binding on the parties one year after 25 states, representing 25% of the world’s merchant shipping tonnage, have ratified it. (Gipperth). The Convention was adopted in 2001 and obtained its final signature in September 2007 by Panama and became the 25th state (out of 166 IMO member countries) to ratify the convention. One of the major benefits of the AFS Convention is its adequate percentage of the world's shipping inclusions. These 25 countries represent 38.09% of worlds merchant shipping tonnage, convention entered force September 2008. (Gipperth)
The IMO adopted the AFS Convention to address the harmful effects caused by anti-fouling systems, primarily toxic based paints such as TBT. The AFS Convention prohibited all use of TBT based antifouling paints in 2008. (Stichnothe)
The prohibited use of TBT based paints forced ship owners and ship workers to recognize the dangers associated with TBT based paints. Due to entering into force of AFS convention on September 2008, huge amount of TBT containing wastes is expected to be produced, near shipyards, in following months. (Stichnothe). The immediate fear of handling or being near ships coated in TBT based paints likely caused ship works and ship owners to use unsafe methods such as scraping to remove the TBT from the ships, in turn, harming the surrounding marine life and the workers as they might inhale the paint particles.
The European Commission as a whole is designed to govern and implement legislation upholding the European Union (EU) treaties. The EU Ship Recycling Regulation is a more recent policy established in 2013 implemented under the requirements of the Hong Kong Convention. The main aim of the regulation is that European ships have to be dismantled in safe and environmentally sound facilities. (Alam). The EU has accepted responsibility, primarily that the Hong Kong Convention has forced countries to accept, for their flagged ships and reducing the negative impacts associated with ship-recycling without creating irrelevant economic burdens. According to the Regulation, all waste, including end-of-life ships and vessels, destined for disposal is subject to the requirement of prior notification. (Alam).
In March 2012, the European Commission (EC) adopted a proposal for new regulation on ship recycling, which has been approved by the European Parliament in April 2013. (Alam). The EC's newly implemented regulation operates under the governing Hong Kong Convention the regulation also invokes facets of the Basel Convention. The proposal aims to implement the Basel Convention and an Amendment to the Convention (the ‘Ban Amendment’), which has not yet entered into force. (Alam). The European Union continues to accept responsibility for their vessels and reduce exporting toxic wastes and owning economic accountability associated with ship recycling by employing ship recycling facilities that have proven and met the ship recycling criteria. European ships are only allowed to be recycled in facilities that are registered in a European list of recycling facilities (apply for inclusion with evidence that they meet stipulated requirements) (Alam)
The Basal Convention was one of the initial regulations established to prohibit the transportation of toxic waste for disposal and to protect human health and the environment from hazardous toxins. The Basel Convention remains the principal international legal instrument of regulation on the shipbreaking industry. (Alam). Many people encourage the proper disposal of toxic waste, however, they seem to be more concerned that the adverse waste is not disposed of in their area, they'd prefer to outsource the waste. The main purpose of the Basel Convention is to ensure that parties take responsibility for their own hazardous waste, establish hazardous waste disposal facilities (including recycling) within their territory, minimise the generation and transboundary movement of hazardous waste, and ensure that they do not export the hazards and damage to human health and the environment, to other countries. (Alam). Regulations that encourage hazardous waste accountability and determine suitability for recycling allow more protection for the environment and human health. The European Waste Shipment Regulation 259/93/EEC determines which procedures to apply before waste can be shipped within, into and out of the European Community, the Regulation is largely based on the Basel Convention. (Alam). Though there are strict guidelines set forth to discourage the transportation of toxic waste for good reason, many ship owners choose to disregard the reasoning. In most cases, ships exported for shipbreaking are a clear violation of these objectives. (Alam). Unfortunately, many countries, especially developed countries, elect to have control or a announce a suggestions to these Conventions, ironically do not authenticate the Conventions but forcing the committed countries to abide by the regulations. The United States dominated many of original Basel Convention negotiations, failed to ratify agreement, joining Haiti and Afghanistan as only signatories to the agreement that have failed to ratify treaty. (Alam).
Many countries elude abiding by the endorsed regulations by operating under various port and flag states as convenient. Firstly, it obligates the Parties, irrespective of their status (e.g., State of Export, Import, Transit, flag or port State), to prohibit or not permit the export of hazardous and other wastes to parties, which have prohibited the import of such wastes. (Alam). It is difficult for every or any Convention to envision every possible evasion of the regulations, the Basel Convention has set the groundwork for subsequent Regulations and comprehend areas for improvement. The Basel Convention is environmentally sound management, which means taking all practicable steps to ensure protection of human health and the environment. (Alam). Being able to hold countries responsible for their avoidance and infringement of the laws is one step, although enforcing the illegal act is seal of solution for holding countries accountable. The Basel Convention defines “illegal traffic” of hazardous wastes and makes it a criminal act. (Alam). The prohibited transportation of hazardous waste is clear and indisputable, but the definition of what constitutes as hazardous is unclear leaving room for open interpretation in different locations. The Basel Convention's 7th Conference of Parties has recognised that end-oflife vessels containing PCBs, asbestos, heavy metals and other hazardous substances should be legally defined as hazardous wastes in international law. (Alam). The clarification of what hazardous waste is defined as further instills liability. Therefore, ships containing such hazardous constituents and destined for ship breaking should be defined as hazardous wastes, this is a significant area of reform for the Basel Convention which requires clarification. (Alam). The majority of the obligation of implementing a practical operation is largely undertaken by the importing state. The failure to prescribe a process by which to ascertain the information has meant that assessment is reliant on representations made by authorities in the importing state, this is problematic where lack of capacity and endemic corruption are regularly encountered. (Alam). There has been a newly suggested addition to the Basel Convention that focuses on two separate collection of nations. The Basel Ban Amendment prohibits all hazardous wastes from being transported from OECD nations to non-OECD nations. (Alam). The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (34 countries founded in 1961) establishes a total ban on exports of hazardous wastes from OECD and EC countries to developing countries. This fulfills the purpose of the convention, namely, “to prevent the developed nations from ‘dumping’ on the developing nations. (Alam)
As there are many definitive guidelines described in the Basel Convention, there are also some obscure policies established in the Convention. The ambiguities in the Convention. Articles. 4.1 and 6 of the Basel Convention stipulates that no shipment of waste should take place without all “States Concerned” being informed and consented. (Alam). It is well known that this requirement can be circumvented by unscrupulous waste ship traders by declaring a ship to be waste only after it is in international waters or already at the shipbreaking state. (Alam). The “prior informed consent” (PIC) mechanism requires that the state of export informs an importing state of any transfer, detailing accurately the nature and volume of the waste, and receives written consent from the state of import. (Alam). Violations have shown, however, that exporting parties frequently misrepresent the nature of the waste involved. (Alam). Abidjan disaster the waste concerned was described as ‘routine slops’, the dirty water from washing naval tanks, but was revealed to actually be a mixture of fuels, caustic soda and over two tonnes of hydrogen sulphide. (Alam). This lack of technical capacity has meant that importing states are often unable to ascertain whether the information provided is indeed correct. (Alam). The difficulties are further exacerbated by the fact that the Convention offers no explanation of ‘environmentally sound management’ beyond, ‘taking all practicable steps to ensure that hazardous wastes or other wastes are managed in a manner which will protect human health and the environment against the adverse effects which may result from such wastes’. 53 Exactly what is required then is subject to interpretation and conjecture. (Alam). This limitation has resulted in what is termed the ‘recycling loophole’. 59 It is argued that most waste transfers claimed to be for reuse or reclamation are either ‘sham recycling’, where future use is fabricated to disguise the fact that the waste is actually bound for dumping or ‘dirty recycling’, where the recycling process itself is harmful to the environment and human health. (Alam). Amendment struggles to take significant effect, as participation in ratifying the amendment is low and it has not entered into force yet. (Alam). no direct legal ban on the transboundary movement of hazardous wastes from developed to developing countries. (Alam). Basel Convention- Minimize amount and hazard level of wastes generated worldwide, where generation of hazardous waste is unavoidable such wastes should be disposed of as close to source of generation as possible, stresses environmentally sound management and disposal of hazardous wastes (last point is vague in the treaty, not enforceable or accountable). (Dodds). Basel Convention-failed to create fund to minimize damage from international hazardous wastes, did not prohibit transfer of hazardous waste but rather facilitated movement to countries with developing economies. (Dodds). Basel Convention totally exempts bilateral and multilateral agreements with nonparty countries(nonmember countries, US, and member countries, India, to enter into contracts for disposal of waste). (Dodds). 1989 Basel Convention not entirely adequate to challenge all risks and problems arising from ship recycling facilities. (Chang). Basel convention does not indicate detailed rules for the recycling process, because of this the IMO took ship recycling and its environmental impact onto its agenda. (Chang)
The Law of the Sea Convention 1982 contains obligations of the states concerning land-based environmental pollution of the sea; most important the obligations contained in Articles 192 and 194. According to Article 192, ‘states have the obligation to protect and preserve the marine environment’. Furthermore, states shall according to Article 194 ‘take […] measures […] to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment’. Bangladesh ratified this Convention in 2001 The Stockholm Convention can be relevant when considering Persistent Organic Pollutants (POP) such as PCBs; a pervasive substance in many ships International Convention on the Control of Harmful Antifouling Systems on Ships 2001. It prohibits the use of anti-fouling systems that burdens the environment. Anti-fouling systems that use organotin compounds have to have an additional layer as a barrier to prevent the harmful substances from being released to the environment. substandard beaching yards the anti-fouling paint usually does not get removed professionally, but simply gets scaped off and released to the environment. damaging not only to the workers, but also to the coastal ecosystem. The requirement of over-coating worsens the problem because it makes it more difficult to remove the harmful bottom layer of paint. IMO dedicated legislator of global shipping industry since maritime catastrophes in 1960’s. (Chang) In addition, joint efforts with the IMO, the International Labour Organization (ILO) and the Conference of Parties to the 1989 Basel Convention were also made to establish a Joint Working Group on Ship Scrapping. (Chang) Since decision making process within IMO (International Maritime Organization) is base on principle of state sovereignty, state members are free to enter any IMO Convention. (Gipperth)