Monitoring The Problems Of Shipbreaking In India

0 comments

Monitoring The Problems Of Shipbreaking In India

Abysmal working conditions and pollution in Alang were first documented by Greenpeace in 1998. Following actions by local NGOs, the Supreme Court issued several rulings demanding the improvement of the industry in order to bring it in line with national and international requirements for safe working conditions, environmental protection and waste trade law.

The Government responded with the adoption of the Ship Recycling Code in 2013, and the Gujarat Maritime Board (GMB) set up a waste reception facility.

Workers now also receive a very basic training.

Still, the working and living conditions for shipbreaking workers, as well as the environmental protection standards in Alang, remain alarmingly poor. According to local sources, at least 8 workers died at the yards in 2017. Yet absolute numbers of fatalities are not easily attainable, and serious injuries are rarely recorded. Occupational diseases are furthermore not documented at all.

Impunity for yard owners remains a serious concern: no yard owner has ever been held responsible for the death of a worker as they manage to put pressure on the law enforcers to quickly drop the charges.

From four yards in Alang receiving Statements of Compliance (SoC) with the Hong Kong Convention in 2015, there are now reportedly 66 yards that have one, out of a total of 154 yards. The industry push to make Indian beaching seem “green” has been promoted through the proliferated hand-outs of these certificates. However, the standard set by the HKC is weak and ignores crucial issues such as labour rights and downstream waste management. Disregard of the negative environmental impact of the beaching method, including hazardous operations in the intertidal zone and the use of the gravity method – which the Hong Kong Convention does not prohibit – remain serious concerns, as does the lack of proper accommodation and medical facilities for workers. Asbestos contaminated materials can be resold in India and there is no proper disposal site for PCBs. In October 2017, NGOs were refused access to the Alang shipbreaking area by the Gujarat Maritime Board to open up the site.

WHAT HAVE WE DONE?
ATTEMPT TO VISIT THE ALANG SHIPBREAKING
AREA
In light of the many yards that rapidly obtained Hong Kong Convention Statements of Compliance in Alang in the past year, the Platform requested the Gujarat Maritime Board (GMB) to visit the area. Despite some first exchanges with the GMB through our member organisation Toxics Link, the GMB interrupted the communication once the participants’ list to the visit was shared with them. Consequently, the Platform was not given the permission to visit the Alang shipbreaking area, nor was the Platform given the opportunity to contest the GMB decision to refuse access, as there was no formal rejection to the request.

Although not entirely unsurprising, this was a missed opportunity for the yards and the GMB to show the claimed improvements, and to demonstrate that they are open to listen to the concerns of civil society. The unwillingness to receive NGOs in the shipbreaking yards illustrates that there is still a serious lack of transparency in the industry in India, both from the yard owners and the authorities.

CONFERANCE WITH INDIAN NGOs
The failed attempt to visit Alang did not deter the Platform from going to India in October 2017, as the different members and board members met for the Annual General Meeting in Delhi.

The occasion was used to also have a larger conference with other Indian NGOs on the issue of shipbreaking in India. During this event, the NGOs could identify specific needs of improvements in the industry and learn from each other’s experiences. Since that meeting, the Platform has established stronger relationships with local NGOs and activists.
Source: NGO Shipbreaking Platform

Leave a Reply

SSCP   CAS-002   9L0-066   350-050   642-999   220-801   74-678   642-732   400-051   ICGB   c2010-652   70-413   101-400   220-902   350-080   210-260   70-246   1Z0-144   3002   AWS-SYSOPS   70-347   PEGACPBA71V1   220-901   70-534   LX0-104   070-461   HP0-S42   1Z0-061   000-105   70-486   70-177   N10-006   500-260   640-692   70-980   CISM   VCP550   70-532   200-101   000-080   PR000041   2V0-621   70-411   352-001   70-480   70-461   ICBB   000-089   70-410   350-029   1Z0-060   2V0-620   210-065   70-463   70-483   CRISC   MB6-703   1z0-808   220-802   ITILFND   1Z0-804   LX0-103   MB2-704   210-060   101   200-310   640-911   200-120   EX300   300-209   1Z0-803   350-001   400-201   9L0-012   70-488   JN0-102   640-916   70-270   100-101   MB5-705   JK0-022   350-060   300-320   1z0-434   350-018   400-101   350-030   000-106   ADM-201   300-135   300-208   EX200   PMP   NSE4   1Z0-051   c2010-657   C_TFIN52_66   300-115   70-417   9A0-385   70-243   300-075   70-487   NS0-157   MB2-707   70-533   CAP   OG0-093   M70-101   300-070   102-400   JN0-360   SY0-401   000-017   300-206   CCA-500   70-412   2V0-621D   70-178   810-403   70-462   OG0-091   1V0-601   200-355   000-104   700-501   70-346   CISSP   300-101   1Y0-201   200-125  , 200-125  , 100-105  , 100-105  , CISM   NS0-157   350-018  , NS0-157   ICBB  , N10-006 test  , 350-050   70-534   70-178   220-802   102-400   000-106   70-411  , 400-101   100-101  , NS0-157   1Z0-803   200-125  , 210-060   400-201   350-050   C_TFIN52_66  , JN0-102  , 200-355   JN0-360   70-411   350-018  , 70-412   350-030   640-916   000-105   100-105  , 70-270  , 70-462   300-070  , 300-070   642-999   101-400   PR000041   200-101  , 350-030   300-070  , 70-270  , 400-051   200-120   70-178   9L0-012   70-487   LX0-103   100-105  ,