Comments on mediavigil: Both Le Clemenceau & SS Norway (Blue Lady) await d...

Alang may soon harbour new shipsMehboob KureshiSat...

2008-01-24T21:54:00.000-08:00

Alang may soon harbour new ships
Mehboob Kureshi
Saturday, 12 January , 2008, 10:34

After a wave of negative publicity, here is a ray of hope for Alang shipbreaking yard. It may soon be able to open its floodgates by 2009-10.

For, experts from the International Maritime Organisation (IMO), World Bank and International Labour Organisation (ILO) expressed satisfaction with the safety standards and measures undertaken at Alang. According to experts, who visited the shipbreaking yard on January 7, the safety standards at Alang could be compared with the best standards for safe and environmentally sound shiprecycling.

This was discussed at a seminar on the same in Mumbai on Friday.

• Check out our Yearender Special

The seminar was attended by members of IMO, ministry of shipping, ministry of labour, GPCB, GMB, India registrar of shipping, ILO, World Bank, ministry of environment and forest apart from representatives of cash buyers, shipbreakers, labour associations, Greenpeace and several tycoons of shipping industries.

Speaking at the seminar, Dr Nicolas Mikelis, secretary IMO said, �There are two types of ship recycling - dry docking and beaching. Before our visit to India, we thought the country may not be able to maintain the safety average in beaching of ships.�

The visiting delegation reportedly found that 80% of the new guidelines placed by the Supreme Court for ship breaking industries were in place at Alang.

The representatives of ship recycling association of India have assured to put the rest of the guidelines in place within a short period of time, Mikelis said. The experts also pointed out that unlike Bangladesh, which got a notable share of income from ship breaking but did not adhere to safety concerns, India observed safe cutting activities.

The seminar also had its share of tiff when Greenpeace representative Gopal Krishna walked out of the seminar after his presentation that opposed the ship breaking industries.

Krishna was reportedly asked by a delegate of IMO not to raise baseless questions as the industry was following the new guidelines laid by the Supreme Court. IMO delegate Mathew Jems, expressed hope that Alang may be back on track by 2009-10 if it followed all the safety regulations.

I hope by 2009-10 Europe and America may also sell their vessels for scrapping at Alang, which is not the case at present, said Jems.

1. European ship recycling industry 'not feasible'...

2008-01-23T08:17:00.000-08:00

1. European ship recycling industry 'not feasible'

A shipbreaking yard near Chittagong
EUROPE will not be able to create a commercially viable ship dismantling industry without injecting large amounts of taxpayer cash, according to the Community of European Shipyards’ Associations.

European Union shipbreaking will never be able to compete on cost with south Asia, where the majority of ships are scrapped today, says Cesa secretary general Reinhard Lüken.

He comments comes is debate intensifies over the Brussels response to what one Euro MP branded the “dreadful” environmental and social conditions at yards in Bangladesh, India and Pakistan.

Reviving EU breaking facilities, which have declined to marginal levels over the last 20 years, is one partial solution under debate.

“This idea will not work for commercial ships. European yards will never be cost competitive,” said Mr Lüken. “What can you do? Either you create yards with public money which are attractive to the whole world fleet, or you don’t want to attract the whole fleet, in which case why bother doing it?”

The message is underlined in the Cesa contribution to the European commission following its green paper on ship dismantling. “Such a system would ultimately apply to the whole commercial world fleet and thus imply unreasonable high costs for European tax payers or would remain basically ineffective,” the industry submission reads.

Creating facilities for use by state owned military ships on the other hand might work, said the secretary general, while stressing that almost no EU construction yard today is involved in shipbreaking.

The commission green paper raises the possibility of using subsidies to revive the EU industry, which is today estimated to have a capacity of around 500,000 ldt / year, of which 230,000 ldt / year for large vessels.

“The question as to whether or not direct financial support should be given to clean ship dismantling in the EU or to shipowners who send their vessels to ‘green’ yards…should receive special attention,” the commission said last year.

The stumbling block remains huge wage differentials. According to commission estimates, Asian labourers in the industry, many unskilled, receive just US$1 to $2 a day, compared to wage levels in western Europe of around $250.

By Justin Stares in Brussels - Wednesday 16 January 2008
Lloyd's List

2. THE newly formed International Ship Recycling Association says yards in India and Bangladesh will find it hard to become environmentally compliant and meet the expected requirements from the international community, writes Helen Hill

Lloyd's List

To be honest, it really doesn't matter anymore. Th...

2008-01-21T23:27:00.000-08:00

To be honest, it really doesn't matter anymore. There is no evidence that Mr. Metha actually paid the $15 Million to begin with for the SS Norway. He may make a profit or not. The fact of the matter is corruption doesn't take place in front of a live international audience. To look the other way from a legal perspective is violating the laws that was established to protect the workers and the environment. By letting the Breakers have their way with the SS Norway, this matter will set the chain in motion to allow more hazardous ships to come into India illegally. The breakers has proven once and for all that the laws of India are weak and ineffective.
There will be a very high price to pay for the breakup of this ship. The Indian Courts are going to wish that they hadn't allowed this vessel to enter into Indian territory. The very people who had created these laws has gone against their own ideology. This leaves a very BAD impression for the laws that were establish to prevent the illegal trafic of hazardous materials onboard contaminated ships.

The entire Norway saga, has made me angery and sick to my stomach.

Star Cruises and NCL will pay a very heavy financial price for what they have done. I will never sail onboard a cruiseship for the foreseeable future for any other cruiseline. And especially not NCL because they have destroyed my interest in this category.

The SS Norway inspired my interest for maritime history than any other ship out there, including the SS Rotterdam and the QE2. With the SS Norway gone, there is nothing out there that will ever hold my attention. The SS Norway was my link to the past and the future of imagination and hope.

Thank you, Star Cruises/NCL for destroying my optimism for the future.

While these policies are a good sign, I only wish ...

2008-01-21T16:27:00.000-08:00

While these policies are a good sign, I only wish that they could have been applied to the SS Norway before it was illegally beached in India. What good are the laws when the officials gives the go ahead to dismantle a ship that has over 1240 tons of asbestos inside the hull and superstructure of a vessel that will do unspeakable harm to the surrounding area of Alang and beyond to neighboring villiages who will suffer health problems for generations to come.

The SS Norway is begin broken up at its top superstructure. If something isn't done soon to ban this vessel from India, grave consequence will ensue. And this will prove that the laws that are designed to protect the people and the environment has failed.

INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATIONIMOEINTERSESSIO...

2008-01-21T05:53:00.000-08:00

INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION
IMO
E
INTERSESSIONAL MEETING OF THE
WORKING GROUP ON SHIP RECYCLING
3rd session

Agenda item 2
MEPC-ISRWG 3/2/4

13 December 2007

ENGLISH ONLY

FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF THE DRAFT CONVENTION

Practical issues to be taken into account in the further development of the draft Convention

Submitted by India

SUMMARY
Executive summary:
This document identifies four practical issues to be taken into account in the further development of the draft Convention. These issues are: (1) Deletion of Article 13bis; (2) Recycling facility in a non-Party State: (3) Ship Recycling Contract: and (4) Issuance of Deregistration
Certificate

Action to be taken:Paragraph 22

Related documents:
MEPC 56/23, MEPC 56/3/13 and MEPC 56/3/14

Background
1 At MEPC 56 India had raised its proposal on the issues of: (1) Deletion of Article 13bis; (2) Use of recycling facility in a non-Party State; (3) Issuance of Ship Recycling Contract; and (4) Deregistration Certificate vide MEPC 56/3/13 and MEPC 56/3/14.
Though the merits of the proposals were recognized, due to paucity of time concern on the above
issues expressed by some Members no firm decisions were made.

Members were invited to look into these issues and submit their proposal to the next session, i.e., MEPC 57
(paragraphs 3.27, 3.32, 3.33, 3.34, and 3.35 of MEPC 56/23).

2 This submission is being made in response to the above invitation.
Deletion of Article 13bis
3 Article 13bis in the draft Convention provides two alternatives for an auditing scheme for the implementation of the Convention by the State controlling the recycling facility.

India believes that a Party has the responsibility for developing national legislations based on
IMO Regulations/Guidelines and implementing the same. We believe the proposed auditing by an international team established by IMO interferes with the sovereign rights of a State.

Also, no other IMO Convention has such a provision. Furthermore, the following points may be noted:
.1 IMO Guidelines are for the ship. When a ship ceases to be a ship, IMO’s control on it also ceases. Hence, IMO’s mandate is not applicable once a ship is not a
ship;
MEPC-ISRWG 3/2/4 - 2 -
I:\MEPC\ISRWG\3\2-4.doc
.2 IMO has no mandate to lay down standards for environment-related matters concerning shore-based industry; and
.3 audit without standards has no meaning and IMO is not in an enabling position to set down such guidelines.

If standards are to be set for safe recycling, largely, they should apply to the ship while it is a ship and therefore should be attended to by the shipowner. The shipowner should give over the
ship to a recycling facility with all the formalities completed, safe for recycling.

4 As per paragraph 3.27 of MEPC 56/23, IMO’s Legal Office had identified the following
potential problems in connection with Article 13bis: (1) the lack of precision in making a
mandatory application of “the general auditing scheme developed by the Organization”; (2) the
problem of maintaining the level of confidentiality called for; (3) the creation of a mandatory
enforcement mechanism over State-Parties with no clear consequence for failure to comply;
and (4) the awkward relationship that might develop between the Organization and its members,
if it was empowered to compel Parties to undergo a periodic audit.

5 Paragraph 3.27 further reads: “The Committee noted that the group could agree on the
need for a mechanism for uniform implementation without interfering with the sovereign rights
of the recycling State but could not agree on the alternatives in Article 13bis.”

6 In the light of above, India proposes the deletion of Alternative 1 and Alternative 2
of 13bis and the introduction of a self assessment and reporting scheme as a mechanism for
ensuring uniform implementation.

7 In the draft Convention, provision for control of recycling facility by a Member State is
addressed at Article 4.2, regulation 16.2,and regulation 17.

India proposes that the validity of
the Document of Authorization to conduct Ship Recycling (DASR) be limited to a maximum of 5 years, subject to annual verification by the Member State.

8 India also proposes that under Chapter 3, a new Regulation 25 be added as follows, while the remaining regulations in the Convention may be accordingly renumbered:
Regulation 25 – Verification and Certification of Ship Recycling Facilities

25.1 The Contracting Government within whose territory a Ship Recycling Facility is located may issue an appropriate “Authorization of Recycling Facility” (AoRF)
indicating:
.1 the port facility;
.2 that the port recycling facility complies with the provisions of the Convention;
.3 the period of validity of the AoRF which should be specified by the Contracting Government but which should not exceed five years; and .4 the annual verification arrangements and a confirmation when these are
carried out.
- 3 - MEPC-ISRWG 3/2/4
I:\MEPC\ISRWG\3\2-4.doc
Recycling Facility in a non-Party State
9 Regulation 8.1 as drafted in annex 2 of MEPC 56/3 requires that ships destined to be
recycled shall only be recycled at recycling facilities that are authorised in accordance with this
Convention. This essentially means that, in the event a State does not become a Party to the
Convention, maybe due to procedural delays, recycling facilities in that State become ineligible to receive ships flying the flag of Parties to the Convention, even if that recycling facility is capable of recycling ships in a safe and environmentally sound manner.

10 The objective of the Convention is to ensure that ships, at the end of their lives, are
recycled in safe and environmentally sound recycling facilities, and this objective will be lost solely because of the location of a recycling facility being in a non-Party State. There has been a practice in an environment-related agreement not to restrict trade with non-Parties, subject to provisions designed to ensure that the environmental objectives of the agreement are met, the
detail of which has been given in our paper MEPC 56/3/14.

11 In order to forestall any potential issues due to provisions in the ship recycling
Convention inconsistent with the trade rules, the best way is to draft the Convention so as to
allow the recycling of a ship in non-Party States, subject to the facility fulfilling the requirements under sovereign responsibility as laid out in the Convention.

12 It is estimated that approximately 9 million DWT and 46 million DWT of single hull tankers would require to be phased out by 2010 and 2015 respectively as per MARPOL Annex I, regulation 20. Furthermore, the industry has to consider a scenario where one or more of the traditional ship recycling countries does not ratify the Convention and thereby this leaves owners without the option of recycling ships in compliance with the Convention.

13 In the light of the above it is necessary that the International Convention for the Safe and
Environmentally Sound Recycling of Ships has the necessary provision for permitting the recycling of ships at facilities of non Party States, subject to such facilities meeting the standards stipulated in the Convention.

Ship Recycling Contract

14 For the Convention to work and for accountability to be clear for the ship before its delivery to the recycling facility, the process of the sale of a ship for recycling should be transparent. The identity of all stakeholders, like ship owner and recycling yard, should be clear.

This cannot be achieved without making the ship recycling contract between the ship owner and the ship recycling facility a part of the Convention. Today cash buyers are not identifiable even though in most cases they are the owners of a ship just prior to her recycling.

15 In most cases a ship destined for recycling is sold to a cash buyer who in turn sells it to
the recycling yard. The definition of a ship owner in regulation 1.8 of the Convention includes
“those who have ownership of the ship for a limited period pending its sale or its handing over of
a ship to a recycling facility.”

This limited period may vary from one day, in cases where the
delivery of the vessel to the cash buyer has taken place in the anchorage outside the boundary
limits of the recycling facility, to a few weeks, in cases where the delivery of the vessel to the
cash buyer has taken place at the last port of call of the vessel prior to her final voyage to the
recycling facility.

16 In the above scenario, to firmly establish the entity responsible for discharging all the
obligations of the “Shipowner” as per the Convention requirements, it is necessary to include the
provision of a ship recycling contract between the “Shipowner” and the ship recycling facility.
MEPC-ISRWG 3/2/4 - 4 -
I:\MEPC\ISRWG\3\2-4.doc

17 To address this issue it is suggested that under regulation 8, a new paragraph 8.1.6 may be
included as follows:
.6 be provided with a recycling contract between the shipowner and the ship recycling facility as per the format developed by the Organization.

De-registration Certificate

18 As per the Convention presently drafted, a ship destined for the recycling yard will be issued with an International Ready for Recycling Certificate. Once the ship is in the recycling yard and has been handed over to the owner of the recycling facility it is no more a ship and is not entitled to fly the flag of the Administration. There is nothing in the Convention to signify
this change of responsibility for the ship.

19 India believes that there should be provision in the Convention for the flag State to issue a De-registration Certificate at this stage to the Shipowner and send a copy to IMO. It will make every registered ship accounted for when it ends up in a recycling yard or otherwise. This will prevent illegal demolishing or dumping of a ship or the ship getting deserted as a ghost ship.
This will also ensure clear understanding of the roles and responsibilities of stakeholders like shipowner, flag Administration, ship recycling facility and competent authority(ies) of the recycling State during the process of handing over of a ship by the shipowner to the recycling company.

20 Although this issue has been partly addressed under Article 12.5of the draft Convention,
the proposed de-registration process takes place only after the completion of recycling at the
facility. However, in India’s view, the de-registration by the flag Administration should be
completed immediately once the ship is legally delivered to the ship recycling facility, for which
the shipowner should be made accountable to apply to the flag State. On completion of
deregistration, the flag Administration should inform the Organization for making this
information available to the other Parties.

21 To address this issue it is suggested that under regulation 12 a new paragraph 11 may be
included as follows:
11 As soon as a ship is handed over to the recycling facility and the ship ceases to be a ship, as per the application of the Shipowner, the flag Administration shall issue a Certificate of Deletion from Registry.

Also under Article 12 (Communication of Information) a new paragraph may be inserted as
follows:
.5 identity of ships de-registered in order to be recycled.
Existing paragraph numbers .5, .6 and .7 may be renumbered as paragraph numbers .6, .7 and .8
respectively.

Action requested of the Working Group

22 The Working Group is invited to consider this document and take action as appropriate.
____________

What are the numbers of the two court cases heard ...

2008-01-19T07:43:00.000-08:00

What are the numbers of the two court cases heard Jan 22, 2008, and what is the document url at nic.in?