4 Ship dismantling
(28671)
10224/07
+ ADD 1
COM(07) 269
| Green Paper on better ship dismantling
|
| Legal base | — |
| Document originated | 22 May 2007
|
| Deposited in Parliament | 5 June 2006
|
| Department | Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
|
| Basis of consideration | EM of 19 June 2007
|
| Previous Committee Report | None, but see footnote 14
|
| To be discussed in Council | No date set
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared
|
Background
4.1 According to the Commission, the dismantling of ships —
much of which takes place on the Indian sub-continent, and in
particular Bangladesh — is a matter of concern from a health
and environmental point of view, as evidenced by the priority
which the European Council in November 2006 gave to this issue,
and to the emphasis which its own Green Paper on Maritime Policy
in June 2006[14] placed
on supporting initiatives at international level to achieve minimum
binding standards on ship recycling. The Commission has now sought
in this Green Paper to prepare the ground for future action.
The current document
4.2 The Commission notes that between 200 and 600 sea-going ships
of over 2,000 dead weight tons are dismantled world-wide each
year, with a peak expected in 2010 as a consequence of the phasing-out
of single hull tankers. It also says that at least 36% of world
shipping tonnage in 2006 was owned by companies domiciled in the
Community; that, between 2001 and 2003, 14% of ships going for
scrapping flew the flags of Member States (and a further 18% those
of States which acceded in 2004); and that about 100 warships
and other Government vessels flying Community flags — most
of them British or French — and containing relatively high
levels of asbestos and other hazardous materials are expected
to be decommissioned in the next 10 years. It adds that, although
an estimated 5.5 million tonnes of materials of potential environmental
concern[15] will end
up in dismantling yards from ships scrapped between 2006 and 2015,
none of the sites used on the Indian sub-continent has containment
to prevent pollution, few have waste reception facilities, and
the treatment of waste rarely conforms to even minimum environmental
standards. On the other hand, the Commission acknowledges that,
although a dangerous activity, ship breaking is an important source
of raw materials in south Asia, and it stresses that the aim should
be to maintain activity levels there, whilst ensuring that minimum
standards are met, and not to "artificially" bring ship
recycling business to the Community.
4.3 The Commission goes on to identify the current
legal and institutional framework, pointing out that the transfer
of end-of-life vessels is covered by international law on the
shipment of waste, whilst the export from the Community of vessels
containing hazardous materials is banned by the Waste Shipment
Regulation. However, it also notes that there have been enforcement
problems, and that the International Maritime Organisation (IMO)
has started work on an international convention, whilst some maritime
countries (including the UK) are developing national strategies.
4.4 The Green Paper then elaborates further on the
following key issues:
- As regards the legal
situation, it points out that the Basel Convention (to which the
Community and all its Member States are parties) controls the
international movement of hazardous waste, and in particular places
an absolute ban on exports of such waste from OECD to non-OECD
countries. It adds that this ban was incorporated within Community
law in 1997, and that a ship containing considerable quantities
of hazardous waste which is sent for dismantling may be regarded
as hazardous waste, and must therefore be dismantled in an OECD
country. However, it points out that enforcement is often difficult,
particularly if a ship has left European waters for dismantling
elsewhere, and that, although binding international rules are
proposed in the draft convention currently being discussed in
the IMO, these do not exist at present.
- As regards the economics involved, it
says that over the years a ship for dismantling has fetched around
$150 per tonne, but that levels are currently as much as $500
per tonne, so that a very large tanker can realise between $5
million and $10 million, largely irrespective of any hazardous
materials that may be on board. It says that a study undertaken
for the Commission in 2000 nevertheless concluded that it would
be extremely difficult to make ship recycling economically viable
whilst respecting sound environmental standards, partly because
the volume being scrapped is low at the moment and the amount
of manual labour needed is considerable, thereby enabling operators
in low-wage areas such as south Asia to be more competitive than
those within the Community. As a result, it says that dismantling
capacity in the Community has been reduced to a "marginal"
level, capable of handling warships and other state-owned vessels,
but only a minor part of the merchant fleet.
- On the environmental and social aspects,
the Commission emphasizes the large amount of hazardous substances
involved with dismantling, and its impact on the local environment
arising from the lack of any adequate containment facilities:
and it draws attention also to the large number of fatalities
and serious illness among the workers involved, which it says
Governments in the countries concerned seem reluctant to address.
- On the international level, the Commission
says that the problems arising from ship dismantling have been
discussed for many years, both within the Community and the relevant
international organisations, which have developed non-binding
technical guidelines. It also refers to the draft convention being
negotiated within the IMO, including its potential scope and the
issues most likely to generate controversy. It adds that a key
issue will be whether any convention ensures an equivalent level
of control and enforcement to that under the Basel Convention.
4.5 The remainder of the Green Paper considers options
for improving European management of ship dismantling. These include:
— Better
enforcement of Community waste shipment law
The Commission suggests that, even though the mobility
of ships makes it relatively easy to circumvent the export ban
on hazardous wastes, enforcement could be improved, at least for
vessels which regularly operate in European waters. For example,
those above a certain age, or where there are indications that
dismantling is intended, could be targeted; additional guidance
could be provided on definitions of hazardous waste in relation
to ships and on environmentally sound recycling facilities; and
there could be more systematic cooperation within the Community
and with third countries.
— International
solutions
The Commission says that binding international standards
are necessary, and that these should generate a real change in
current dismantling practices (for example, in containing oil
residue spills, and in the prior removal of asbestos), which it
suggests would reduce the price differential between European
and Asian countries. It also sees the swift conclusion of the
proposed IMO convention as an essential element in any solution,
and stresses the importance of the Community becoming a party
to it. In the meantime, it does not see any need to amend current
Community legislation in this area, but says that a Community
position should be established for the negotiations within the
IMO, and that any measures agreed there should be transposed into
Community law.
— Strengthening
Community ship dismantling capacity
The Commission notes that there will continue to
be a considerable deficit in the quantity of safe and environmentally
sound dismantling capacity within the Community over the next
few years, particularly as current market conditions make it difficult
for European facilities to compete with sites in Asia. It suggests
that, pending the success of attempts to establish a level playing
field world-wide, action should focus on state-owned vessels,
and that Member States could encourage the supply of "green"
dismantling by such measures as public tenders which allow dismantling
only in accordance with high environmental standards. In the case
of the merchant fleet, it says that strong incentives are needed
to induce changes in current practice, with the longer-term aim
being to establish a sustainable funding system to which ship-owners
contribute, but with voluntary commitments being encouraged in
the meantime. It also discusses the possibility of subsidising
dismantling facilities, but points out that this would run counter
to the "polluter pays" principle, and that any question
of interpreting current Community guidelines on environmental
state aid would need to be considered on a case-by-case basis.
— Technical
assistance and technology transfer
The Commission says that, in order to encourage the
upgrading of dismantling facilities in those countries in which
ship-breaking is economically important, it will be necessary
to provide technical assistance and to encourage better regulation,
with the aid currently provided being reviewed. It points out
that there is within the Community a considerable amount of experience
which should be shared with the recycling states, but that, because
of the problems caused in south Asia by structural poverty and
weak enforcement, any assistance will have to be viewed in a wider
framework.
— Encouraging
voluntary action
The Commission suggests that voluntary commitments
by ship-owners are the simplest and quickest way to change practices,
and says that the parties to the Basel Convention recently called
upon them to take all practical steps to ensure that end-of-life
ships are dismantled in an environmentally sound manner. It adds
that properly designed voluntary agreements can be effective as
a useful first step in generating change, and should therefore
be encouraged (and, where possible, supported by incentives).
— Ship
dismantling fund
The Commission says that, since it is not acceptable
in the longer term for investment in clean ship dismantling to
be subsidised out of public funds, owners need to take full responsibility,
and that this would best be done on a mandatory basis, with the
IMO operating a fund similar to that covering oil pollution under
the MARPOL Convention.
— Other
options
The Commission says that a number of other measures
might also be useful as a means of upgrading the ship dismantling
industry. These include Community legislation (for example, attaching
conditions to the dismantling of single hull tankers, or preventing
the use of hazardous materials in the construction of new ships);
linking any state aids for maritime transport to the beneficiary's
use of clean and safe dismantling facilities; establishing a European
certification system for clean ship dismantling; and intensifying
international research on ship dismantling.
4.6 The Green Paper concludes by posing a number
of questions. These cover the enforcement of Community law; the
role of guidance on waste shipment rules and definitions; the
conduct of negotiations within the IMO, and whether these should
aim to achieve standards comparable to those within the Community;
the case of increasing the Community's own ship recycling capacity,
and the actions which it should take to encourage countries in
south Asia to implement higher standards; the action needed to
encourage ship owners to use sites with high standards; and the
task of securing sustainable funding for clean ship dismantling
in accordance with the polluter pays principle.
The Government's view
4.7 In his Explanatory Memorandum of 19 June 2007,
the Minister for Local Environment, Marine and Animal Welfare
at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr
Ben Bradshaw) says that the Government welcomes the Commission's
initiative, and that its observations are generally consistent
with those in the UK's Ship Recycling Strategy, published in February
2007. He also says that the Government strongly supports an international
solution through the IMO, which he regards as the most appropriate
forum in which to achieve this objective. The Minister points
out that, pending the entry into force of such a convention, the
Government's Strategy deals with the recycling of Government-owned
ships to suitable standards, and provides recommendations to UK
ship owners, clarifying international obligations for the imports
and exports of vessels to and from the UK. He also says that the
UK will continue to seek appropriate solutions — including
giving serious consideration to proposals for any regional strategy
within Europe — to ensure the shipping at a European and
global level has access to safe and environmentally sound recycling
facilities, and that ships dealt with are subject to a level of
control equivalent to that provided by the Basel Convention.
Conclusion
4.8 This document provides an interesting —
and, by some Commission standards, unusually coherent —
analysis of the environmental, economic and social issues which
arise from the dismantling in southern Asia of ships flying the
flag of Community Member States. We are therefore drawing it to
the attention of the House, but, since we do not think it requires
any further consideration, we are clearing it.
14 (27686) 11510/06: see HC 34-xxxix (2005-06), para
2 (25 October 2006). Stg Co Deb, European Standing Committee,
19 March 2007, cols 3-16. Back
15
Such as oil sludge, oils, paints, PVC and asbestos. Back
|
